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

Tuesday, March 31, 2020

Evolution and Chimps Swaying to Music

Another example of molecules-to-monkey research that could prompt responses of apathy, laughter, or even rage. Mayhaps people should be angry at the way their tax dollars are wasted in risible attempts to link humans and apes in their fetid family tree. Chimpanzees sway to music. Big deal.

Chimpanzees sway to the beat. For some reason, researchers think this is a link to our alleged evolutionary past. Nope.
Credit: cropped from an image at Pixabay by Gerhard Gellinger
Rhythmic music can evoke swaying in chimpanzees, therefore, evolution. (Did playing rap cause them to treat females with disrespect or even violence? Asking for a friend.) The chimps swayed to both random and rhythmic beats, but humans are none to keep on random beats. Not that they make and play their own instruments or hum a happy tune, or bothered to ask Piltdown Superman to play the drums. Serious difficulties with the research and bad reasoning don't do anything to solve the music question that bothered the Bearded Buddha himself. Know why? Because we did not evolve from a common ancestor. Instead, we were created separately, and humans were created in God's image. 
The goal of the PNAS study was to support evolution based on the theory that  “some biological foundation for dancing existed in the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees ∼6 million years ago. As such, this study supports the evolutionary origins of musicality.” Specifically, the authors believe it supports the evolutionary origins of humans from a chimpanzee-like a primate. Furthermore, they concluded their “results suggest that pre-requisites for music and dance are deeply rooted and existed in the common ancestor shared by humans and chimpanzees, approximately 6 million years ago.” Note that they use the term suggest, admitting that their conclusions are closer to speculative just-so stories than fact.
You can get with the beat and read the full article at "Musical Response in Animals Proves Evolution".



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

Monday, March 30, 2020

Pigments Ages of the Imagination

Believers in deep time are constantly denying facts as well as principles of science, giving them false confirmation of their biases. For example, despite all the dinosaur soft tissues and other remnants, the discovery of dinosaur DNA, and more, materialists have a "Whaddya know, that stuff does last millions of years!" approach. The same thing is happening with the "oldest" biological pigments.


Secularists confirm their biases by denying facts supporting a young earth, so it is not surprising that they deny the evidence regarding biological pigments.
Credit: Pexels / Sharon McCutcheon
 We've seen science denial (after all, the narrative trumps observed evidence) in the colors of dinosaurs and in dinosaur eggs. While this post is not about dinosaurs, these examples show how secularists clutch their pearls and deny inconvenient facts. It is no surprise that they believe the impossible about other biological pigments (perhaps they studied under Joe Biden at the University of Pennsylvania or something). Cyanobacteria were apparently the culprits that led to colors extracted from marine black shale, but the earth is not nearly as old as secularists want it to be.
Just how long can organic colours survive for? A new study claims they have survived for a whopping 1.1 billion years, more than 600 million years longer than previous similar discoveries. They have found intact porphyrins, ring molecules that are important components of many biological pigments, including hemoglobin and chlorophyll.
You can read the rest of this short article by clicking on "‘Oldest’ biological colour discovered".




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

Saturday, March 28, 2020

So Mother Earth is Punishing Us with COVID-19

When riding the trails of social media, it is not surprising to find some mighty strange ideas about COVID-19. An actor thinks that Earth is punishing us for our environmental crimes. Idris Elba is promoting a pagan view of Earth as a living thing, which has grown in popularity even in evolutionary circles (see "More Gaia Paganism in Evolution"). Earth is not an entity, old son.


An actor believes that COVID-19 is Earth punishing us. This is a pagan idea, and scientific facts as well as a creation worldview show otherwise.
Earth image from Clker Clipart blended with COVID-19 image from the CDC
It is interesting that Elba is "race conscious" by stating the obvious: black people can get the virus. His worldview probably excludes the biblical fact that there are no races. Ethnic groups, sure. But we're all the same race.

It is amazing to this child that people foolishly look to uninformed but highly opinionated celebrities for medical and political advice. Since Earth is not a living being, it cannot decide to make a virus to punish us. Elba does not indicate how he knows that the pagan deity chose to make this virus, and why it was made. Actually, COVID-19 fits into Darwinian mythology, but as a punishment humanity, it fails because most people survive. We did not hear such foolish claims about Earth punishing us with other, more deadly, viruses. For far more rational information, see "How COVID-19 Started and Where It’s Going". (I've seen similar remarks from global warming cultists.) This is not a time to be making up your own "facts", people.
English actor Idris Elba believes the COVID-19 virus is a defensive action by the Earth against the harm humanity is doing to it.

Elba and his wife have both tested positive for the virus but have not shown any symptoms.2 In a video interview with Oprah Winfrey, the actor said, “Our world has been taking a kicking. We have damaged our world and it’s no surprise that our world is reacting to the human race.”

