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

Monday, August 31, 2020

When Genesis Flood Models Collide

As stated before, scientists who ride for the biblical creation brand are like their counterparts in the secular science industry. Not only are they educated and credentialed, but are not always in lockstep when it comes to scientific models.

Once again we see that creation scientists, like their secular counterparts, have models to support their views. Linked here is a Feedback article on the Hydroplate Theory of the Genesis Flood.
Heavily modified from an image at Pixabay by Jeff Jacobs
One major difference between the camps is that biblical creationists believe that the Bible is true, but models will come and go. Secularists have been dishonest for money and prestige. There are a few scientific models for the Genesis Flood among creationists, but the two best known are Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and the Hydroplate Theory.

Some people passionately promote the Hydroplate Theory and consider it superior to Catastrophic Plate Tectonics. However, most creationists find serious flaws with it. If it is superior, then it would be the best of the worst — sort of like the nebular hypothesis for the formation of the solar system is bad, but the others fail even more. Most creationists believe the Hydroplate Theory fails in the light of scientific evidence.

One supporter of the Hydroplate Theory rather condescendingly wrote to Creation Ministries International and told them that if they gave it more support, he would donate to them. CMI wasn't having it.
Charles L. from the United States writes:
I’ve read Oard’s critique of the Hydroplate Theory and found that it did have some good points but it is the strongest theory there is. All others are ridiculous.
I was considering donating to you and will in the future if you guys give the Theory more analysis in regards to finding your own answers you have proposed and accept the theory as the leading theory, which it is.
CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:
To read the response and learn some Flood geology, click on "Hydroplate theory: the strongest theory?"

Saturday, August 29, 2020

Darwin Defenders Deny Science in Biosignatures

While I want to cut some slack to evolutionists who are locked into their paradigms and do not think creatively, the secular science industry is infested with science deniers. The atheistic naturalism narrative is more important than facts and real science.

Darwin's acolytes are determined to deny evidence for recent creation. They are even denying basic scientific facts regarding DNA and soft tissues.
Assembled with components from Clker clipart
More and more fossils are referred to in terms of exceptional preservation, revealing evolution-defying details (like the fully-formed complex trilobite eyes). Although there were indications that some fossils were not fully permineralized (such as the use of octopus ink), young earth evidence stormed the gates of evolutionism. All sorts of rescuing devices were utilized beyond reason; some things don't deteriorate (apparently if it is Darwin's will). Although there are soft tissues and such cropping up frequently (such in this recent duckbilled dinosaur dig), they are preserved through the "exceptional conditions" that must have been common. 

Now, thought the complex scientific process of Making Things Up™, the deterioration rates of DNA, soft tissues, and other biosignatures are actually used to give Papa Darwin his millions of years. Then his acolytes can light prayer candles and chant, "Blessed be!" Here is the first of two articles.
Yale paleontologists admit soft tissue is everywhere but try to use it as data for millions of years of evolution.
One of the biggest hoodwinks in paleontology is going on before our eyes. Soft tissue in dinosaur bones is prima facie evidence that dinosaurs did not live over 65 million years ago. All their biological material should have turned to stone long before then, and yet there it was, right under Mary Schweitzer’s microscope. . . Evolutionists tried every trick in the book to make those delicate proteins and apparent blood vessels and blood cells last for millions of years. First, they claimed it was contamination from modern organisms. Then, they hypothesized that cross-links with iron and other substances might stabilize the biological tissues for millions of years. It was only theoretical, of course, since one cannot watch what happens for millions of years.
To read the full article and be amazed at how scientists can deny real science, click on "Biosignatures Reveal Intact Soft Tissue Is Ubiquitous in Fossils". Then I hope you'll come back for the next interesting item.

As we saw in the article linked above, soft tissues are becoming increasingly common, and are preserved through odd miracles of evolution. This was belied when mammoth bones were found after having been frozen in a lake, but researchers put the spurs to excavation efforts so they didn't deteriorate! It is interesting that the last mammoths were supposedly inbreeding on Wrangel Island, but this discovery was a long haul away from there.

Still, the question remains: ice or not, how could mammoth remains remain intact over such a long time as secularists presuppose? These owlhoots keep on denying what should be obvious: the earth is nowhere near as old as they want it to be, it was created recently. Tampering with science and explaining away inconvenient evidence only makes them look silly.
Frozen mammoths have been found in abundance before; this one, with intact ligaments, was found in a lake.
Can ligaments withstand 10,000 years of exposure to the elements? Prior specimens of mammoths and other mammals were entombed in ice or permafrost. This one, being excavated as quickly as possible, is in water. The Associated Press story making the rounds says this:
Read the rest of this intriguing article by clicking on "Mammoth Ligaments Found in Siberian Lake".

