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

Wednesday, September 30, 2020

Sugarbag Bees and their Amazing Spiral Honeycombs

Many of us in sleek industrial societies consider it a bit of a thrill to gnaw on a chunk of actual honeycomb. We are familiar with rectangular chunks of the hexagonal cells, but the sugarbag bees kick it up several notches.

Evolutionists used faulty logic and poor research to compare the hives of sugarbag bees with crystals. Anything to deny credit to the Master Engineer and praise evolution.
Sugarbag bees doing regular bee stuff
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Graham Wise (CC BY 2.0)
These bees (say that three times fast...don't you feel silly now?) build very intricate structures. Interestingly, they forego the familiar hexagonal shape and comb style used by their buzzy brethren. Some owlhoots riding for the Darwin brand decided that since their combs resemble crystals, it could all happen by chance without the need of the Master Engineer. (Which is a fallacious, invalid comparison in the first place.) Of course, since the narrative is more important than genuine research, this fake news easily falls apart under examination.
Small, stingless bees of the species Tetragonula carbonaria, from Southeast Asia and Australia, are known to build nests with brood combs having the most ‘bee-autiful’, three-dimensional spiral shapes. These complex structures consist of four basic designs, stacked in 10–20 layers per nest: 1) bullseye-targets, 2) spirals, 3) double spirals, and 4) disordered terraces. Worker bees have been observed to construct new cells located at the edges of each expanding comb. The queen bee then lays an egg in each cell, which is provisioned with honey before it is closed, then the whole process is repeated. The results are some of the most complex designs for honeycombs known in the bee ‘kingdom’.
If you bee-hive yourself, you can read the rest at "How brilliant builder-bees create 3-D spiral honeycombs".

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

Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Paleontologists Dodging Important Ichthyosaur Questions

The hands at the Darwin Ranch get all a-twitter over discoveries in paleontology, but have a nasty habit of leaving important details laying in the rain by the bunkhouse door. A recent example involves an ichthyosaur that was fossilized during chow time.

Paleontologists studied an ichthyosaur fossil that was fossilized immediately after eating. They ignored very important questions that would have been inconvenient for their worldview.

Of course, they presuppose millions of Darwin years and use the old "fossilization takes a mighty long time" idea to try and hornswoggle people again. Perhaps the secularists didn't want to consider the implications of the neglected facts. Creationists know that the evidence doesn't support their deep-time notions, and have the unmitigated gall to think and ask questions. 

For example, if fossilization takes so long, why was the predator ichthyosaur unable to digest its prey even a little? Add this to other examples of extremely rapid fossilization and the increasingly-present soft tissues, and the evidence points to recent creation and the Genesis Flood.
Here is another example of an ichthyosaur that was buried rapidly. This one didn’t have time to digest its lunch.
Ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs are classes of extinct marine reptiles known only by fossils around the world. Some famous fossils on display show them in the process of eating or giving birth (see photo at Creation.com), indicating that they were buried almost instantaneously, surprising them in the acts of everyday life. Now another has been found with the undigested contents of another large animal in its stomach.
Read the rest by heading on over to "Fossil Marine Reptile Buried with Last Meal Intact".

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

Monday, September 28, 2020

Model Fails to Explain Origin of Plate Tectonics

There are several things on which secular and creation scientists agree, and one of these is plate tectonics. The disagreements come about regarding how the whole shebang started, the rapidity of early tectonic activity, and the age of the earth.

Secular scientists have a new model regarding plate tectonics, but they admit that it cannot explain how it began. The Genesis Flood models of creation science provide superior explanations.
Image credit: US Geological Survey (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
"But Cowboy Bob, they have a new model!"

Indeed. And that's how what we've tried to teach about rational thinking, presuppositions, and worldviews comes into play. The computer model, like any other, can only operate on the data that it is given. GIGO. Secular scientists used presuppositions based on their deep-time worldviews, and came up with a "what if" or "maybe" model.