Although Elba didn’t explicitly say so, it seems he was referring to environmental damage caused by pollution and/or “climate change.” He compared the Earth to an organism attempting to defend itself against an infection. He also said,
You can find out more by clicking on "Actor Says Virus Is Earth’s Response to Humanity". NOTE: Be patient, this site has been very slow on weekends.



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

Friday, March 27, 2020

Scorpion Evolution Fake News

We have seen numerous examples of research that claims to support universal common ancestor evolution that did nothing of the kind. Add to this the fact that the vaunted secular peer review process is fundamentally flawed, and this scorpion evolution story is a tragicomedy.

Another bad paper passed peer review. This one is full of unsubstantiated claims about scorpions and evolution.
Striped bark scorpion image credit: National Park Service
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
There are 1,750 or so known species of scorpions, but only a few have venom that is deadly to humans. Even so, this child will not be guessing, leaving the handling to the experts. These predators often blend in well with their surroundings, but they are known to make their way into places they don't belong. Be sure to shake out your shoes and boots in the morning if you sleep in those areas.

A fossil was found that had the same kind of inner workings from hundreds of million Darwin years ago, but was essentially the same as those today. The researchers promptly utilized the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™, including how the respiration showed a link between breathing in the sea and on land. Hail Darwin, blessed be! However, there was not a shred of actual scientific evidence to support the claims, and one paleontologist even said the paper "fails miserably". Of course it does. The critter was unchanged because the earth isn't that old, and life was created recently, pilgrim.
In searching for data on the evolution of body organs and structures, one of the best sources is small organisms trapped in amber. Every now and then, though, fossilized creatures in rock contain soft tissue impressions, revealing evidence of organs or organ structures. The evidence is often indirect. Recently, paleontologists found what they call the oldest known scorpion ever uncovered: two fossil specimens of a scorpion named Parioscorpio venator. They claim it shows evidence of a respiratory system that functioned in both aquatic and terrestrial environments. This story gives us an opportunity to separate science from unbridled speculation.
You can get a grip on the rest of this article by following "Oldest Scorpion Stings Darwin".



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

Thursday, March 26, 2020

The Making of Fjords

When thinking of fjords, those inlets with cliffs or steep sides, many people think of Norway. Sognefjord up thataway is probably the most famous, but they are found in several other parts of the world. The way they formed is rather involved, the product of the Genesis Flood and glaciers.


Secular geologists tell us that glaciers carved out fjords over a long period of time, but a creation science Flood model provides a far better explanation.
Sognefjord, Norway image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Worldtraveller (CC by-SA 3.0)
Uniformitarian geologists have their ideas on how fjords were made. (No, Slartibartfast was not involved, nor was American industrialist Henry Fjord). Secularists tell you that glaciers carved them out, but a better explanation can be found by using a creation science Flood model. The fjords were not carved out by the glaciers, but tectonic action and tremendous amounts of water laid the groundwork (heh!), and glaciers also played their part.
Today’s feedback is a question from C.O. of Norway about the origin of fjords.
Did the ice form the fjords or were they already there and the ice then filled them? Was it the continental plates crashing into each other? My family has been avidly discussing this since our son was questioned about it recently.
CMI geologist Dr Tas Walker responds:

Hi C.O.,

In some ways all those ideas apply. Let me explain.
To read the explanation and see how the Flood model fits, click on "How did the Fjords form?"



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

Wednesday, March 25, 2020

Cavemen and Creation

Cavemen were men who lived in caves. Thanks for stopping by, always glad to answer those tough questions. Actually, I stole that from Ken Ham. Many people think that the existence of people who lived in caves is evidence for evolution. This is based on Darwinian presuppositions and connotations. The truth is far different.


Many people think of cavemen as partially-evolved brutes. Some wonder if they really existed. Cavemen were real, but fully human.
Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos / vectorolie
The image people have is a newly-minted brute from the evolution factory that is stupid and walking around with a club. Cartoons indicate that the males did not have dating skills, knocking females unconscious and dragging them back to the caves. Of course, nobody was there to see this happen; it's mostly a joke used to give the negative impression that they are links to our evolutionary past.

What may be the most famous cavemen were the Neanderthals, but it has been determined that they were fully human, not partially evolved stupid links. There are other cave dwellers that have been touted as specimens of evolution, but such ideas do not withstand scrutiny. They were actually descendants of Adam and then Noah, dispersed in various ways after Babel. These early people sure did know how to travel.
As far as stereotypes go, cavemen make easy targets—especially when transplanted into the twenty-first century. Their brutish way of dealing with contemporary situations earns a laugh on commercials and TV shows. They just don’t understand us modern humans, and their misunderstanding strikes humor gold. But when we cut away the laugh track and the bumbling ways, we’re left with something of an enigmatic figure—a being without a settled place in our understanding of history. Perhaps, in fact, it’s our discomfort with not knowing what to do with cavemen that makes us laugh. So, just who were they? Were cavemen real?
To read the rest or download the audio (but you would miss out on the pictures), click on "Were Cavemen Real? — Finding a Home for Cavemen".



