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

Saturday, May 30, 2020

Eugenics and Dog Breeds

When the science of genetics (pioneered by Gregor Mendel, peas be upon him) was still developing, well-heeled folks wanted the fruits of science. Back then, thinking and science were popular. So was Darwinism. Artificial selection (selective breeding) and eugenics were becoming fashionable. Dogs paid the price.

Eugenics and selective breeding have some things in common. Dog breeds are paying the price for people improperly selecting traits.
Credit: RGBStock / Richard Dudley
There are similar principles in the social Darwinist eugenics movement and dog breeding. Both have arbitrary criteria where only certain individuals are allowed to reproduce, and both began when genetics was not very well understood.

When it came to dog breeds, traits of temperament and appearance were emphasized. Unfortunately, undesirable and unseen traits would often appear, making the animal less able to survive. Dogs like pugs and others with faces that look pushed in often have the breathing problem known as brachycephalic syndrome. To be direct, much of selective breeding is ultimately cruel. Creationists believe that something like a wolf was the original dog kind from which all these others are derived, having a variety of good genetic characteristics. Want to own a healthy pet? Get a mutt.
Many people love purebred dogs. The distinctive features of each breed and their predictable temperaments draw many people to pay a high price to own one. But how did we come to value such features, and is this desired ‘purity’ better for the health of the dog?
Domestic dogs have been around for thousands of years, and distinct ‘types’ of dogs go far back in history, when people began selectively breeding their dogs for desirable characteristics, mostly related to the type of work the dog was supposed to do—like hunting, guarding, or herding livestock. As dogs particularly suited to their jobs were bred, some types began to take on a distinctive appearance. Some of this was due to mutations (affecting coat colour, size, facial shape, etc.). By identifying useful traits and then allowing dogs that carried the trait to inbreed with closely-related dogs, the traits were emphasized. This was the origin of dog ‘breeds’.
I won't make you sit up and beg to read the rest of this interesting article. Just get your paws on "Sick, suffering monsters and the eugenicists who created them".


As the old saying goes, dogs are man’s best friend. Dogs perform many useful tasks—from hunting to security to helping people with disabilities. Most of us would agree that we’re just glad they’re part of the family! Where did dogs come from? How can we explain the tremendous variety of dog breeds?

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

Friday, May 29, 2020

The Amazing Design of Hemoglobin

Hemoglobin (HGB) is one of thousands of proteins designed by our Creator. We know that it carries oxygen through the bloodstream, but hemoglobin (Hgb) was designed Hgb to fulfill a number of detailed functions. Even the oxygen delivery is regulated for various needs.

Hemoglobin is an amazingly complex protein that has many functions. In the technical paper linked in this post, we can see why evolutionists cannot rationally explain it.
Credit: Pixabay / Narupon Promvichai
The intricacies of the biology of living things continue to become more amazing and complex as more research is conducted, including a surprising blood component that was recently discovered.

Believers in universal common descent evolution cannot adequately explain Hgb and its specified complexities, so they simply evosplain it away. There are also Hgb molecules produced by humans for fetal development as needed for various functions. Also, organisms that breathe air experience regulation from Hgb so that when the need for oxygen is lower (at rest), not as much is delivered. The opposite is also true. Further, the gas nitric oxide is needed and Hgb extends its extremely short half-life so it can fulfill its function. There is a great deal to learn, but this article is quite technical and people with advanced medical and biological knowledge are the ones who would receive the most benefit from it.
In this article we first examine the structure of Hgb and how this makes Hgb ideally suited as an O2 transporter. We’ll very briefly look at the genes that code for the various subunits of Hgb and how they are arranged on the chromosomes, and how their expression changes through development from embryo to adult, and how this is regulated. We will examine how hemoglobin structure enhances the binding and release of O2, making hemoglobin an exquisitely designed sensor of the metabolic demands for oxygen. We will make some comparisons between Hgb and myoglobin, another O2 binding protein found in muscle, and see how its structure suits it to be an excellent O2 storage protein in cells. We examine some associated enzymatic activities of Hgb and Mb that protect us from nitric oxide (NO), but at the same time provide a way to preserve and deliver NO to where it’s needed. We briefly look at Hgbs from other mammals and see that their Hgbs are matched to their metabolic demands. Lastly, we mention some research advances and shortcomings in attempts to make artificial Hgb to meet many medical needs.
To learn more, you can read the entire article by clicking on "Hemoglobin: An Exquisitely Designed, Multifunctional Protein".