Even so, it actually explains nothing about how plate tectonics originated and other factors in the process. Biblical creation science models provide superior explanations. Yes, they admit to using their presuppositions regarding the truth of Scripture and the Genesis Flood.
A new study published in Nature Communications claims to have figured out how the tectonic plates may have originated. It’s been over 50 years since the theory of plate tectonics became an accepted idea in the scientific community. But, secular scientists are still struggling to explain both the origin of the continental crust and the tectonic plates.
Earth is unique in our solar system because it is the only planet with tectonic plates. As far as we know, it may be the only planet in the universe to possess these features. This creates another conundrum that secular scientists also cannot explain: why is Earth so unusual?
To read the rest, slide on over to "Origin of Tectonic Plates Best Explained by the Flood". I reckon you'd also be interested in "The Beginning of Plate Tectonics".

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

Saturday, September 26, 2020

Examining the Scopes Trial Textbook

Way back in 1925, John Scopes of Dayton, Tennessee, was arrested and put on trial for allegedly teaching evolution. The whole thing was a set-up by the falsely-named American Civil Liberties Union to put creation on trial. Dr. Robert Carter investigated what was actually in the textbook, A Civic Biology, Presented in Problems by George W. Hunter.

#liar4darwin George William Hunter wrote the textbook that was a big part of the Scopes Trial.
Modified from an illustration in the textbook (public domain)
As mentioned, the case happened in 1925, but A Civic Biology was written in 1914. It was not only outdated, but loaded with evolutionary and secularist views. Some of the evolutionary material was deceitful (equivocating change with evolution, plus a passel of outright false statements). Scientific racism and eugenics are also included in the textbook.

George William Hunter wrote the textbook that was a big part of the Scopes Trial.
Public domain photo via Wikimedia Commons
There are a couple of things for which I would have liked to have seen references or further explanation. One is that the word Caucasian is outdated and no longer in use. Actually, it still has limited use for some classifications, but the correct word is simply white. I didn't know that, especially since I still am presented with check boxes on forms that include Caucasian as an option. (One fellow quipped that he is white but has no ancestry from the Caucasus Mountains.) The other part I would have liked documentation is about why the harmful “Jukes” and the “Kallikaks” stories.

This article is useful on a number of levels, including perspectives of science over a hundred years ago. We can trace the harmful effects of evolutionary thinking on societies, and must realize the truth of special creation and that man is created in God's image.
Hunter’s A Civic Biology was the textbook at the centre of the famous Scopes Monkey trial in 1925. The author, George William Hunter, was a college professor, prominent member of the ACLU, and a former high school teacher in New York City. The book was published in 1914 and had been adopted as the high school biology textbook by the state of Tennessee in 1919. By the time of the trial, it was more than a little outdated. The neighbouring state of Kentucky had adopted Hunter’s New Essentials in Biology in 1923. But Tennessee held back, letting its citizens re-use the older book and not have to buy new ones. The book included material on human evolution, which was not supposed to be taught in Tennessee schools due to the recently passed Butler Act. Even though teacher, John Scopes, had not taught anything about evolution, his use of the textbook became the catalyst for this landmark trial. Thus, the struggling little town of Dayton, which had shrunk from 4,000 to 1,500 people over recent years, became the epicenter of world events.
To read the rest, visit "A long-overdue review of Hunter’s A Civic Biology".

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

Friday, September 25, 2020

Secular Miracle Proposed for the Origin of Life

Secularists ridicule Christians and creationists for rejecting naturalism and believing in the Creator God of the Bible, then they believe in all sorts of fake miracles of their own design. This is increasingly common in origin of life scenarios.

Since atheistic evolutionists cannot scientifically account for the origin of life, sometimes it is necessary to make up a new fake miracle instead.
Mostly made at Glass Giant, which no longer appears to be functioning
Science, logic, the orderly universe, and more only make sense in the biblical worldview — beginning with Genesis 1:1. Materialists cannot account for these things. Ironically, many times knowledgeable creationists have to correct feckless mockers on their own mythology; they "know" we're wrong, but cannot provide cogent arguments for their positions.