Friday, August 28, 2020

Butterfly Wings and Big Raindrops

Imagine if you will a butterfly doing butterfly stuff on a nice sunny day. Suddenly, a cloudburst! Those drops of rain are mighty huge when compared to a butterfly. You might expect that it would be pummeled to the ground along with many others of its type. Not happening, Hoss.

Detailed research reveals that the Master Engineer equipped fragile butterfly wings to withstand the pummeling of raindrops.
Banded Orange Heliconian image credit: Pixnio / ulleo
With extreme magnification, it has been revealed that the Master Engineer has designed those delicate wings to take the punishment. Many factors must be in place so the insect can survive, but the best you'll get from Darwinists is along the lines of invoking the Stuff Happens Law. That's not science.
Okay, I admit most folks have probably not thought to ask this creation question. But a bigger question gets answered when we examine the fantastic butterfly features that counter the force of falling raindrops.
Butterfly wings are quite thin. How do these tiny creatures cope with raindrops that land at 22 miles per hour [35.41 KPH]? Cornell scientist Sunghwan Jung led a project that tested water drop impacts at real raindrop speeds. It turns out that special surface structures on butterfly wings manage the drop impacts, which Professor Jung compared to the force of bowling balls falling from the sky on humans!
How do these special surfaces manage killer raindrops?
It won't strain your brain to read the rest of the article. To continue, sink your proboscis into "Why Don't Raindrops Bomb Butterfly Wings?"


Thursday, August 27, 2020

Insect Parasites, Disease, and Creation

Biblical creationists must deal with questions about natural evils, including parasites and the diseases they transmit. The details of such things are very involved and many professing Christians are unable to provide adequate explanations. Evolutionists are also challenged.

Parasitic insects bite and many transmit disease. This is used as an argument against God the Creator, but creationists have some things to say about it.
Blackfly, Simulium damnosum, transmits river blindness
Credit:  CDC/ Dr. Jesse Hobbs (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Scoffers ask, "If there is a loving God, how could have have made such things?" These people are actually indulging in prejudicial conjecture and straw man arguments (in this case, the false "fixity of species" view). Not only are they disparaging the Creator's skill and integrity, but arguing from the worldview of atheistic naturalism. That is, if they honestly want an answer from a biblical creationist, they must allow us to argue from our worldview. Indeed, this is not an argument from science, but is actually theological and philosophical in nature.

The origins of such parasites and transmitted diseases are admittedly a challenge to creationists, but evolutionists also struggle with this. Phylogeny is not helpful, as it assumes evolution, uses circular reasoning, and shows similarities among organisms. Creationists also look for natural explanations but are not saddled with pleasing naturalists.

Linked below is a rather technical biology article on this subject. The author acknowledges that everything was perfect at the original creation of all things, but after the Fall (Adam and Eve sinned), things changed and went downhill. Mutations and variations occurred, ecologies changed, symbiotic relationships were formed, and more. Details of the workings of both diseases and three insects that carry them are presented.
Accounting for the presence of blood-sucking insects that transmit serious diseases is a challenging task. Propositions for the emergence of the malaria organism and filarial worms are suggested in this paper. It is argued that blood-sucking insects originally fed on nectar, honeydew, and perhaps other insects. Changes in gene expression conceivably led to utilization of pain-feeling animals as a ready source of nourishment for egg maturation, a function provided originally by mainly plant sources. Gene expression alterations, changes in insect vectoring of microbes, and their relationship with their hosts occurred after the Fall. It appears that as a result of such changes some benign or beneficial relationships were transformed into ones that caused harm.
You can read the rest (it is not short or casual) by clicking on "Destructive parasites: expressions of God’s creation?"

Wednesday, August 26, 2020

Heraclitus and the Eternal Universe

Heraclitus was one of the good ol' boys of ancient southern Greece. He drove a car with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof and yelled "whee-OOH!" a lot. Yeah, I know, it's usually pronounced CLY-tus, not CLEE-tus, but that's less conducive to word play. Anyway, why were (and are) Western people enamored with ancient Greek philosophers?

Although nobody knows what Heraclitus looked like,
here is a painting of him attributed to Johannes Moreelse from ca. 1625 
I'll allow that some of the ancient philosophies are interesting. For that matter, Socrates had a fascinating method. The Ptolemaic system of geocentrism (Earth does not move, everything orbits us) was favored by the scientific community and the Roman Catholic Church. Greek philosophy influenced some of the Church Fathers, and can be see in the writings of Augustine. (When Augustine's work had a revival of sorts, things he had right were used but other things had to be corrected.) As we have seen, evolutionism is an ancient Greek religion that has influenced many people throughout history, and the Bearded Buddha made it sciency. Getting back to 'Clitus the misanthrope, some mighty odd things were attributed to him.

It seems that although the Greeks valued philosophy and thinking, they were not very skilled at showing why they believed some things — a trait found in many modern Darwinists. Some incomplete observations were unduly extrapolated and arbitrary assertions were often made. Democritus believed that everything was composed of much smaller things, which seemed to be a lucky guess that was on the right track. 