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

Thursday, May 28, 2020

Secular Geologists Determined to Deceive Themselves

A person may not be lying when what is related is considered true, and sometimes people have deceived themselves. The secular science industry is riding for the Darwin brand and they work and finding answers, but they are building on seriously flawed presuppositions. Two linked articles demonstrate this.


Secular geologists uphold their old-earth presuppositions and think they are making discoveries, but they ignore data and go in the wrong direction.
Chimney Rock image credit: Freeimages / Steven Ritts
Scientists have ideas and work from those to see if they have validity. We get that. However, there are times when they have had numerous failures and dead ends that they should ask themselves if their starting points are correct in the first place. They often do not realize that they are mistaken by illusions of progress when they are cantering in the opposite direction. Deep time geology has a passel of problems, and geologists would do well to seriously consider the work of creation scientists instead of rejecting catastrophism out of hand for the sake of the naturalism narrative. Here is the first linked article:
It’s possible to collect clues that suggest your model is working, all while heading off in the wrong direction.
Here’s a way scientists can be clueless with clues. First, they accept a popular worldview we will call the Grand Myth. Then, they find a problem within the myth, a sub-myth, that requires a solution. Without ever questioning the foundational Grand Myth, they start collecting clues that “suggest” a certain solution to a problem in the sub-myth that “might” work. Notice:
“In a study published in the journal Science, our international team has moved a step closer towards resolving this problem.“
Did they “resolve” the “problem”? No. They moved a step closer. How many steps more are there? How do they know their steps are headed in the right direction? It doesn’t matter to believers in the Grand Myth. Like players of Blind Man’s Bluff, their intuition tells them. They’ll know it when they feel it.
To see some examples and learn more, click on "Geology: Bold Steps in Self-Deception". What follows is also quite startling.

Geologists who support uniformitarianism presuppose that the Genesis Flood never happened. Sure, they occasionally appeal to lesser floods in Earth's history when their methodology is too threatened by facts to be rescued; again, the old-earth narrative is more important than the evidence.
  • We just passed the 40th anniversary of the main Mt. St. Helens eruption. This and subsequent geological events there have been used by biblical creation scientists in many ways to support Genesis Flood models. Secularists make excuses.
  • Freestanding geological features such as arches are studied and are testimony to the Flood and recent creation. Secularists find something shiny to examine instead of seeing the greater implications of research.
  • The Great Unconformity at the Grand Canyon is "missing" many Darwin years (in one place, a billion). Instead of cowboying up and facing the fact, these jaspers try to find ways to use the feature to make absurd statements and even make excuses for other conundrums.




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

Wednesday, May 27, 2020

Creation Science and Chromosome Fusion

Evolutionists came up with an excuse for the difference between numbers of human and ape chromosomes. This is scientifically unreasonable.Scientists operate from their worldviews, so it is entirely reasonable to get a notion and see if there is any evidence to support it. Secular biologists and so forth presuppose goo-to-geneticist evolution. There is a problem with the number of chromosomes between humans and apes, so something "must" have changed.

Evolutionists believe that there was chromosome fusion in human history, and that's why apes have a couple more than we do. They have a suspected site for this and papers have been written on it. Many important factors have been overlooked and even ignored, and a creation scientist has done his own research showing that this alleged fusion is yet another tale of mystery and imagination for the Darwin Zone. We were created differently from the animals, pilgrim, and in God's image.
One of the more popular arguments used for humans supposedly evolving from apes is known as the chromosome fusion. The impetus for this concept is the evolutionary problem that apes have an extra pair of chromosomes—humans have 46 while apes have 48. If humans evolved from an ape-like creature only three to six million years ago, a mere blip in the grand scheme of the evolutionary story, why do humans and apes have this discrepancy?
The evolutionary solution proposes that an end-to-end fusion of two small ape-like chromosomes (named 2A and 2B) produced human chromosome 2 (Figure 1). The concept of a fusion first came about in 1982 when scientists examined the similarities of human and ape chromosomes under a microscope. While the technique was somewhat crude, it was enough to get the idea going.
To read more about the truth regarding the fictional chromosomal fusion, click on "Human Chromosome 2 Fusion Never Happened". Also of interest is "Refusing the Fused Chromosomes".



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

Tuesday, May 26, 2020

Polystrate Fossils and Long-Age Duplicity

Although we discussed polystrate fossils a few months ago (see "Let Me Be Polystrate With You"), it is time to run the subject up the flagpole again and see who salutes it. Like the problems of soft tissues, DNA, and such in dinosaur fossils, assorted rescuing devices are manufactured.