Some anti-creationists claim that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, which is gelastic even on the surface. (Apparently textbook writers, evolutionists like David Attenborough, and others need to be informed that abiogenesis — chemical evolution — is irrelevant to the Bearded Buddha's ways.) To claim that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution is like saying that an internet connection has nothing to do the web. You can't go on the web if you cannot connect. Life cannot evolve if it didn't originate. In reality, the origin of life is bad medicine to secularists because they know it's impossible by their machinations. So, it's time for a miracle without God.
If a chance explosion created the universe out of nothing, maybe another ‘big bang’ created life, too.
A “radical new theory” for the origin of life, as presented by Michael Marshall at New Scientist, “rewrites the story of how life on Earth began.” It is so radical that it is nearly identical to a joke used by creationist speakers mocking evolution. One such speaker, showing the folly of evolution, would quip that a fully-assembled car was not designed; it just “oozed up out of the pavement.” He got a good laugh from the audience. Now, try to read what Marshall says without laughing – if you can:
Be sure to have a padded surface ready when your jaw drops while reading the rest of "Origin-of-Life Research Abandons Chemistry, Turns to Miracles". These owlhoots need to repent and seek the source of true miracles — including salvation and new life.

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

Thursday, September 24, 2020

Caring for Ugly Critters

Someone pointed out that there are campaigns to save the more attractive and cute things, but those we consider unattractive tend to be neglected. While the following material is targeted toward creationists, there are principles that can be useful to unbelievers as well.

People are willing to save the cute things, but living things we consider ugly or nuisances have their place in the creative order.
Cute Frenchie being cute ("Frenchie" because of the beret-like black patch)
When I post material about unattractive critters, I often put remarks about putting aside personal distaste and appreciating how things were designed by the Master Engineer. Indeed, God created things for a purpose. (Creationists recognize that they were changed by the Fall of man.) So often, people make statements or have prejudices from personal preferences and lack of information. Get the bigger picture. 

My wife cares for me, keeps me fed and watered, even though I am in no wise a handsome gent. So I got that going for me, which is nice.

Suppose you were on a camping trip and wished that all mosquitoes would drop dead. Bada bing, wish granted! You just punished the mosquitoes that have no interest in piercing your hide. Worse than that, a chain reaction affecting ecosystems was put into play that could be catastrophic for other living things. Atheist communist dictator Mao put a bounty on sparrows and had many killed, but the results contributed to a great famine.

Christians are to follow what is commonly called the dominion mandate, Genesis 1:28. That means we have to care for and manage creation with wisdom, not brutality or in a cavalier manner. Even anti-creationists (if you can find any that are honest) and other environmentalists could agree with that.
Ugly, worthless, annoying—does our opinion of some creatures reflect the Creator’s care or do we need an attitude adjustment?
. . .
But what does God think of his creation? Genesis 1:31 says, “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (emphasis added). You might say, “That was before the fall. Now it’s all twisted by the curse, and certain critters I’ve deemed more distorted are worthy of my complete loathing.”
Yes, the world is twisted, and the original created kinds have generated some species with loathsome features and behaviors. But remember, Noah built the ark after the fall. God told him to bring on board all kinds of terrestrial creatures “to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth” (Genesis 7:3). This means that the ancestors of the animals on our “hate list” were deliberately saved from annihilation by God’s command.
To read this enlightening article, follow the link to "Caring Past Our Prejudice".

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

Wednesday, September 23, 2020

Recalibrating Radiocarbon Dating

Once in a while, the unwashed masses get a glimpse into the workings of the secular science industry. Radiocarbon dating is not a closely guarded secret, but people tend to assume that scientists do not make assumptions. That is false. A new calibration for carbon-14 was proposed. To quote Nuke, "It did not go well".

Carbon-14 dating methods rely on many assumptions, and a new method of calibration is being met with skepticism.
Modified from an image at Pexels by Francesco De tommaso
Radiocarbon dating has many variables, and there have been discrepancies between historical records and the presupposition-based dating methods. It's not just creationists who have pointed this out for a mighty long time, secular scientists know it as well. (Biblical creationists have postulated that there were many changes to affect dating results during the Genesis Flood, which have been supported by evidence.) The new method is going to cause consternation and have a kind of ripple effect for established and new results.
The latest calibration curve for radiocarbon dating is raising eyebrows. Will it upset what is “known” about the past?
Sometimes “new and improved” is welcome news. For example, the Hubble Space Telescope improved the resolution of faint objects compared to ground-based telescopes tremendously. Without controversy, it has dazzled the world with the beauty of astronomical objects. Other times, though, “new and improved” suggests that what came before was bad. And sometimes one doesn’t want a “new and improved” version of something, like the standard kilogram or meter, because it throws off trusted measurements made prior to the change. Well, now we have a new calibration curve for radiocarbon dating, also called carbon-14 dating. What might be the reaction of scientists and observers to this change?
To can read the rest of the article at "Radiocarbon Calibration Is Stretchy".