Heraclitus taught that the basic material of the universe was fire. He also taught an eternal universe (a concept that should have been refuted by Bible-believing creationists throughout history). This is actually a legend, since there are no substantial works dating anywhere near the time he lived — unlike the abundance of reliable biblical manuscripts. The eternal universe is similar to the steady-state model that was dropped on the trail in favor of the Big Bang.
Greek philosopher Heraclitus was one of the first promoters of an eternal universe, which, sadly, found its way into Christian theology. The Bible tells a different story.
“If there were no sun, on account of the other stars it would be night.”
When I recently read this quote, I thought it sounded like something Yogi Berra might have said. However, the great New York Yankees catcher and manager didn’t say this. Rather, this nugget is from Heraclitus, an early 5th century BC Greek philosopher.
While Heraclitus is notable for many things, he is best known for his teaching that the world is in flux, or continually changing. To illustrate this, Heraclitus famously said, “No man ever steps in the same river twice.” Unfortunately, none of Heraclitus’ writings survive intact. We rely upon what others said about him, and in some cases, fragments of his writings, such as the quote above. Some scholars doubt that the phrase, “on account of the other stars,” was original to Heraclitus, being added by someone else later. If this is true, then the possible original quote (“If there were no sun it would be night”) sounds even more like a Yogi-ism.
To quote Yogi Berra, "You can observe a lot by just watching." In this case, you can learn a lot by observing the rest of the article at "Heraclitus: Original Proponent of the Eternal Universe". Also, the following video has some rough spots, but others  I found can possibly cure insomnia in just a few minutes, I'll go with this one:

Tuesday, August 25, 2020

Good Scientists were Poor Students?

There are some people who may have impressive academic credentials, but they lack the sense that God gave a goose. Is it untrue that institutions of higher learning are supposed to equip students to face the challenges of the future and to contribute to their fields?

It seems that in many cases, people who obtained degrees are mediocre scientists. However, many bad students had great impact in science.
Credit: Pexels / Polina Tankilevitch
Today's schools are indoctrination centers for profit. If the university gets the money (the most important part) and the student can correctly answer test questions and write a dissertation, they win the prize. Yes, this child is cynical. Today's institutions have "safe spaces" and try to protect hurt feelings instead of spurring students to meet and deal with confrontations and challenges. If any become scientists, I reckon they'll be mediocre at best but excel in promoting evolutionism.

More than once I have encountered people who have claimed to be scientists who  did not exhibit much skill in the use of logic. One on social media who was pronounced in Atheist Spectrum Disorder claimed to have a doctorate but I did not believe him. Others were convinced that he was being truthful in that instance. I maintained that he was one of many who paid the money and did the work to get his ownself gradjitated.

Originally, institutions of higher learning were made to promote the Christian faith and equip people to become pastors. Nowadays, they are centers of atheistic evolutionism. Many Christians who have been ill-equipped to refute such things have lost what little faith they brought with them.

There have been pioneers in medical and other sciences who were actually poor students in their times. (Although it is a myth that Albert Einstein was a bad student, he excelled in some areas and was a bit quirky.) A recent study showed that many of the great medical innovators of the past would not make it in modern schools. These people were mavericks and did not easily kowtow to the status quo. We can look ahead. How about hiring based on what they have in terms of skill, character, and so on instead of simply looking at their papers and pedigrees? It's inconceivable, but consider godly wisdom and the courageous mavericks doing biblical creation science!
Are we recruiting scientists the wrong way? It takes a lot more talent than the ability to memorize and pass exams.
. . .
. . .  scientists could shift their focus away from measuring ability based on how many hours a student has sat in a classroom chair, or how good they are at passing multiple-choice exams. Some people just have better natural ability and savvy than others. It’s called abductive reasoning, and many great scientists possessed it. They’re like the proverbial mechanic who just has a “knack” for observing a problem and knowing how to fix it. By contrast, a student can have spent years earning college credits yet not have the drive, character, or abductive sense to make a good scientist.
To read the rest of this very interesting article, click on "Bad Students Can Be Good Scientists". Below is a song in video format. It's by ApologetiX, "Come for Some" (wisdom), parody of "Cumbersome".

Monday, August 24, 2020

Plants in Fossil Record Frustrate Evolutionists

Purveyors of fish-to-florist evolution and their compadres in secular geology maintain that the fossil record is orderly, showing progressions from simple life forms to more complex. As we have seen many times, many fossils are recalcitrant to that notion. Take flowers, for example.