We have seen before that polystrate fossils are a serious problem for secular geologists. Now we can see how they ignore the many problems of these in the Joggins layers.
Original image from GoodFreePhotos / Paula Piccard
The main approach of secular geology is uniformitarianism, but occasionally Janus-faced geologists will invoke catastrophes when their philosophies fail. They have even imagined multiple small floods without evidence instead of the best explanation: the global Genesis Flood. Polystrate fossils are a serious problem, and these are often completely ignored in textbooks and such.

Wikipedia, that font of secularist propaganda, does not have a section on polystrate fossils, but there is a sentence in the fundamentally dishonest section on creationism about what creationists believe. Of course, they wave the fossils off without providing a reasonable explanation for their existence. Up yonder in Nova Scotia is an area called Joggins. There are numerous polystrate fossils there, but they are not mentioned in the Wikipedia section on the fossils there except for a drawing from 1868 of an "upright fossil". Like mainstream news sources, if something is inconvenient for a narrative, it tends to be ignored. That does not make the Flood any less real nor does it support secular geology.
Polystrate fossils punch vertically through multiple layers, or strata, within a geological formation. They have been a mainstay of the debates in geology going all the way back to the earliest days of the deep-time controversy arising in the 18th century. They remain relevant to the discussion today.
In the 1800s, the primary debate over geology was waged between the competing ideologies of uniformitarianism and catastrophism. The former believed in slow gradual processes and long time periods, while the latter believed in rapid processes over short time periods. For a while, uniformitarianism was the dominant view. Today, however, the preferred term by long-age geologists is ‘actualism’, as they have been forced by the overwhelming evidence to abandon strict, classical uniformitarianism (a.k.a. gradualism) and include catastrophes to explain many parts of the geological record.
To read the rest, run on over to "How the Joggins polystrate fossils falsify long ages".




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

Monday, May 25, 2020

Deep-Sea Squid Signals Defy Evolution

Here is another example of how the more we learn, the more we should realize that there is still much more to learn. We can narrow it down to communication. It is not just language between humans, and we have seen that many other creatures have their own methods. Consider the Humboldt squid.

Humboldt squid are bad boys, but at feeding time, they have a unique method of evolution-defying communication.
Credit: NOAA / MBARI
You're not likely to find these deep-sea bad boys without special equipment, as they are often found in deep water where it's mighty dark. They're not the kind of squid you want to invite to a social gathering, either. They were observed at the chuck wagon, feeding on fish and zipping along. No collisions were noticed, but their Creator gave them bioluminescence.

Why would they need to glow in the dark (so to speak) down there? Communication! Not as involved as signaling in Morse code (such as on an Aldis lamp), but the senders and receivers must be able to understand the message. This is yet something else in organisms that defy evolution —

"When you're a creationist, everything 'defies evolution', Cowboy Bob!"

The usual Darwinian reaction is, "It evolved. Something something something natural selection." Things might be more interesting if naturalists provided more than arbitrary assertions and storytelling. A plausible model might be a nice starting point for conversation, but the accumulated evidence from everything around us testifies of God (Rom. 1:18-23).
In the deep, dark, cold waters of the Pacific Ocean—about 1,500 feet below the surface— hundreds of Humboldt squid the size of small humans (~ 5 feet long) were recently observed feeding on a school of lantern fish only about 3 to 4 inches long. The scientists used a high-tech remotely operated vehicle (ROV) with highly sophisticated photographic equipment to document the squid’s behavior. What they discovered was shockingly sophisticated.
You can read the rest by wrapping a tentacle around "Deep Water Squid Communication Mystifies Scientists". It will be interesting when more information about their bioluminescence comes to light.



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

Saturday, May 23, 2020

Asking Questions to Investigate Extraordinary Evidence

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Unusual concepts require unusual discussions. A reader of The Question Evolution Project on Fazebook sent us a link to a TEDx Talk about orbiting the earth and the ancient past. Seemed like an interesting subject and it was only about twenty minutes, so I gave it a listen. Then I watched it more closely.

A TEDx Talk about Earth orbits, Molinya orbit, ancient artifacts and civilizations, catastrophes, and other things indicates that Roger G. Gilbertson may be open to creation science truth.
Proposed Mars Molniya orbit image credit: NASA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The Talk was given by Roger G. Gilbertson uploaded to YouTube on February 3, 2020. This was in the written introduction of the post:
In my years as a writer, inventor, researcher, filmmaker, skeptic, story teller and explainer, I have always tried to keep an open mind about what we do not yet know. I seek the truth wherever it resides, and try to follow wherever it may lead, for the greatest mysteries are often the ones that we are the closest to solving next.
You don't believe everything that "scientists say" or obediently run with the herd? You want to think outside established norms (as well as established Brians, Carls, and Toms)? I like it when people want to think instead of following established science dogma.