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

Tuesday, September 22, 2020

Further Feathered Dinosaur Foolishness

We have seen time and again that apparatchiks for the Darwin Party promote evolution despite evidence, not because of it. It would take a wagon train full of changes to change dinosaurs into birds, and that is not found. Sometimes they refute themselves, as in this study regarding feathers.

In their desperation to spread the myth that dinosaurs evolved into birds, researchers found information  about feathers that refute their beliefs.
Credit: Pexels / Jan Kopřiva
There are major anatomical differences between birds and dinosaurs, including skeletal structures, breathing — and feathers. Indeed, feathers are actually quite complex and indicate the craftsmanship of the Master Engineer. He even planned for birds that fly to molt in a specific manner, but non-flying birds don't pay that no nevermind. A fossil called Microraptor was examined and put a burr under the saddles of researchers.

It has characteristics of a unique bird, but since the narrative has logic and science flying out the window, it is considered a feathered dinosaur. With none of the characteristics. Bad news for those who believe in dinosaur-to-bird evolution, what was found gives further indication that it was a bird. Evolving into something else? Nope. The Creator didn't put that in the plan.
Is a dinosaur still a dinosaur if it has flight feathers? A new study points to some fascinating evidence that contradicts the idea of feathered dinosaurs and confirms created kinds.
It’s no secret that birds fly in order to, among other reasons, get food and avoid becoming food. For that, they must have their feathers arranged in good order. But feathers wear out. If birds replaced their feathers haphazardly, for example, too many feathers shed from one wing and not the other, then they would lose control in flight—with lethal consequences. Therefore, many flying birds molt—replace their feathers—in a specific sequence. New research has identified evidence of this sequential molting in a so-called “feathered” dinosaur.
To read what all the squawking is about, head on over to "New Evidence Hurts Feathered Dinosaur Theory". You may also like to see, "Grave News for Dino-Bird Fossil Report".

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

Monday, September 21, 2020

The Stench of Life on Venus?

There was a time when, with scant knowledge of Venus, people fantasized about it being a sort of paradise. That was spoiled by increases in science and technology; no life could exist there. Now because Venus stinks, there must be life there.

Secular scientists, desperate to find life elsewhere in the universe to justify evolution, are excited about possible stinky organic compounds in the clouds of Venus.
Idunn Mons on Venus image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / ESA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
I heard it said of Venus, "Baby, she's got it!" Not a chance. If you're into extreme heat and pressure, clouds of sulfuric acid, volcanoes, a day there is almost as long as an Earth year, and other things that make it low on recommended lists of vacation spots, have a nice trip. Scientists are excited because the toxic, odoriferous gas known as phosphine may have been detected in its clouds, and as far as we know, it is given off by living things.

So, life on Venus is the only possible explanation? Must be something interesting to survive all those other conditions, huh? Of course, it would need something on which to feed. Not much evidence here, and mayhaps these jaspers are so anxious to get fame and funding that they are willing to argue from ignorance again.

This child is thinking of the humiliations of secular scientists who decided certain parts of our DNA were "junk", but it turned out that our Creator was shown to be right again — it is not junk. Wouldn't surprise me if their extrapolation from a little bit of tenuous information about Venus into the idea that the universe could be full of life is unwarranted; the pseudoscience of astrobiology needs something to prop up the funding, you know. But Darwinists need to find other intelligent life in the universe to justify evolution.