Fossilized flowers have been discovered in what paleontologists consider are the wrong places. Biblical creation science Genesis Flood models provide a better explanation.
Credit: StockSnap / Jeffrey Betts
It has been uncomfortably acknowledged that pollen has been found in "older" rock layers — where it shouldn't be according to evolutionary paradigms. They cannot explain the origin of flowering plants, nor the puzzle of why they are in Early Cretaceous layers. Since biblical creation science Flood models are better explanations of many things that thwart evolutionists, let's see if creationist speculations are more reasonable.
A new study published in Nature Ecology & Evolution has claimed that flowering plants, the most common type of plant on Earth, first appeared in small numbers in rocks of the Early Cretaceous. Fossils indicate that these plants became extremely abundant in rocks of the post-Cretaceous (or Cenozoic) after the dinosaurs disappeared in the rock record. However, creation scientists interpret these findings much differently. We realize these fossil plants merely record the order of burial in the global Flood.
To read the rest, you can click on "Sudden Appearance of Flowering Plants Fit Flood Model".

Saturday, August 22, 2020

Phylogenetics — Based on Worldviews

Coming to you from a haunted abandoned military hospital in Germany. I will leave and stop haunting it later. Unfortunately, muck-to-materialist evolution philosophies are still haunting the halls of academia and secular science.  One glaring example is the use of phylogenetics.

One attempt to prove evolution is based on phylogeny, the tree of life, and the universal common ancestor. The entire process defies logic and science.
Made at Add Letters, then modified
Phylogenetics is — 

"Was phylogenetics named after Philo Beddoe, Cowboy Bob?"

No, that was a character in a couple of Clint Eastwood movies.

Moving on...

Phylogenetics is a part of phylogeny, which is the assumed evolutionary history of living things. People who follow the origins controversy have probably heard of phylogenetic trees that illustrate how organisms diverged from a LUCA, Last Universal Common Ancestor.  Some evolutionists admit that not only is evolution historical science (not empirical science), but that philogenetics involves selecting data that fit their worldview and ignoring others. This is circular reasoning and preferences to support the naturalistic narrative to deny the Creator his rightful place.
The history of phylogenetics and its uses has been quite contentious. Many illogical arguments have been presented alongside a few more sensible ones. It is helpful to have an idea about what is presented, both good and bad, so that each can be logically refuted. Thus, this article contains a sampling of a wide range of arguments that evolutionists have used. The overarching idea, however, is that evolution predicts a nested hierarchy of life, with extant taxa continuous or discontinuous depending on their relationships. Because phylogenies are performed under the assumption that similarity is equivalent with ancestry, similarity and ancestry are interpreted accordingly. The methodology itself can be used by creationists, as long as all similarity is not assumed to be the result of ancestry but could rather the possible result of a common Designer.
To read the rest of this informative and rather startling article, click on "Phylogenetics".

Friday, August 21, 2020

Recent Volcanic Activity on Venus

Volcanic activity on Venus has been suspected for a while,  which may dislodge Earth from its position as the only planet that is currently active.  There are moons showing volcanic activity and others that are suspect. While Venusian volcanism does not threaten old cosmos paradigms, this and other factors make secularists mighty uncomfortable.

Further research indicates that Venus is not only volcanically active, but far more recently than is pleasing to secular scientists. Indications of recent creation are troubling to them.
Credits: NASA, JPL-Caltech, ESA, Venus Express: VIRTIS, USRA, LPI
The evidence is indirect. Scientists saw indications of prior activity, but it's hotter than the hubs of Hades. Space probes from the former Soviet Union landed there, but they didn't last long. It involves models based on images from more recent spacecraft. Some researchers are saying that the lava flows are several years old — not several million or billion Darwin years old.

A big problem for secularists is that this indicates plate tectonics on Venus. Creationists agree with their secular counterparts that plate tectonics exists, but they do not have an explanation for how it commenced; they get on the prod when reminded that creation science has an explanation for how it happened.

Secularists invoke catastrophism (the opposite of their cherished slow 'n' gradual uniformitarianism) when it suits them. When that "c" word was mentioned, it was considered controversial. No kidding? Real controversy would erupt (heh!) if someone admitted that the evidence indicates recent creation, not cosmic evolution.
If new indirect observations are correct, Venus is an active planet today with huge volcanoes.
The number of “active bodies” in our solar system is an exclusive club. Earth, of course, has volcanoes. So does Io, Jupiter’s innermost large moon. Enceladus, a small moon of Saturn, pours out icy eruptions from large cracks at its south pole. And Triton, Neptune’s large moon, was seen erupting geysers of dirty nitrogen at Voyager 2’s flyby in 1989. More evidence will be needed to establish whether Europa (at Jupiter), Titan (at Saturn), and a few other candidates, are currently active. 
. . . 
Since the Magellan spacecraft mapped the surface of Venus with radar, it was known that Venus possessed volcanic terrains. Some of its “coronae” (the name given to large, circular features) are much larger than the Earth’s volcanoes. What was not known is whether they are still erupting today. It’s been hard to tell due to the thick, cloudy atmosphere. Now, scientists think they have the smoking gun evidence.
. . .
The scientists admit that this should not be happening on a planet without plate tectonics. The press release says,
To read all of this hot article, click on "Venus is Erupting". A related article is also worth considering, "Venus May Be Geologically Active".