While I am not endorsing this video, it does merit examination. It also prompts pondering.

At the first minute, Mr. Gilbertson pointed out one simple fact: science changes. For example, plate tectonics was rejected until comparatively recently, and now it has been accepted by most geologists. (He might like to know about the scientific "fact" of phlogiston — nah, he probably knows that.) Shortly after this, he mentioned visiting a website on the fringes of scientific content. It calls into question some of the established beliefs of scientists. Well, sure, get inspiration from outside the mainstream. I'm using something outside of my own usual fare right here, and have even drawn inspiration from H.P. Lovecraft, Star Trek:TNG, and others, so this child can't be one to fault him.

Around the 2 minute 20 second mark, Roger began to wonder, "Can a satellite orbit the earth in such a way that it travels over a single, circular ground path on the earth below?" He asked and was told that it could be done over the equator. Of the various kinds of satellite orbits, Mr. Gilbertson most interested in two: geostationary (at 5:12, it stays locked in the same place over the planet's surface), and the Molniya (at 6:02, elongated and highly inclined, taking half a day). Then he got an idea.

As we move to the 6:38 mark, Roger was wondering if he wanted a longer orbit. He checked his calculations and verified them with a friend who does aerospace work. Yes, a certain 2-day orbit would put the object in the same position over the earth after that amount of time. Checking with the STK analytical graphics site, he saw that a circular ground-path orbit could work. Another friend in the aerospace industry verified his results.

Now we're at 8:25, and he was excited about what he called the 2DO, the two-day orbit. Fine tuning it for a thirty-one degree orbit and making other adjustments (include the time needed), he found that the satellite or person could be outside the Van Allen radiation belt and also outside Earth's magnetic field. Nor would it ever be in Earth's shadow. This would have potential for useful applications

At 10:05, Gilbertson goes back to the site that got his wheels turning. It was about the alignment of many of the ancient wonders of the world in an almost circular path. Not all ancient wonders, but they were not scattered all over the face of the globe. (We are at 12:20 if you're keeping score at home.) Many of these many had noteworthy features, including their tremendous size, precise stone cuts, unusual knobs in the stone, and more.

At 14:45, we wonder along with him: what kind of people did this? People might expect R.G. to bring up "ancient astronauts" and UFOs, but that is not the case. He wants to know about how and when ancient peoples did these things. 15:20, he says there was a more advanced form of human civilization way back when. Some catastrophe must have happened. Ancient coast lines were much lower long ago, but oceans rose and temperatures dropped. Did a comet hit North America, does that explain some of the geological features?

We need more data (now we've reached 17:18). People need to think in terms of science fiction, get ideas and engineering involved to make these ideas into science fact. Use some imagination to investigate. He modified the Carl Sagan remark about extraordinary claims needing extraordinary evidence and said, "Extraordinary evidence deserves extraordinary investigation". We have a passel of such evidence to investigate.

The part about orbits at the beginning was somewhat interesting, but as he went on with the presentation, I began to wonder if Roger would be willing to seriously, honestly investigate biblical creation science. The Genesis Flood explains geological features better than the established secularist methods and paradigms, and this includes the post-Flood Ice Age and changes affected by the tremendous volcanic activity involved. People ask where the water went after the Flood — it's right here.

We believe and teach that humans were created in the image of God and are not the products of purposeless Darwinism. While creationists believe that there would be no remnants of the pre-Flood world after the global cataclysm, intelligent descendants of Adam and Eve got off the Ark and began to rebuild. After the dispersal at Babel, civilizations were built in many parts of the world. History and archaeology show us that the ancients were indeed very intelligent.

Creation scientists dare to question evolution and deep time assertions. Secular scientists have made many assumptions that have been harmful to medical science, were extremely reluctant to submit dinosaur bones to radiocarbon dating, are puzzled when fossils are found in places where they are not expected, and more. If science was an actual being, people like this would be an embarrassment to it.

Evidence for statements in the previous three paragraphs are all over this site, and most of those link to other sites for further information. I hope Mr. Gilbertson is led to investigate in the biblical creation science direction. After all, he is willing to question proclamations of the secular science industry. In my opinion, he's not far from the truth right now.

One last thought about the whole shootin' match. There was a disclaimer in the text that it was flagged, and included the statements, "...because it appears to fall outside the TEDx content guidelines. Claims made in this talk only represent the speaker’s personal views which are not corroborated by scientific evidence." 