As a side note, if there actually were microbes elsewhere in the universe, so what? It is unlikely to affect the theology of biblical creationists, and would also raise questions about contamination from Earth. After all, meteorites from Mars have been found in Antarctica, so such an idea is not outlandish.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, scientists like to say. One smelly molecule is not enough to claim life.
The whole business of astrobiology is to find life in space. . . . The current flashy story buzzing around the Big Science News concerns a putative biomarker in the clouds of Venus. This time, though, the believers are saying that the researchers tried really hard to rule out non-biological causes. One of them concludes, with Sherlock Holmes, that “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” But is that the case? There are always unknown unknowns that can mislead experts.
To be amazed at some weak science and guesswork, click on "Extraordinary Claim: Life on Venus?" The video below is short and interesting, but the line about studying Venus would help us understand Earth's future is possibly a silly nod to global warming. So, who caused that, pilgrim?

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

Saturday, September 19, 2020

Free Money and Evolutionary Authority?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Howdy. Time for one of my more unusual articles. Although I dislike to spoil the surprise, the video that inspired this article is a joke. No, I am not denigrating the quality, but saying it really is a joke. The way my mind works, I saw what ThioJoe did and was inspired to connect it with appeals to the dubious authority of Darwinists.

An unusual article inspired by a joke video about free money, then illustrating dubious evolutionary authority.
Taken from public domain images here and here, then heavily modified
While Joe's YouTube channel has many helpful and interesting technology-related videos (such as this one), he also has a playful streak. Most of his pranks have notes in their descriptions (this one does not, apparently he expects viewers to have a few brain cells), others caused me to take notes. Mayhaps he'll do a video on blogging sites since I'm fed up with this one.

Since the spoiler is out, let's commence to discussing this here video.

The US Federal Reserve has a secret: you can get free money from them. Of course, it's in uncut sheets, so y'all have to cut them out your ownselves. Joe tells us this is legal, and the government wants us to get our free money to stimulate the economy. Since all the world banks work together, you don't have to be a United States citizen to get money for nothing and your kicks for free. Once people catch on this free money will probably stop.

Joe shows us the email address needed as well as a link, and provides us with a suggested letter as a template for making your request. Later, you are to receive an priority mail envelope with your free money and a letter from Donald "The Donald" Trump. You can even ask for more money! Was it a satire on government programs? I doubt it.

"Sure Cowboy Bob, ThioJoe sounds like a smart and a fun guy, but how does this have anything to do with your primary calling for this blog?"

Rein in your horsie, Horatio. I'll get to that directly.

The video appeals to people on several levels, one of which is greed. Wouldn't you take free money as long as it was entirely legal, or at least be curious about it? You betcha. Also, I think that pride is a factor because it involves secret knowledge that will make you special and above the herd. Joe also speaks with authority, even though he has none in this area. People respond to authority.

There are some true things here as well. The link to the US Mint is real, and they actually sell sheets of uncut money. I'm not going to play with the email address he uses, but is certainly looks real enough. And he most certainly does speak with confidence. Plus his credibility with other technology videos, yee ha boy howdy, you should trust him!

It's time to plug this into the evolution analogy socket and see if it lights up.


People tend to believe evolutionary scientists without using healthy skepticism and asking, "What is the basis for your claims?" We have seen a prairie schooner-full of incomplete research, circular reasoning, and other lousy logic presented as science. Evolutionary scientists are authorities in their areas of study, but that doesn't mean that they are right — especially when making assertions about historical science. Some of these researchers do indeed conduct actual science, then use unwarranted extrapolations.

But hey, these authorities seem credible, and we can be part of the elite by "knowing" things that set us apart and make us feel special about ourselves. Unfortunately, the secular science industry is using their influence to not only deny the truth of our Creator and prop up Darwinian myths, but support leftist causes while pretending those things are based in actual science. Add to this the slick presentations in videos and in museums, and the propaganda value is acceptable to our senses.

ThioJoe may not appreciate my using his material for this comparison (again, he does good work and the free money video is excellent), but in the bigger picture about origins and even other claims we encounter in our daily lives may bring this article to your minds later on. Biblical creationists try to tell people how to think, while secularists tell people what to think.

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

Friday, September 18, 2020

Historical Science and Secular Rescuing Devices

Although they typical denizen of social media with atheism spectrum disorder pretends that the distinction between historical and operational science was invented by biblical creationists for the purpose of deceiving people into believing in our holy and righteous Creator, that is the opposite of the truth.