Thursday, August 20, 2020

Beluga Whales Defy Evolutionary Socializing Concepts

These denizens of Arctic and sub-Arctic waters are showing that another evolutionary prediction regarding how they are supposed to bond is false. They are also known to spend time with others who are not so close in genetic terms.

Darwinists believe that creatures associate with their closest relatives, ignoring the fact that our Creator likes diversity. Belugas are refuting a Darwinian concept.
Cropped from  Unsplash / Mendar Bouchali
The predictions of Darwinists would have them being with their kinfolk most of all, but our Creator gave variety to his creatures who are not subject to the speculations of secularists. Mayhaps if they'd take off their Darwin spectacles and conduct observations  on these interesting and social mammals without faulty presuppositions, they could do better science work.
Beluga whales don’t select their friends according to what Darwinists would expect, a new Florida Atlantic University study shows. The research findings are taken from ten Arctic beluga whale ranges, including Alaska’s Yakutat Bay, Cook Inlet, Norton Sound, Canada’s Husky Lakes, Russia’s Gulf of Anadyr, and a small population by Norway’s Svalbard.
. . . 
Darwinists routinely assume that animals prioritize befriending and bonding with those whose genetic identities are closest, because Darwinists assume that animal friendships are ultimately “selfish” and aimed at preserving common genes at the populational reproductive level.
To read the full article, click on "Belugas Select Friends Who Aren’t Close Kin". Whale meat again tomorrow.

Wednesday, August 19, 2020

Evolutionists Misrepresenting Biblical Creationists — Part 3

In the previous post on this subject, we saw how Darwin devotee David MacMillan was caught overtly misrepresenting creationist Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson. Instead of admitting and learning, MacMillan doubled down. Acting like atheists many of us have seen, he continued to devastate his credibility.

Evolutionist David MacMillan was caught repeatedly misrepresenting creation science, including moving the goalposts. The endgame is conclusive.
Credits: Original Image from Freeimages / Carol Lam, added clipart from Clker
Although fish-to-philosopher evolution is not falsifiable in and of itself and has made few significant predictions, somehow MacMillan requires them from creationists.  However, despite the dishonesty of atheists and evolutionists, creationists have indeed made predictions, some of which are discussed here, and many others here. MacMillan made false statements about Jeanson's predictions,  used ad hominem attacks, indulged in moving the goalposts, and insisted that he was in the right while Jeanson was wrong. Even though MacMillan made demonstrably false statements, he turned the volume to eleven and rejected the evidence against him. Atheists and evolutionists frequently demand proof or evidence, then find excuses to reject it when it's given.  So often, they are so intent on negating the truth of creationists that they actually help prove us right.
In 2017, I published a book, Replacing Darwin, that provided exactly what the mainstream scientific and legal community has been demanding for 40 years—testable, falsifiable predictions that future experiments could reveal to be true or false.
. . .
However, a small group of young-earth creation (YEC) critics has attempted to rebut the latest arguments from YEC advocates, including the arguments in the papers that my colleagues and I have published. Their criticisms are significant for two reasons. First, they represent a group of YEC critics that are purportedly aware of the YEC technical scientific literature, yet still reject YEC science. If true, this would represent an argument against my thesis that scientists reject YEC because they are prevented from being exposed to it. Second, they have taken specific aim at the fact that we have published testable, falsifiable predictions.
Although I wish he would stop using "YEC" (many of us prefer biblical creation), this is worth your time and consideration. To read the full article, click on "When Evolutionists Help Creationists Make Their Case, Part 3". Also, there are several videos available on YouTube that are about an hour long. For this subject, search for "Nathaniel Jeanson" (use the quote marks) and add the word predictions and you'll have quite a few to choose from.

Tuesday, August 18, 2020

SETI Shutdown and Feral Faith

We have seen that SETI is committed, using materialistic and evolutionary presuppositions, to finding signs of alien intelligence in the universe using radio signals. Although universal common descent evolution is shambolic, somehow finding ET phoning from home would validate evolution.

One part of SETI has given up on listening in on ET phoning from home. Their entire premise is fundamentally flawed.
Credits: Modified from Clker Clipart and
an image from NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Atheistic naturalism has metastasized throughout many sciences and in academia, and evolutionists have even created their own pseudoscience called astrobiology. (How they can call something a science when nothing actually exists to study is beyond me.) Some secularists hold to the bizarre belief of panspermiawhere life was seeded on Earth, one way or another, from outer space. 