My suspicion is that he was dry gulched because he dared to question established evolutionary dogma, even though it was implicit at best. It is interesting to see that the TEDx Talk by Ben Mezrich titled, "Why I believe in UFOs, and you should too..." was full of assertions (including that the sighting at Roswell was indeed a UFO), opinions, and not corroborated by scientific evidence. Double standard? I found the UFO Talk to be a waste of time, but linked to it anyway if you take a notion to watch it. I would like to give one of these Talks, but we know that such a thing could not happen.



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

Friday, May 22, 2020

Problems in the Cosmological Principle

There is a concept in cosmology that all matter is evenly dispersed throughout the universe. This idea is used to support the Big Bang, a concept that has been reworked and cobbled for decades because it is the best of the failed secular theories. However, the cosmological principle is having difficulties.

Factors in the cosmological principle are used to prop up the Big Bang. A recent study may cause serious problems for it.
Seven-Year Microwave Sky image credit: NASA / WMAP Science Team
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
It appears that matter is distributed throughout the universe, and the universe is expanding. A recent study of galaxy clusters, which could not be done before orbiting telescopes, detected that these galaxies emitted large amounts of X-rays. This study indicates that the universe is not isotropic (uniform in all directions), which is a serious problem for cosmology and cosmogony if this study pans out. Since secularists are committed to atheistic materialism, cosmologists will probably not let evidence interfere with the cosmic evolution narrative, and certainly not admit that the universe was created recently. Expect rescuing devices soon.
One the local scale, matter in the universe demonstrably is neither homogeneous nor isotropic. However, since we’re are talking about the universe, it is important not to sweat the local things but concentrate on the big picture. In these terms, homogeneity means that, to all observers throughout the universe, the universe should look the same. Of course, since we are restricted to one place in the universe, we cannot directly test the assumption of homogeneity. In fact, studies of the distribution of matter in the universe show that there is clumping of matter at very large scales in the universe. It is assumed that on the grandest scales the clumping smooths out, but this has not yet been observed.
To read the rest of this rather technical article, click on "The Cosmological Principle Fails?"

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

Thursday, May 21, 2020

Idols and Evolutionary Beliefs

The first two of the Ten Commandments are the forbidding of false gods and idols. These concepts tend to overlap, so someone can give preeminence to a false god without setting up an actual image. Many people have false gods they serve, including themselves. There is also idolatry in evolutionism.


Idolatry does not necessarily mean worshiping an object made of hands. Some evolutionists are guilty of idolatry in the name of science.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Gausanchennai (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Christians, don't be getting smug. We tend to have our own idols, whether it's adhering to doctrines (and congratulating each other on believing certain things), church itself can be an idol, a religious leader, and so on. Your favorite politician did not die on a cross for your sins and rise from the dead three days later. Examine yourselves.

Regular readers have seen that believers in minerals-to-mycologist evolution have resorted to their form of idolatry when they make evolution and natural selection into entities with the abilities to make decisions and choices. Although they profess atheistic naturalism, the desire for God the Creator and Redeemer is within. Instead of seeking the true God, they bow down to things they've made out of their own imaginations and wishful thinking. This, in turn, is presented as evidentiary science. How about another example?
Engaging in worship seems unavoidable for humans—even the atheistic thinkers who dominate modern science. Reverence and adoration lie at the heart of worship. Scripture tells us the ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Israelites, and other cultures worshiped idols. They imagined their idols held power and could sway personal, political, or physical events.
Ironically, some of the scientists who scoff at the way our ancestors gave god-like attributes to inanimate objects follow similar patterns today. Each person should examine their heart to root out subtle idolatry.
To finish reading, click on "Subtle Idolatry in Modern Science".



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

Wednesday, May 20, 2020

The Bizarre Beliefs of Cosmic Biology

We have seen some mighty peculiar things passed of as science, including the non-science of astrobiology and even the — time to face it — pseudoscience of minerals-to-machinist evolution. What really takes the rag off the bush is panspermia, which defies scientific realities.


Some evolutionists agree with creationists about the origin of life, but reject creation and come up with strange ideas of life coming from outer space.
Artist’s depiction of Comet C/2012 K1 credits: NASA / SOFIA / Lynette Cook
Many believers in evolution (the knowledgeable ones, not the trolls on social media) admit that life could not have originated on Earth. The late astronomer Fred Hoyle had some views that seemed to incorporate Hinduism as well as evolution, and indirectly supported creation science. Instead of life evolving from minerals here, it came from way out yonder. Perhaps it was brought by comets, meteorites, and such. (Or even brought by aliens, which is called directed panspermia.) Then, life was given a boost now and then by other life materials from space.