Some evolutionists try to make historical science equal to operational science, then confuse the issues with bad logic.
Credit: US Bureau of Labor Statistics
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Historical science is forensic by nature, attempting to reconstruct events of the past with tools and procedures available in the present. However, it is mighty difficult to falsify things like, say, the origin of the universe or fish-to-forensic anthropologist evolution. A principle of science is that something must be falsifiable. Science doesn't prove anything so much as find reasons to accept ideas. Ideally, if a theory is shown to have exceptions or errors, then it has been falsified and something new is added to the mix. Sometimes the postulate is entirely discarded.

While evolutionists know not only the distinctions between historical and operational science, but they also realize the problems inherent in historical science and falsifiability. Jaspers like Carol Cleland attempt to blur the lines between the two forms of science, but use poor logic (even contradicting herself) and arbitrary assertions. Interestingly, there are some points that biblical creationists agree with, but her obfuscation for the sake of evolution is not good for the true spirit of scientific inquiry.
The important debate over scientific methodology must address the distinction between present and past. One recent idea proposes two realms of science: operational science and historical science. Because historical science addresses hypotheses not open to verification through experimentation, creation scientists have argued that historical science is subordinate to both Scripture and the testable, repeatable results of operational science. Some Darwinists assert that historical science should be considered equal to operational science, such as prominent philosopher of science Dr Carol Cleland. Her arguments will be examined and refuted, while the use of the terminology in question will be explained and defended.
To learn more of what this is all about, head over to "Examining the usage and scope of historical science—a response to Dr Carol Cleland and a defence of terminology".

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

Thursday, September 17, 2020

Grave News for Dino-Bird Fossil Report

There was a character put forward to show how clever scum-to-speech pathologist evolutionists can be, and that was known as Nebraska Man. That bad boy, his family, surroundings — everything was built from a single tooth. And that belonged to a pig. The fake science dino-bird paper reminded me of that.

Researchers put forward a paper on an alleged dinosaur-bird fossil, but were subsequently embarrassed because observations did not support their presuppositions.
Mostly made at Vukki Tombstone Maker (be careful poking around that site, possible malware)
What we have is a rush to publish without due diligence in research. Once again, a fossil is found in amber. After consulting their Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Rings® and blowing on the whistle, scientists decided that it was of a dinosaur evolving into a bird. Gotta keep the narrative going, don'tcha know. What did they really find? A skull, some beak, and a bit of tongue, so the researchers worked from skimpy data and massive naturalistic presuppositions. But artists' conceptions prove evolution, right? They violated their artistic licenses.

The paper was published but had not been through the peer-review process. After other scientists said, "Whoa there, Hoss!", and points were made, the paper was retracted. (It is interesting that you can still see the embarrassing Nebraska Man paper.) Most likely, this was nothing more than the skull of an unusual lizard, especially because of the eye placement. Next time, fellas, slow down and do more complete research before denying the Creator and lighting prayer candles to Darwin. And stop guessing, it's not becoming of scientists. You savvy, pilgrims?
The story begins with all the science news outlets announcing a spectacular discovery: a 99-million-year-old bird-like skull entombed in amber. The fossil even had preserved soft tissue associated with the skull and the remains of the animal’s long tongue.
Amber entombs mostly insects, but occasionally small animals—and even the bones of larger animals—are preserved by the sticky tree resin. The find revealed a new body plan that was first claimed to be part of a tiny new dinosaur species. (How they determined it was a dinosaur was not clear from the write-up, but a later evaluation of the fossil forced the article’s formal retraction; see below.) The supplied artwork gave it a very bird-like appearance, with feathers and all, but everyone called it a dinosaur.
You can read the whole the article at "Scientists Retract Dino-Bird Paper".

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

Wednesday, September 16, 2020

The Baffling, Colorful Nudibranchs

People who are into action video games are probably familiar with the concept of disabling your opponent and then taking away weapons, armor, and so on for your own use. There is a creature known as the nudibranch that does something similar.

Nudibranchs are baffling to evolutionists for many reasons. They also exhibit our Creator's desire to provide color and variety.
Spanish Shawl nudibranch image credit: National Park Service / Nicole Ornelas
The nudibranch is classified as a gastropod of which there about over 60,000 species. It is a kind of sea slug, of which there are more than 3,000 species. (If you listen closely, you can hear each one singing, "I've Gotta Be Me".) It's mighty hard to come up with general rules.