Aliens refusing to contact Earth

You people want evidence of a higher intelligence from beyond this here planet of ours? Take a look at DNA. Our Creator made that, and it's clear evidence of his superior intelligence. Meanwhile, SETI organization continue to spend lotsa grotzits on wishful thinking while pretending that they are doing real science.
After two decades of crowdsourced research, the innovative SETI@home project is being closed down. For those not familiar with SETI, its name is an abbreviation for The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. For almost 60 years, they have used massive telescope arrays to search for signals of extraterrestrial life. Under various projects, they have been scanning millions of radio frequencies during this time. But they have yet to find a single coded message from space.
The SETI@home project outsourced computing power to home users by persuading them to analyze large volumes of raw data in hopes of finding information-containing radio signals from space.1 Think: eavesdropping on “ET phoning home.” According to them, “Scientifically, we’re at the point of diminishing returns; basically, we’ve analyzed all the data we need for now.”
You can read the rest by blasting off for "SETI@home project closing down".

Monday, August 17, 2020

Fossil Storytime with the Friends of Papa Darwin

Regular readers know that biblical creationists encourage people to think for themselves instead of accepting any pronouncement as scientific fact. As we have seen many times, observed evidence is interpreted according to worldviews. Further, many "explanations" are actually just-so stories.

Papa Darwin has friends that like to tell stories. Today we have stories from secularists about fossils and amber.
Image credit: Freeimages / Edwin Pijpe
Paleontologists and other scientists commence to doing some interesting research, but contaminate it with their naturalistic narrative. It's almost like watching Adrian Monk say, "Here's what happened". Secularists are not telling us what happened, nothing actually scientific and verifiable, but historical fictions instead. The article linked below has discussions about narratives regarding insects in amber, huge penguins of the past, and others. In their zeal to promote Darwinism and reject Creation, some of them even contradict themselves.
Look at the fossil evidence presented here, and ask if the Darwinian stories told about them make any sense.
When a theory becomes a truism, scientists stop thinking about it. They simply refer to it as accepted truth, even if the evidence contradicts the theory. . .
Today we have Darwinism and natural selection serving as truisms. Darwinism is the lens through which everything is viewed by Big Science and Big Media. If you can back away from the Darwin fogma and look at the evidence of the following fossils with unbiased eyes, would you accept what the Darwinians are saying about them? Would you really believe the fossils are tens of millions of years old? It may be difficult to do this, but try hard to just look at the evidence without any prior story about how old they are, what they had evolved from, and what they were evolving to become. Look at them as they just present themselves to your own eyes.
 To dig into the good stuff, click on "Evolutionists Mangle Fossils with Preposterous Stories". You'll thank me later.

Saturday, August 15, 2020

Seasoning Secular Geology at the Salt Range

Betcha never heard of the Salt Range over yonder in Pakistan. Me, neither, until I read the article linked below. Although it is not expensive now, it was valuable way back in the old days. This area of plentiful salt deposits had some Darwinist geologists ready to slap leather with each other over the equivalent of Precambrian rabbits.

Fossils in the wrong places have caused heated arguments among secular scientists. Those at the Salt Range support the Genesis Flood models.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Khalid Mahmood
"Why did you mention Precambrian rabbits, Cowboy Bob?"

Oh, you know. Evolutionists have said that if a rabbit was found in the Precambrian layer (which only exists in textbooks and imaginations, not reality), it would falsify evolution. According to their belief system, the fossil record is orderly, from simple to complex, and a rabbit would be too complex to be found in the Precambrian layer. But evolution is malleable — pliable — flexible — so it has no real explanatory value.

If evolution were actual science instead of a materialistic philosophy, it would have been abandoned long ago. Not only are there constant refutations and the exposing of fake news, but fossils have been found "out of order" or in the "wrong place" numerous times, supporting biblical creation science Genesis Flood models. What is a secularist to do? Why, twirl the spinnie-do thing on the Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™ to determine a course of action. The usual answer is make excuses, use bad science, and attack people who have contrary evidence. If they put nearly as much work into doing actual science as they give to denying the Creator, they may obtain productive employment.
In the raging debate between creationists and evolutionists, one buzzword has repeatedly been employed: the ‘Precambrian rabbit’. Evolutionist Dr. J.B.S. Haldane reportedly said that finding a rabbit in the Precambrian would convince him that evolution was false–an attitude also shared by famous atheist Richard Dawkins. This canard has been repeated since then by just about every evolutionist who has ever argued with a creationist. Bill Nye, in his debate with Ken Ham, also suggested that finding out of order fossils would be a problem for evolution.
Its relevance is that creationists often point out the circularity and non-falsifiability of evolutionary theory: all potential finds can be explained (or at least accommodated) by the Darwinian paradigm. This illustrates the fact that Darwinism is not empirical science, but rather a philosophical starting point that is being assumed from the outset, and from which all available data are always interpreted.
Furthermore, finds matching exactly this description have been found (and summarily dismissed) on more than one occasion. The following is a highly interesting case in point.
You can hop on over to "The Salt Range saga" for the rest of the article (or click here for the audio version in video format). Also, you may be interested in "Precambrian Rabbit Season".