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

Tuesday, March 24, 2020

Oil, Gas, and the Young Earth

There was a television comedy in the 1990s titled Dinosaurs. It used a passel of names related to petroleum products and companies, the main characters being named Sinclair. The show perpetuated the notions that Earth is billions of years old, and that petroleum products came from dinosaurs.


Despite the common ideas that petroleum products came from dinosaurs and took millions of years to form, the truth is far different.
Credit: RGBStock / Elvis Santana
While dinosaur remnants may have become natural gas and oil, they are not the primary sources. As for the millions of years thing, well, Carbon-14 is found in oil and other places where it should not be according to uniformitarian standards. Also, oil and natural gas pressures should have reached equilibrium or dissipated by now (Creation Research Society Quarterly 44(1):64–66, Alexander V. Lalomov, PhD, PDF download link here). While these facts do not prove recent creation, they are consistent with young earth models.
The search for oil has forced scientists to map the geologic layers of many different areas around the globe and allowed us to learn more about geology.
Last time, we talked about coal geology and many of the misunderstandings people have about coal (read that article here). People tend to have similar misunderstandings about oil and natural gas. Today, we will address three of these 
  1. Geologists must believe in evolution and billions of years to find oil 
  2. Oil and natural gas come from dinosaur bones 
  3. It takes long periods of time to make oil and gas
To peruse the entire petroleum publication, click on "Oil, Natural Gas, and a Young Earth". There are several references below that article you can click for further information.



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

Monday, March 23, 2020

Cichlid Study Confirms Creationist Predictions

Cichlid fish are popular among aquarists, but are also popular for both secular and creation scientists. Believers in universal common ancestor evolution believe that we evolved from fish, so their presuppositions lead them to claim that natural selection and variations are examples of evolution. Creationists have more rational presuppositions, and recent cichlid research confirmed a prediction.

Cichlid fish are popular subjects of scientific study. Recent research supports creation science predictions.
Vieja cichlid image credit: Unsplash / The Cofish Store
An advantage for scientists who study cichlids is that their traits and the associated genes are a mite easier to study than those of other critters. Insertions and deletions of DNA were found to be locked and loaded, ready to change as needed. This is the opposite of what Darwinists believe, but supports what creationists predict about the Master Engineer's work.
Cichlid fish are a top biological model for the study of diversification because of their unique ability to adapt to a wide range of lake and river environments. They also produce a startling array of unique traits. For creation scientists, they are particularly interesting because they provide an opportunity to illustrate how creatures are able to track their environments and respond accordingly to produce traits that allow them to succeed as a result of their internally engineered systems. A new study confirms creationist predictions for a type of internal adaptive engineering in the genome.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Cichlid Fish Research Highlights Adaptive Genome Engineering". For a related article, see "Environments and Adaptation".



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

Saturday, March 21, 2020

What if Evolutionists Operated Crime Scene Labs?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Some of the post popular television programs involve forensic science to investigate crime scenes. The CSI franchise had almost 800 episodes, and numerous law enforcement dramas involve forensic technician activities. You can find many documentaries that are nonfiction. I feel that some of those are more disturbing than the fictional programs.

Forensic investigators must continually modify their theories to fit the facts. Imagine if investigators used Darwinian principles.
Credit: Bureau of Labor Statistics (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
These people are highly trained and specialize in different fields (television shows are a bit misleading when they portray them as experts in practically everything). Attention to the smallest details are essential, and evidence can accumulate to lead investigators to successful conclusions. Sometimes new technology can be used to solve "cold cases" that were shelved for years.

Both creation science and universal common ancestor evolution are forensic sciences. Biblical creationists believe the Word of God while most evolutionists reject God and presuppose philosophical naturalism. From there, they attempt to reconstruct the past through evidence and hypotheses. Forensic crime investigators have an advantage that most of their evidence is recent.

Proponents of these historical sciences as well as other scientists should be able to change or abandon their ideas in light of additional evidence, but that does not happen. Consider how Ignaz Semmelweis had his true ideas rejected and how phlogiston was disproved but not abandoned for many years. Biblical creationists have their disagreements over details of creation and the Genesis Flood, but still believe the Bible. Evolutionists, not so much.

Regular readers of this site have seen many examples of how uniformitarian geologists tenaciously cling to their belief in deep time and gradual processes despite evidence of rapid change. Also, we have seen naturalism cherished despite evidence against evolution and supporting recent creation (such as "junk" DNA, for example). Can you imagine what would happen to many criminal investigations if forensic crime lab specialists acted like secular origins scientists?