They live in the depths of the ocean, except when they don't. They're very small, except when they're not. They're extremely colorful, except when they're not. They're poisonous, except when they're not. You'd think that if they followed any semblance of evolutionary rules, there would more uniformity. Darwinists assume they evolved, but cannot figure out how — nor can they understand how nudibranchs predate on venomous creatures and then confiscate their defenses. Seems to this child that they are another example of how our Creator likes variety.
The words “slug” and “festive display of color” don’t usually come to mind at the same time. But that’s exactly what happens when you dive into the world of sea slugs, known as nudibranchs. Their colorful variety is unmatched on the planet . . . as are their unique designs to fend off predators.
There are hordes of predators lurking in oceans around the world, leaving a trail of slime everywhere they hunt. They seemingly have no fears, even of the deadliest seafloor creatures. Instead of fleeing in terror from an adversary’s poison barbs, they calmly steal their prey’s defenses for their own armor, storing the toxins inside their own skin to frighten other enemies.
To read the rest, glide on over to the article with the amazingly long title, "Nudibranchs".

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

Tuesday, September 15, 2020

Iridescent Insects in Amber

You know about tree resin, right? Although it is similar to and easily confused with sap, it is an important part of many trees and plants. It is heavier, resists being dissolved in water, and was even used by ancient people in shipbuilding. It also traps and preserves critters.

Iridescent peacock feather
Credit: Freeimages / Antonio Natale
A recent find of insects in amber shows that their colors are still present even after alleged millions of years, which should not happen according to secular beliefs, but there they are. (Darwin supporters are known to deny science in biosignatures.) The colors are iridescent, meaning that they are seen through reflections and such and not simply because of pigments. The peacock feather in the picture above is iridescent. How did iridescence happen?

Evolutionists make unscientific claims that they somehow evolved, and that they evolved many times. Unfortunately, people accept these faith-based assertions as observational science, but there are no plausible models or explanations. Worse for Darwin's disciples, the dating of these colors is extremely inconvenient. The fact that these colors exist at all, including from insects in amber, testify of recent creation and repudiate claims of millions of years.
In the pre-Flood world, animal and plant material was caught in the sticky resin that solidified into amber. Many of these specimens survived the global Flood that happened around 4,500 years ago. Worms, frogs, lizards, crustaceans, spiders, and insects such as bees and cockroaches have been discovered, many remarkably preserved and all within their individual created kinds. For example, a class of mollusk called a gastropod (i.e., snail) complete with soft tissue, “exceptional soft-bodied preservation,” was found in mid-Cretaceous amber—about 90 million years old by evolutionary dating. Even an amber-encased bird and a snake have been found.
To read the entire article, visit "Amber Insect Fossils Still Glow".

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

Monday, September 14, 2020

Ear Muscles and Vestigial Organs

This one should make you prick up your ears. Darwin's disciples have been spectacularly wrong about many things and humiliated when actual science trumps their speculations. Consider so-called vestigial organs/structures. Evolutionists do not understand them so they evosplain them away. Now they are tickling our ears.

Using bad science and arguing from naturalistic presuppositions, evolutionists say ear muscles are leftovers from evolution. Real science indicates otherwise.
Credit: Pixnio / Bicanski
As usual, naturalists presuppose evolution, then offer speculations about what happened millions of Darwin years ago to pass along as actual scientific research. "Since dogs, cats, and other critters use their ears to help them focus on certain sounds, humans must have had that ability. After all, since some people can wiggle their ears a little, that must have been in our evolutionary past, right?" Arguing from ignorance (not understanding something) and futile fake science are ridiculous. New research, albeit self-contradictory, helps show their folly — and that biblical creationists are right in believing that there are no "vestigial organs".
A new study found that “humans ‘prick up their ears,’ …  when they hear interesting sounds.” The researchers then added that this “wiggling” outer ear trait exists in humans due to “our animal inheritance.” But the converse is also claimed: most humans cannot wiggle their ears, the evolutionary argument goes, because the muscles that cause the movement are now “vestigial.” No matter which claim is made, whether humans can wiggle our ears, or cannot wiggle our ears, it must be due to evolution. Darwin can’t lose: both contrary contradictions are still being made within evolutionary circles.
By “ears,” the authors referenced in this paper are referring to the pinna, the outer rim of the ear. Vestigial, as one high school learning app defined, characterizes organs or tissues in the body which are no longer “functional the way they were in their ancestral form …  It is [an] authentication of evolution.”
To read the rest, click on "Ear Muscle 'Wiggle': A Vestigial-Organ Claim That We Should ‘Turn a Deaf Ear To’".