Such ideas are controversial even among those committed to naturalism, to say the least. Basic biological principles are subducted under the plates of the Stuff Happens Law, and the absurdity of any form of life surviving a trek through the stars and surviving the entry to the earth are seemingly ignored. It is amazing that Fred Hoyle had some followers who not only are riding for the panspermia brand, but are continuing to develop it. I reckon that brain cells switch off when people deny the Creator.
The mainstream view of Neo-Darwinism has maintained a relative stranglehold on academia for over a century, with little consideration being given to anything outside of that paradigm in the most prestigious centers of academia. But major fundamental cracks are showing in the very foundations of that worldview, and some extremely interesting developments are coming about as a result.
. . . 
In any case, though Dr Hoyle passed away in 2001, Dr Wickramasinghe is still working to advance their thesis to this day. He, along with 32 other coauthors representing 23 different institutions in 12 countries all across the world, recently published a paper in a peer-reviewed academic journal that advances the idea of panspermia (that life arrived on earth from outer space, rather than evolving here on Earth). Not only this, but they appeal specifically to the octopus as an example of something they feel is too complex to have arisen by chance mutations, and thus it must have either arrived via frozen embryos from space, or have evolved from genetic material inserted into terrestrial genomes from extraterrestrial viruses!
To read the entire article, brace yourself and click on "Cosmic Biology".




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

Tuesday, May 19, 2020

Lack of Evidence for Turtle Evolution

After my recent visit to the town for supplies, I headed up yonder toward the Darwin Ranch. You have to go past Stinking Lake (which is not as bad as it sounds) near Deception Pass. There was a ruckus so loud that it distracted the Winkie Guards, and I could hear them (the ranch hands, not the guards) arguing about turtle evolution again.


There are significant disagreements among secular scientists about turtle evolution. That is because there is no evidence.
Original image credit: Pexels / Richard Segal
Listening in on them cleared up something I had not bothered to check before: tortoises are turtles, but not all turtles are tortoises. The main difference is that tortoises spend more of their time on land and turtles prefer water. The main row was the long-running contention about the evolution of turtles. There isn't any. Nuffin at all, and the fossil record is a hostile witness. Turtles were created to be what they are, although there are variations.
Turtles (Chelonia) are found in oceans, freshwater ponds, and on land. The Galapagos tortoise is the largest living species of tortoise and, like the sea turtle, is able to live well over a century. A 100% turtle fossil (Stupendemys geographicus) recently discovered in South America is the shape and size of a small car. Turtles are a truly unique kind of reptile designed with over 50 bones.
You can read the rest of the article by clicking on "Turtles Have Always Been Turtles".




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

Monday, May 18, 2020

The Joy of Jumping Genes

For a long time, it was thought that DNA was the lord of genetic molecules to rule them all. When research indicated that genes can effectively jump and reattach, scientists circled the wagons and responded not only with ignoring the material, but also with hostility. Since then, it has been bad news for Darwin's followers.

Scientists initially rejected research that genes detach and reattach elsewhere. More evidence shows that jumping genes are problematic for evolution and support special creation.
Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / Stuart Miles
As an aside, the strong reaction against research and the efforts to protect the paradigm of unchanging DNA reinforces the point that scientists are not "follow where the evidence leads" dispassionate automatons. They are people.

Since evolutionary dogma is based on purposelessness, one may expect that if genes detach themselves and wander off, it would make matters worse for the organism. Unfortunately for naturalists, research shows that this detaching and reattaching in other areas is an important function. Not only does this further exemplify the work of the Master Engineer, it also shows the foolishness of the refuted "junk" DNA concept.
Each step taken in analyzing the human genome reveals not only more complexity, but also more evidence of design. As is often said, genetics has not turned out to be a friend of evolution. As time goes on, this claim has become more meaningful. A major discovery was made by Barbara McClintock in 1951. Gleaned from her research on maize corn, she discovered controlling (transposable) elements called ”jumping genes” (e.g., plasmids and transposons). These are sections of DNA that can literally cut themselves out of their original location and move elsewhere in the genome. They can then splice themselves into their new home.
The full article continues after the jump. "Jumping Genes: From Genome Havoc to Designed Variety".



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

Saturday, May 16, 2020

Angry Atheists Exterminate Reason

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

When I began doing creation science on weblogs and social media several years ago, I was startled and even intimidated by the vituperation of professing atheists and other anti-creationists. Christians and creationists can be prepared and see that their suits of armor are rusty and full of holes.