Darwinist Investigator: "I came up with a theory on how the culprit stole the sculpture that has the characters slightly raised from the background".

Skeptic: "Well, that's a relief!"

Darwinist Investigator: "Be serious. Here, read the paper I wrote on it. I have computer simulations about the past."

Skeptic: "After examining your work, I can see several flaws in it. You based several concepts on principles that are assumptions, and some other have even been discredited."

Darwinist Investigator: "It is a theory, which is mine. We use assumptions and assume that stuff happens to explain what exists in the present."

Skeptic: "This is about what happened in the recent past. You have no witnesses for any of your evidence, just inference, so a valid solution to the case cannot be attained using your methods."

Darwinist Investigator: "The theory (which is mine) needs a bit more research."

Skeptic: "I would be concerned that you would have an innocent person arrested, but your theory implicates someone who has been dead for thirty years."

Darwinist Investigator: "I have all kinds of science in this theory of mine, including dendrochronology and radiometric dating!"

Skeptic: "Yes, and those involve faulty data and unsupportable assumptions. They are also irrelevant to the case."

Darwinist Investigator: "It takes time, random chance, and the belief that stuff will happen in the future. My theory will give us insight into how we reached this point and will help other scientists down the road."

Skeptic: "That is blind faith, not science. And a heapin' helpin' of wishful thinking. Listen, when a hypothesis, theory, speculation, or whatever does not work, it needs to be dropped on the trail and you start again."

Darwinist Investigator: "Who are you, anyway?"

Skeptic: "I just stopped in to see if you have any rolls of toilet paper to sell me."

While historical (forensic) science uses the scientific method, it is severely limited when it comes to origins and the distant past. Criminal investigators have recent clues and witnesses, and must be willing to change or reject theories based on better information. Biblical creationists rely on the Word of the Creator, who was the witness to all that he has revealed to us. That must be why creation science has far more plausible explanations than naturalistic evolutionary views.




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

Friday, March 20, 2020

Extinctions of Mammoth Proportions

Scientists are considering the relationship of extinctions between wooly mammoths and human groups. That may seem like a waste of time at first glance, but the genetic research has provided some interesting results regarding inbreeding (or interbreeding, definition 2). This is especially significant in isolated populations.

Interesting news on wooly mammoth DNA, their extinction, and how it relates to ancient human populations.

It seems that even though there were many wooly mammoths roaming the Northern Hemisphere, they mysteriously became extinct. After examining their DNA (no, don't be expecting cloned mammoths at the zoo), comparisons were made with human populations. Inbreeding is bad for offspring that may survive.

"But Cowboy Bob, that's how the earth was populations back with Adam and Eve, then Noah and his family!"

This is important, so let's take a ride on this here side trail for a spell.

Biblical creationists believe that the Bible is true from the very first verse and also the part where God declared that everything was very good (Gen. 1:31). That includes genes, cells, and what have you. Such breeding was necessary, even after the Genesis Flood (post-Flood population genetics is far beyond the scope of this post, but you can learn about that here). Eventually, God prohibited incest in Leviticus 18:6-18, presumably because of the state of genetic entropy. Inbreeding in the British and other royal families has led to disastrous results.

Critics of the Bible and especially of biblical creation science ignore those essential aspects of creation models for the purposes of ridicule. Interesting that they clam up about Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin marrying their first cousins. The Einsteins had no children, and the Darwin breeding was less than successful. 

Now we're back to the main road.

It appears that mammoth populations became isolated, and genetic studies show the results of inbreeding. The research can likely be applied to other animals and to humans, so we can rule out global warming and the Wuhan Virus.
Wooly mammoths once roamed North America, northern Europe, and Siberia. Possibly the last of their kind perished as a dwindling population on Wrangel Island, northeast of Siberia. Who wouldn’t wonder why wooly mammoths no longer roam our planet? The process of gathering clues to their extinction can evoke the same feelings found in good mystery novels. New research into ancient DNA gives another solid clue toward two old culprit theories of demise that may apply to people as well as to mammoths.
For centuries, ice sheets during the Ice Age held sea level to around 250 feet lower than it is today. Back then, you could walk to the land we now call Wrangel Island. It was a high point along a land strip that connected Siberia to northern Alaska. Ice melted, sea levels rose, and the mammoths got stranded, possibly for millennia. Can genes from frozen mammoth DNA, along with clues from geography, help solve the mystery of their ultimate demise?
You can finish reading this very interesting article by clicking on "Mammoth Extinction and Extinct Peoples". Also of interest is a lecture by Dr. Robert Carter, "Ancient DNA and the Bible".

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

Thursday, March 19, 2020

Ray that Skates Past Evolutionary Logic

Rays are very flat fish that spend a great deal of time on the ocean floor. There is a category of rays known as skates. Why or how they were given that moniker, I have no idea. After watching them for a while, they seemed kind of cute to me.A Darwin devotee took a notion that because one known as the little skate has a shuffling motion and certain genes, it is a link to a common ancestor.