Friday, August 14, 2020

You were Born an Animal, So Act Like One

Classification systems are useful, but they can also be misleading. According to biological systems, we are animals. Darwinists parade this prize pony around the corral every chance they get, despising the fact that despite some similarities, humans were created separately and are distinctly different from critters. According to some of them, we may as well act the part.

Darwinists are insulting, and here are some offerings with double standards, bad logic, and overall fake science. Thinking people should be insulted.
If you think this poetry is bad, check out the evolutionary "science"
However, the tenets of evolutionary dogma are conflicting, and many of the lab-coated priests rely on the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™. Quite a few of them have no idea what they're doing, disunderstanding both science and evolutionism. Two standards, no waiting. Thinking people should be insulted when confronted with these things in the name of science.

Since we are related to apes, should we act like them when solving disputes? Some say yes, but that would mean not only screaming, but cannibalism, gang rape, and stomping young 'uns to death. People who are accused of rejecting certain information about the Wuhan Flu can say it's because we're born that way. Meanwhile, their own "science" doesn't apply to them when they reject biblical creation science because of their a priori dedication to naturalism. Fossilized jawed fish from millions of Darwin years ago had teeth. Therefore (using the logic on their planet), since we evolved from fish, we have teeth.

These and other observations can be found at "You Animal You: How Darwin Hardwired Humans". Also recommended (although it is long but has a great deal of useful information), "Differences Between Humans and Apes".

Thursday, August 13, 2020

Soft Dinosaur Eggs Problematic for Bird Evolution

Many but not all Darwinists believe that birds evolved into dinosaurs. That concept is an assertion based on evolutionary presuppositions, not empirical science, old son. But the hands at the Darwin Ranch are all a-twitter over the discovery of soft dinosaur eggs.

Many evolutionists believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Additional evidence that this is not true has been discovered regarding dinosaur eggs, and it supports biblical creation science.
Fossilized dinosaur eggs at Indroda Fossil Park
Image credit: Wikimedia Commons / S. Ballal (CC by-SA 3.0)
Since there is no evidence for dinosaur evolution (faith-based assertions are not evidence), their alleged history can be easily rewritten. Apparently different dinosaurs laid different kinds of eggs. A new discovery shows that some eggs were not like those of birds, and another egg discovered in Antarctica causes further difficulties. Also, the discoveries support claims of biblical creation science. Despite forcing the hands at the Darwin Ranch to put in overtime at the excuse mill, all they can come up with is the louche explanation akin to "it evolved" several times. Not hardly!
A pair of new studies found that some dinosaurs, and possibly some marine reptiles, laid squishy eggs. One study discovered that many dinosaurs, like turtles and snakes, laid soft leather-like eggs—not hard-shelled eggs like most birds. A second study found a massive leathery egg about the size of a football in Cretaceous sediments in Antarctica. However, they think it was from a marine reptile and not a dinosaur.
Until these discoveries, it was believed that most dinosaurs laid hard-shelled eggs, similar to birds. In fact, most theropod dinosaurs (meat-eaters) and duck-billed dinosaurs (hadrosaurs) did lay hard-shelled eggs, and possibly some long-necked dinosaurs (sauropods) too.
To break into the rest of the article, click on "Soft Dinosaur Eggs Deflate Bird-Dinosaur Evolution". You may also be interested in "Dinosaur Eggs and Challenges to the Genesis Flood".

Wednesday, August 12, 2020

Evolutionists Misrepresenting Biblical Creationists — Part 2

In Part 1 of this three-part series, we saw that theistic evolutionists took Nathaniel T. Jeanson, author of Replacing Darwin, to task. These TEs are clearly more devoted to their promotion of minerals-to-mooncalf evolution. Instead of admitting their folly, one doubles down on his dishonesty.

After misrepresenting Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson and being caught, an evolutionist doubled down with blatant falsehoods and acting like an atheist.
Weasels illustration by John W. Audubon, ca. 1846
To be intellectually honest in a debate or when attempting to refute the position that someone else has taken, it is necessary to have an accurate working knowledge of an opponent's position. This helps to prevent unintentional misrepresentation. Unfortunately, people misrepresent others deliberately when they want to promote a certain worldview — especially among evolutionists and atheists. As I keep saying, ignoring the subject under discussion to attack the person or address something else does not exactly make you look good, you savvy that?

Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
The screenshot above is from someone who consistently misrepresents God, the Bible, Christians, biblical creationists, and anyone else she dislikes. This tinhorn was blocked from The Question Evolution Project for arbitrary assertions, blatant misrepresentation, abusive ad hominem attacks, lying, and being incoherent. (When caught lying, she doubles down by lying more and attacking the person who caught her.) In fact, I have never seen anyone on that Page accurately represent people, arguments, evidence, etc.