Responding to a small sampling of reactions from atheist trolls. They claim to believe in logic and reason, but their words show this is not true.

After learning more about what creationists teach and learning about logical fallacies, it became much easier to see how those who hate us actually do not use the science, logic and reason that they espouse. Indeed, many that we encounter in various places on the internet (especially social media) seem to actively turn away from using reason.

Many times, they set up camp on various internet forums and on Facebook Pages, celebrating how they abuse Christians and biblical creationists. (Indeed, I have seen "reviews" of books, videos, music, and so on where the material is voted down because it is contrary to atheistic preferences.) It is common on Fazebook for hateful atheists to share posts from other Pages for the purposes of mockery. Some of us consider this a form of trolling.

Before we look at some examples from one Page in particular, there are a few simple facts that those denizens disregard. Actually, they are things that everyone should know:
  • Disagreement is not refutation
  • Throwing irrelevant and outdated links at us is also not refutation
  • Mockery does not prove someone right, nor does it give one the moral or intellectual high ground; laughing emoticons to not add credibility
  • Disliking something does not make it untrue
  • Calling someone a liar without producing evidence makes the accuser into the liar
  • Misrepresenting the position of another person or group is deceitful and makes the one misrepresenting look foolish and desperate to knowledgeable people
  • Lying about Christians and biblical creationists does not make atheism and evolutionism true
  • Multiple logical fallacies or additional lies do not justify one's position
There are more, but we need to mount up and ride to the end of this here trail.

For a while, I was pointing out the straw man arguments and other fallacies of this group. It didn't take long before I realized some things: they desire attention, are not interested in truth, gleefully exhibit bigotry, and demonstrate the truth of Proverbs 18:2. Further, I have never seen evidence that he has ever bothered to read the linked material. That is seen in the multitudinous straw man arguments utilized.

I considered providing links to their material, but that would give them the attention they crave, except for a couple that had to appear from another Page. Also, I have seen links changed and posts removed (one stalker actually removed his self-embarrassing comments on one of my weblogs), so I am content to keep screenshots and links for reference. The anonymous Admin's comments are in pink. I need to add that links to other Pages are not necessarily endorsements of their content, and some contain profanity.

Everything Came from Nothing

graphic from Ray Comfort included his quote, "I have found that nothing offends a proud atheist like confronting him with his belief in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything". Reaction? "And who says nothing created everything? Looks like Ray Dumfort is lying again. As if that's something new."

Aside from the ad hominem, I had previously shown him(?) that unbelievers do indeed claim that everything came from nothing. Mayhaps he needs to inform C. Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, Lawrence Krauss, Paul Davies, and others? They need to know that they did not really say what has been documented. Calling Ray a liar without any supporting evidence makes the accuser the liar, remember?

Not Understanding the Secular Peer Review Process

The Page called Intelligent Design Memes took the misotheist we are examining to task for not understanding the peer review process. It is used predominantly for research papers. Instead of leaving it alone, the angry atheist retorted with additional fallacies: "Hey, nitwit, I meant "peer reviewed" in the context of describing a legitimate scientific publication. I didn't mean that your list had to be peer reviewed. But as usual you jump to a wrong conclusion and then make an idiotic meme about it. Jackass."

As you may be starting to notice, ad hominems are a staple of people of this ilk. In addition, something I have pointed out to him before is the genetic fallacy of rejecting something because of its source instead of dealing with the material. I confronted him and his followers at other times about the "legitimate scientific publication" remark. It turns out that for them, creationists are not "real" scientists. Why? because "real" scientists are devoted to Darwin and atheistic naturalism. The genetic fallacy was compounded with redefining scientist.

He also referred to Evolution News as "a creationist website", but that is false. It is a part of the Intelligent Design movement. This is yet another example of misrepresentation, possibly based on prejudicial conjecture and not having bothered to do his homework before lashing out.

Evidence Not Found

An Admin at The Question Evolution Project posted a "404" graphic that empirical evidence for Darwinian macroevolution was not found. This is true, conflations of variations, adaptations, and change with the word evolution notwithstanding. (I avoid the terms macro- and micro-evolution because they are incomplete and easily misused.) Evolution is not present time, it is forensic (historical) in nature. 

The reaction was, "Looks like QEP needs to stop using creationist search engines. I googled 'evidence for macroevolution' and this is what popped up: [link to talk.origins]". Aside from my own dislike of using "google" as a verb, there is the insinuation that we rely on "creationist search engines". Sure, I use fifteen creationist search engines — well, I might try them if I could find them.  (Another angry atheist wrote, "If anyone was wondering whether to take QEP seriously, keep in mind they can't do a Google search". Not worth any more of my time.) Hate makes people say vapid things.