Speculation on a kinds of ray known as the little skate involve genetics and common ancestry because of their way of shuffling. Other explanations for this are ignored.
Credit: NOAA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
According to evolutionary mythology, life originated and evolved in the sea, then some things went up onto land. (Try not to laugh, but the ancestors of whales supposedly left land and evolved into sea critters. But never mind about that now.) Not all evolutionists have chosen to ride this trail, but because other creatures have the same kinds of genes used in movement, it supposedly indicates common ancestry instead of common design by the Creator. If they give up on this idea, wait for the secular miracle of convergent evolution. That's my guess.
We humans can skate but some scientists think skates can walk—and that we and they are more closely related than previously thought. Skates are a group within what are known as rays (though sometimes ‘rays’ is meant to refer to only those which are not skates). Rays are the largest group of fish with skeletons made from cartilage, not bone. They are known for both their flat body shape and their bottom-dwelling habit.
. . . 
Since skates have often been observed shuffling around on the sea floor, there has been evolutionary speculation that they might provide clues about how land vertebrates first conquered the land. Scientists studying a small skate species, Leucoraja erinacea, now think they have found support for this idea, and they published their findings and ideas in the prestigious journal Cell.
You can read the entire article by clicking on "Walk like a skate?"



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

Wednesday, March 18, 2020

Evolution — A Substitute Religion

Many of us have heard or read numerous times about people who made a pretense at Christianity, then fell away and then professed atheism or agnosticism. It is a fact that atheists are very religious, and evolution is a cornerstone for atheism. However, particles-to-parole-officer evolution can also be a religion.


Dr. Michael Ruse has been promoting evolution for many years. He boldly states that it is a religion, a substitute for Christianity.
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
Dr. Michael Ruse discovered the false joy of Darwinism and rejected his superficial knowledge of Christianity and became a trafficker in evoporn. He has made bold statements that evolution is used as a replacement religion for Christianity. Ruse was used as an expert against creation science, but he blatantly misrepresented it and disparaged creation scientists as not being credible.

On a side note, have you ever noticed that when atheists and evolutionists demand evidence for God and miracles, they want them explained in naturalistic terms? That is illogical. Also, they are inconsistent because they believe in their own miracles such as the Big Bang, evolution, and so on. They varnish them with naturalism to obtain an imprimatur of Scientism, but they are still secular miracles, pardner.

In a recent debate, Dr. James R. White made an impromptu comment in a different context that applies here: "Your arguments are not against Christianity, they're against a straw man — and that says you don't have a value of truth!", heard here at the 2 hr. 12 min. 25 sec mark. That works well with many things that I have said over the years.

Claiming to have researched the subject, his bias is obvious in that he neglected to mention that creation scientists are indeed credentialed. Ultimately, his commitment to naturalism and rebellion against the Creator contaminated his statements. It is reasonable to conclude that he did not honestly examine creation science, nor was he opposed to using numerous logical fallacies.
Well-known Darwinist Michael Ruse in his 2016 book, Darwinism as Religion: What Literature Tells Us About Evolution, documents that a social revolution occurred in the 18th century. Ruse is no minor figure in the scientific world. He is the Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy, and Director of the Program in the History and Philosophy of Science, at Florida State University. Ruse has written or edited more than fifty books published by Harvard University Press, Oxford University Press, and other prestigious university publishers.
Raised as a devout ‘Christian,’ he says at age 20 his faith faded in college, never to return. He was so enamored with Darwin that he became a philosopher of science specializing in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. He talks a lot about “our opponents, Christians, often the more evangelical kind.” Ruse admits that evolutionists are in a war against Christians and brags that the evolutionists are winning, partly due to his testimony in the most well-known creation court case, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982). Part of Ruse’s testimony is as follows:
To read the rest, click on "Religion of Evolution Is a Big Ruse". Also, I highly recommend reading an article responding to the apostatizing of comedians “Rhett and Link” at "An open letter to Rhett McLaughlin — and anyone else on the road to unbelief".




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

Tuesday, March 17, 2020

The Formation of Coal Seams

You could be looking at a rocky outcropping and notice one or more black stripes, which may be coal seams. There are different kinds of coal that are generally found in different depths according to uniformitarian geology. Coal is the end result of plant matter that was subjected to heat, pressure, and other things.


Secular geologists have a nice story about the formation of coal seams. It does not fit the facts, but creation science geology has a far better explanation.
Credit: US Geological Survey (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Secular scientists use the complex principle of Making Things Up™. When I went to school, we were told that plant material would be washed in, land would be uplifted, various processes happened including plants turning to peat, and then the cycle would happen again.

"It would re-peat!"