It gets mighty difficult to tell theistic evolutionists and others who ride for the Old Earth brand apart from atheists. Dr. Jeanson had responses to the TEs, and one in particular has doubled down (which is typical of many atheists) with denying, misrepresenting, omitting important facts — and then accusing Nathaniel of not only misrepresenting the TE side, but spinning some falsehoods to denigrate Nathaniel. Atheists and evolutionists frequently change the subject and attack, but the attacker here has put the spurs to his incoherent (yes, that word means what I think it means) argument and is proceeding toward the cliff at full gallop.
Why do so many professional scientists (i.e., around 98% of PhDs) accept evolution and reject young-earth creation (YEC)? I have observed that most scientists are not exposed to YEC science due to the legal restrictions in the US educational system. Therefore, their rejection of YEC becomes almost meaningless. How can someone deny an idea that they’ve never engaged?
I also showed, with examples, that when a small minority of mainstream scientists are exposed to technical YEC claims, “they appear to prefer ignorance of the key scientific details.”
In extreme cases, a far more troubling explanation applies.
You can read the rest by clicking on "When Evolutionists Help Creationists Make Their Case, Part 2". For some related material on theistic evolutionists (useful whether or not you have read his books), see "Denis Alexander’s hermeneutics: heretical, horrible, and harmful".

Tuesday, August 11, 2020

Random Mutations and the Big Secret of Evolutionism

One of the tenets of particles-to-pathologist evolution is that it has no purpose, despite the way its adherents treat Evolution and Natural Selection as if they were entities that could make decisions. Some treat them as intangible forces. Then random mutations are added.

To promote the mythology of evolutionism, its adherents are being deceptive. They say random mutations but do not really mean it.
It appears that this was mostly made at Atom Smasher
However, it appears that mutations are not quite as random as we've been led to believe. Oh, sure, Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ are uninformed about the mythology they promote, but there are evolutionists who are actually spreading misinformation — random doesn't exactly mean random.

Digging deeper, most mutations are harmful or neutral. Neutral mutations are so small that the gibbering god of Natural Selection overlooks them. Also the accumulation of mutations on a small level cannot lead to upward evolution. Lateral changes, yeah, that happens. Darwinoids are deceptive and dealing from the bottom of the deck. Anything to deny the Creator, you know.
For nearly a hundred years, evolutionists have been operating under the paradigm that is known as the “Neo-Darwinian Synthesis”, also known as the “Modern Synthesis”. This view has repeatedly been summarized as ‘natural selection working upon random mutations’. I have taken the liberty of adding emphasis in the quotes below to show you how common this language is.
. . .
There we have it! The use of the word “random” is (at least for some) a deliberate ploy to deceive people about the theory of evolution. Is that not what our science writer above has just admitted in writing? They don’t want us evil creationists to take the opportunity to point out all the problems that are inherent with this idea of non-random mutations. Well, too late, because now the cat is out of the bag. I’m going to sound the alarm about this major fundamental problem in evolution.
To read the rest of this startling and informative article, click on "Evolution’s well-kept secret: Mutations are not random!"

Monday, August 10, 2020

The Created Sea Cow

Sailors reported seeing mermaids, but those were written off as not only having been at sea too long, but they may very well have seen manatees, also called sea cows. If you think about them a mite, you can see that they are actually intricately designed by the Master Engineer.

Manatees are large peaceful creatures that have many features showing their design by the Master Engineer.
Credit: Unsplash / Maegan Luckiesh
Although they are gray, sometimes you'll see green algae growing on them. Seems a bit odd that sailors would mistake manatees for humans since they are rather large and spend most of their time submerged. Being mammals, they need to surface for air every few minutes. They are solitary for the most part. They eat plants, and were created to have a copious number of extremely sensitive whiskers for this task. Since they are sensitive to conditions, when algae go red tide, manatees are quick to get out of Dodge. Because the naturalism narrative is more important then reason, Darwin's acolytes tell us they evolved despite being considered related to the hyrax and elephants. Got evidence to go with those stories, Clarabelle?
Manatees are usually associated with Florida, yet these seafaring sirenians are known to migrate along the Atlantic seacoast, as far north as New York or Massachusetts, as well as along the Gulf of Mexico as far as Galveston Bay.

. . .

They frequently inhabit warm, oxygen-depleted, slow-moving coastal waters that contain parasites (including trematodes, coccidians, and nematodes), contagious viruses, plus opportunities for flesh injuries. For these reasons, the manatee’s immune system is impressively robust.
In fact, the manatee’s immune system has been studied to discover how it is generally so strong and efficient, yet has exceptional vulnerabilities.
To learn more about the sea cow, click on "Manatees Visit Warm Waters of North Carolina". Sound is optional on the video below, it's only music.