When I did use Google instead of my preferred search engine, the first result I saw was under "Scholarly articles for 'evidence for macroevolution'" and it was a site doubting Darwin. Second was from a Christian site, the third was from a biblical creationist site. Sure, there were eventually evolutionist links as well. Although I only looked at the first page of results, clearly the talk.origins link did not "pop up". By the way, I thought these people insisted on material from peer-reviewed journals. It seems that biased anti-creationist sites are acceptable because they confirm atheistic presuppositions.

Do Not Watch The Video

Abundant bigotry was found when a post from Capturing Christianity was shared. I am no fan of William Lane Craig, but he would be able to eviscerate their claims with very little effort. "I'll save you 90 minutes of your life and answer this question so you don't have to watch this video. No. You're welcome." What followed was even more dogmatic. 

"The introduction is enough for me:

"'[...]. I'm exposing you to the intellectual side of Christian belief. That's what I do on my channel.' 7 seconds and I am already done [laughing with tears emoticon]." This guy with the fake name already had made his decision and was unwilling or unable to even begin to give an honest evaluation.

The Admin replied, "'Intellectual side'? What's 'intellectual' about any Christian beliefs? This is beyond the pale, revealing their hatred and their inability to be rational — or even tolerate the fact that many thinking people are not atheists and that many scientists — past and present — have been biblical creationists.

Doubling Down on Dishonesty and Hate

This will have to be the final entry. This article took three or four hours to write, and a great deal of that time was spent collecting documentation on the appallingly slow Facebook. But I digress.

How about being caught lying? Here is another entry from Intelligent Design Memes which highlights the profanity and self-justification of the atheist. Transcribing the screenshot the owner exclaimed, "Lying is not wrong because the Babble is full of lies and your god is a lie so I can lie as much as I want, s**thead. I'll keep harassing xtians and lying as much as I want". (Emphasis added.) I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this reaction was enhanced by methamphetamine.

The ID Memes folks grabbed that comment and added, "Well on the bright side at least he admits he is a dishonest and bigoted degenerate that harasses Christians [female emoticon]. 

They received a reaction, "And Tardy McTardface continues to fabricate posts. This is what you get when when religious nuts think they can lie, cheat, steal and kill because their deity somehow sanctions it." We were accused of "lying about evolution" at The Question Evolution Project by this Page owner, but again, never gave an example of the alleged lying. Here, not only abusive ad hominem attacks, but question-begging epithets, prejudicial conjecture, and the ubiquitous straw man arguments; no attempt at justifying the risible claim that God sanctions evil. But this hypocrite also said that lying is not wrong, so where does he have any business complaining about alleged lies and such? Atheistic "morality" and "logic" in action.

"But Cowboy Bob, these examples are taken from one Page in particular! Aren't you using hasty generalization?"

One Page with a couple thousand followers, and I have not seen any atheists remark, "That is not cool. Be logical" or some such. What is seen here is a small sampling, and to continue would actually be redundant. I have seen the same kinds of things in many places. 

Recently on Twitter, I was pointing out the bigotry and logical fallacies of a vicious atheist and even provoked him a bit so he would reveal more of his nonsense. He eventually blocked me, but one guy commented, "Please don’t over-generalize atheists. I don’t want to be lumped in with him". Interesting how he and other atheists did not confront the angry atheist.

Even a cursory examination of forums and such like the Page we are considering reveals common elements of blind hatred toward God and Christians, antipathy toward biblical creationists (most likely because we uphold the foundations of the gospel message), and the rejection of honestly representing what Christians and creationists actually believe and teach. Their posts can be summed up with, "Nuh uh! Evolution is true, there is no God, and I'm smarter than you because atheism!" There are a few thinking atheists, but I lack belief that they want anything to do with types like this.

The irony meter is about to explode because people like this are full of hate, but they are inadvertently sharing messages of the gospel and Christian doctrine by sharing our posts.

While I believe that miracles happen because many atheists have indeed repented and turned to Jesus Christ for salvation, many are in a dangerous place. Specifically, when God gives them over (Romans 12:18-24) and essentially says, "Have it the way you want it". Their hearts are hardened beyond all hope. When encountering such hateful and irrational atheists, I suggest you find something else to do, such as learning what and why we believe, and why biblical creation science is important. Do not fear The Mighty Atheist™.



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

Labels