Well, sorta. But even as a young 'un, that story seemed like a guess instead of science. If you think about it, we don't see coal forming today. There are plenty of peat bogs around, just take a stroll on the Emerald Isle (with extreme caution) and you're likely to encounter some. But no coal forming.

While we know that plant material is in coal, the uniformitarian (slow and gradual) story doesn't rightly hold up. In addition to not seeing coal forming nowadays, there are fossils in coal seams that don't really belong such as sharks, fish, seashells, and so on. Biblical creation science using Genesis Flood models provide a satisfactory explanation.
Recently someone asked a question that went something like this “If the earth is only thousands of years old, how did dinosaur bones turn into coal and oil?” After reading this question, I realized that a lot of people really don’t know what coal and oil are made of and how they are formed. 
To finish reading, click on "Coal Creation". I also recommend a more recent article, "How Did Coal Seams Form?"



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

Monday, March 16, 2020

Attempting to Resist Rabbits

Many people like to have cute fluffy bunny rabbits as pets. Long before that, it appears that they were raised for food. It is possible that there was a bit of overlap when someone took kindly to a rabbit and made it into a pet. Cowboy wisdom says never to name an animal you're going to eat. In some places, rabbits and hares are pests.

Rabbits can be pets and also have been used as food. In some places, they are vermin because they multiply so efficiently.
Credit: Good Free Photos
Rabbits are especially troublesome in Australia. They were introduced there, and as Bugs Bunny observed, rabbits know how to multiply. This helps support the post-Flood distribution as postulated by biblical creationists. Since they were so much trouble, the myoxma virus was used to thin the herds. Evolutionists claimed that resistance was evidence for evolution, but that is not the case.
While some cuddle bunnies, others curse them.
For example, in the Australian state of Queensland, such is the fear of rabbit overpopulation and resultant ravaging of pastures—and the potential hazard of warrens (underground burrows) — that all rabbits are declared vermin.
Police there seized a pet Flemish rabbit for destruction; its lady owner faced a $44,000 fine and possible six-month jail term! But in the neighbouring state of New South Wales, where there is no such prohibition on pet rabbits, a Rabbit Sanctuary heard of the case, and she was permitted to take the rabbit across the border to safety.
This article is similar to a nature documentary that has many pieces of interesting information. You can read the rest by hopping on over to "Bunnies cute and cursed".



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

Saturday, March 14, 2020

Engineering Principles by Ancient Humans

Evolutionists have determined that ancient humans not only used stone tools, but engineered them. This is surprising to them, but fits the expectations of biblical creationists.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

A reader of The Question Evolution Project on Fazebook sent me a link to an article about the use of stone tools by "our ancestors". It was an interesting report about how ancient humans apparently used different stone tools for different jobs. I know the feeling because the other day, I had to drill some holes in our metal-plated door. It seems that the set of bits I had were intended for wood, so I had no results (except the one that broke and I never found the other end). When I put a tungsten drill bit in, things were much better. Those folks engineered and made different tools for various jobs. Some were heavy duty, some were for lighter work.

The report was infested with obsequious fawning to Darwin, presupposing evolution, and unsubstantiated millions of years, including the ridiculously loaded word hominins. The action took place at a hotbed of evolutionary storytelling inspirations, the Olduvai Gorge. That's where they got H. habilis and other "ape-like ancestors", conveniently neglecting lack of evidence and the fact that humans have a great amount of variation even today.

What is even more interesting to this child is that this research fits in quite nicely with the biblical timeline. Creationists believe that humans were intelligent from creation, not just stupid brutes that had not yet learned to think way back when. Darwin's acolytes were presenting Neanderthals are partially evolved things but they had to admit that Neanderthals were fully human and very intelligent — we even have their DNA! So this report should be of no surprise to biblical creationists, but evolutionists are puzzled.

If'n y'all want to have a look-see at the Darwin-fawning article, keep an eye out for the dodgy words and phrases. To see it, click on "Early humans revealed to have engineered optimized stone tools at Olduvai Gorge".

We use computers so much that it’s easy to forget that they’ve only been around for about 70 years. But the most brilliantly engineered machines cannot even come close to the complexity and construction of the human brain.

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

Friday, March 13, 2020

Industrial Melanism and Peppered Moths

When Rusty Swingset, the foreman at the Darwin Ranch, commences to speechifying to school kids, he invariably brings out the old chestnut that peppered moths are proof of evolution. Of course, he leaves out many important details such as lack of field research, staged photos, and the fact that moths are still moths (still not evolving). Newer research on industrial melanism gives further problems to evolution.


Although refuted, evolutionists pretend the peppered moth story supports evolution. New research makes it even less credible and supports creation science.
Light and dark varieties of peppered moths
Credit: both from Wikimedia Commons / Olaf Leillinger (link to top is herelink to bottom is here)
Genetic research indicated that a transposable element in DNA was the cause of the coloring, which changes gene expression. This made evolutionary researchers wonder if it was more than just chance that made the moths dark. The team did further research and saw that other lepidoptera also darkened due to pollution, but more research needs to be done regarding the transposable element factor.

Instead of thinking that maybe the Creator designed the moths to work that way (and remember that both mutations and the false god of Darwinian natural selection require a great amount of time to operate in this mythology), they are at least considering the possibility that there is more than just an accidental mutation happening. No kidding, Sherlock. In fact, this research may be supporting the Continuous Environmental Tracking model under development by the Institute for Creation Research.
Back in 2016, a genetic research team led by Ilik J. Saccheri of the University of Liverpool, England, discovered that the black coloration was due to the insertion of a “transposable element” of DNA. . . . In fact, of the 105 black moths the team examined 103 (98%) had this identical insertion of the transposable element, but the insertion was absent in all 283 white moths studied. 
. . .  
A recent paper by Saccheri’s team now extends their research. Peppered moths were not the only moth species that responded to pollution by an increase in the frequency of the black variety.
You can read the entire article by flying over to "Peppered Moth Color Changes Are Engineered", and I hope y'all will come back for the second part, below.

Glad you came back. Some interesting research indicates that black coloring is not a method of hiding. The damselfish will attack highly venomous sea snakes, but only the darker versions. It seems that they are a mite confused by the Turtle-Headed Sea Snake ("I didn't do anything!") that is harmless to adult damselfish and the other dark-hued sea snakes that do cause problems.


Credit: Cropped from an image at Wikimedia Commons from Tim Cameron (CC by-SA 4.0)
At first glance, it seems to make sense that nasty Victorian air of London, England, the black peppered moth variety would switch on its super power to go dark. But what about those sea snakes in clear water? Apparently, they are receiving trace amounts of heavy metals from mining operations. To help relieve toxicity, it gets into their skins, which are shed later!

Instead of giving credit to the Master Engineer, the lead researcher evosplained the observations in vague terms and made use of "selective advantage", a subjective and vacuous term. While the research is interesting, it is also incomplete. Questions are raised that need to be lassoed and corralled. Also, this may be another indication of ICR's Engineered Adaptability part of their CET model.
In her paper, Goiran cites studies that other species of land-dwelling snakes and reptiles also sequester trace elements by melanin in their skin that are excreted with sloughing (shedding) their skin. She also cites a study on pigeons in Paris, France where there was an increased population of dark-feathered pigeons living in soot-soiled areas of air pollution. Chemical analysis found that melanin pigments in the darker feathers also had high levels of bound trace elements. These toxins were excreted with feather loss. Goiran concludes,
You can find out what Claire Goiran concluded and to read the entire article, click on "Shedding Toxins: A Surprising Role for 'Industrial Melanism'".




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

Thursday, March 12, 2020

Insects for the Clean-Up Committee

We have two articles for your perusal. The first one is in the here and now, the second involves fossils. Some critters bring out the urge to draw our shooting irons or maybe find flamethrowers because they are creepy. A good part of that is our cultural conditioning, plus the fact that some things transmit diseases. We are none too fond of finding them in our breakfast cereal, either. However, our Creator had a reason for putting cockroaches on the earth.


Though many people detest them, cockroaches are surprisingly helpful for waste removal and other aspects in ecosystems. They also thwart evolution.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Stuart Cunningham (CC by-SA 3.0)
Don't be getting your "Ewww Factor" in high gear. Although there are only about thirty species that bother humans, the other several thousand species go on about their business. Out in the wild, they are found in a variety of colors. It seems that their main purpose is to dispose of various kinds of waste.

For that matter, cockroaches are being farmed in China to take care of kitchen waste, and they are mighty tasty to hogs. Are we missing out? (I'm not ready to try a bacon and cockroach with cheese on rye sandwich, though.) By the way, no, the urban legend is wrong: they would not outlive humans after a nuclear apocalypse. Those of us who trust God know that the world won't end that way. There will be a big bang and global warming, but on his terms (2 Peter 3:12-13). Are you ready? Well, you'd better make sure of where you're going!

I thought the article featured below would be a mite dull, but it turned out to be quite interesting. These critters actually do us, and ecosystems, a great service.
Our first instinct is to recoil at cockroaches because of their “creepy” appearance; their tendency to spread disease and aggravate asthma; and, of course, their propensity to set up shop where we don’t want them. But when we resist our revulsion and learn about these much-maligned insects, we find not malevolent fiends skulking in dark corners, but creatures equipped by God to perform a critical function in our fallen world.
The full article (and the audio version) can be found at "Cockroaches—The Right Creatures for the Job". A similar post can be found at "Insect Sanitation Engineers". Next, fossil problems for evolutionists.

Evolutionary paleontologists get all agitated when they find fossils that they think support evolution, then they spin the stories to try to fool the rest of us. What was found? A fossil cockroach in amber. How is it different? Well, it's still a cockroach with no appreciable changes.
Cockroaches preserved in amber show no evolution, but the Darwinists celebrate anyway.
Rafi Letzter from Live Science always finds ways to put an evolutionary spin on things, even when no evolution is evident. “‘Exquisite’ dinosaur-age cockroaches discovered preserved in amber,” he writes. But the roaches entombed in a roach motel made of amber look just like modern roaches, except that they apparently were dark-adapted for living perpetually in caves (as are some today).
You can finish reading this one by clicking on "Fossil Roaches Did Not Evolve", and see other fossils that also are recalcitrant to Darwinism.



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

Wednesday, March 11, 2020

Quasars Trouble Big Bang Concepts

Great news for creationists, bad for believers in current cosmic evolution ideas. A paper was published that examined galaxies and their associations with quasars. This gets into some deep astronomy and mathematics, such as redshift and whether or not the association is random.

Quasars are mysterious objects that took astronomers a long time to figure out. Now ideas are changing, and the Big Bang has another big problem.
Galaxy Cluster, Quasar 3C 186 image credits:
NASA/CXC/SAO/A.Siemiginowska et al. Optical: AURA/Gemini Obs.
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
"This is all very interesting, but what is a quasar, Cowboy Bob?"

Glad you asked. Like a social media relationship status, it's complicated. When first detected, astronomers were puzzled and decided to call them quasi-stellar objects, shortened to quasars. Has a catchy sound do it. They are very bright and contain a great deal of energy, and seem to be the products of black holes at the cores of galaxies. Or are they something else? It took a mighty long time to get a handle on quasars, and that has changed.

The paper is strong evidence against the Big Bang and cosmic evolution, and supports recent creation. It should be another nail in the coffin of this failed "theory", but we know how they work: rescuing devices are conjured up quick-like. We'll see what they dream up.
In a paper just published that looked for an association between putative parent galaxies and pairs of quasars, the authors found many such quasar families, suggesting that the association is real, and not just coincidental. They used the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) data release 7 and the 2MASS (Two Micron All Sky Survey) Redshift Survey (2MRS) Ks ≤ 11.75 mag data release to test for the physical association of candidate companion quasars with putative parent galaxies by virtue of Karlsson periodicity in quasar redshifts.
To read the rest, click on "Confirmed: physical association between parent galaxies and quasar families".



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

Tuesday, March 10, 2020

Nonsense in Origin-of-Live Concepts

We have seen that evolutionists are committed to naturalism (denial of the Creator), and some are taking their pantheistic religious beliefs to absurdity. Add to this the insistence that life can come from non-life by way of spontaneous generation (abiogenesis, or chemical evolution) from primordial slime, and we see what denial of God does to the mind.


Abiogenesis research is increasingly absurd. Logic and basic science are rejected in favor of naturalism and denial of the Creator.
Background image furnished by Why?Outreach
In their desperate attempts to maintain the narrative, facts are ignored or neglected. Indeed, even basic logic has been cast aside. The scientific law of biogenesis (life can only come from life) is consistently ignored in origin-of-life research. When reading their material, watch for weasel words such as maybe, perhaps, maybe, scientists think, and more in their bad science. In reality, there was no chemical evolution nor universal common ancestry; we were created, and that was done only a few thousand years ago.
Origin-of-life scientists know chemistry, but not logic.
Having presupposed materialism, origin-of-life scientists are stuck with it. They cannot consider ideas outside the materialist box. They can talk endlessly about chemistry, which is fine; but logic is not their specialty, because materialistic origin-of-life (henceforth OOL) leads to bad math, bad logic and bad conclusions. Some of the conclusions are truly absurd.
The basic logical defect in OOL studies is this: nature has no obligation to conform to human imagination. Just because a chemist can imagine a way that some building block “might” contribute to a materialistic origin of life, that doesn’t obligate nature to perform it. The logical fallacy is much worse than imagining one step. Robert Shapiro once likened OOL to playing 18 holes of golf (15 April 2007).  If the OOL scientist can imagine how a ball might roll down a mountain and possibly land in the cup, there are still 17 more holes to win the game. The scientist might next imagine an asteroid impact launching the ball up a mountainside where the next cup is. The sequence of necessary steps to complete the course quickly becomes absurdly improbable. Shapiro said,
You can finish reading and be amazed by clicking on "Tomfoolery in OOL".
Used under Fair Use provisions for informational purposes.
Facebook hypocrisy showing approval of anti-Christian hate speech.

In the 19th century, the theory of abiogenesis was widely accepted, much like evolution is today. Charles Darwin strongly promoted the idea that life was generated spontaneously from non-life. However, Louis Pasteur, a French microbiologist and believer in biblical creation, made a startling discovery that turned this notion completely upside down.

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

Labels