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

Saturday, September 12, 2020

Getting Attached to Female Anglerfish

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

A spell back, I was riding out near Stinking Lake (which is not as bad as it sounds) when I happened across Jacqueline Hyde, the romantic interest of Rusty Swingset from the Darwin Ranch. She surprised me by telling me that Rusty has been getting way to clingy lately. I commenced to telling her about the female anglerfish.

Symbiosis and parasitism are found between the male and female anglerfish. This creature is not friendly to evolution.
Someone finds this female anglerfish, Cryptopsaras couesii, attractive
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Masaki Miya et al. (CC BY 2.0)
It just so happened that a supporter of The Question Evolution Project had sent me a link to an article to investigate. It was written by Dr. Toshiro Saruwatari of the Ocean Research Institute, University of Tokyo, and was rather interesting. Also startling that Dr. Saruwatari did not feel the need to pay homage to Papa Darwin. (Wikipedia didn't have much to say about evolution except to throw out a line of speculation based on the illogical process of phylogenetics). Instead, he wrote about his research. That's what researchers are supposed to do, old son.

Anglerfish live way down in the deep ocean's nothingmuch. There was a time when it was thought that the darkness, pressure, and other factors would prohibit life, but there are some fascinating critters in the abyss — especially these predators with the portable lure-lanterns. What is rather startling is how the Creator designed an unusual combination of symbiosis and parasitism. Feminazis are going to be thrilled with this: the male is much smaller and cannot survive without the female, so he adheres to her. A kind of merging, I suppose. However, Saruwatari learned that the belief that the males become absorbed by the females, leaving only a knob or bump, is false.

I'll let the good doctor tell you share his excitement in a PDF, "Debunking an urban legend of the Deep Sea: The Queen of the Abyss and her contribution to Ceratioid Anglerfish biology". If you can find a date that this would be published, I'm be much obliged if you'd drop me a line.

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

Friday, September 11, 2020

Liberal Scholars and Behemoth

It must be stated that evolutionists and biblical creationists present material based on their worldviews. Unfortunately, professing Christians who ride for the Darwin brand elevate evolution over scriptural authority to the point of twisting the Bible to fit their presuppositions. Case in point, the creature known as Behemoth.

Atheists are pleased when liberal scholars cast doubt on the authority and inerrancy of the Bible. We need to see what they do with Behemoth described in Job.
Image source before modification: US National Archives
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Biblical creationists tend to believe that Behemoth described in the book of Job was probably a sauropod dinosaur that hadn't quite gotten the notion to go extinct yet, but evolutionists reject that out of hand. We also hold to the view that the Bible is inerrant in the original manuscripts, but liberals reject that. I reckon it makes it easier to perform eisegesis and tamper with meanings.

We know that word meanings change over time and usage. Argument is commonly used to describe an emotional exchange instead of a reasoned discussion and presentation of ideas. Leviathan is described in Job as well as Behem0th, but the name also repurposed in Isaiah 27:1 and Ezekiel 29:3. Context is vital. Atheists applaud when professing Christians cast doubt on the Bible that they claim to believe.

Also, these liberal tinhorns that reject the authority and inerrancy of Scripture try to pit the Bible against itself by changing meanings and taking passages out of context, often using invalid comparisons. They also appeal to other liberals and extra-biblical sources in their efforts to undermine the Word of God. Watch for weasel words of uncertainty while still attempting to cast doubt on the Bible. Also, keep an eye out when these owlhoots try to retroactively apply changed word meanings from centuries after the biblical text was written. Plus, heaping helpings of their own speculations. It's like reading evolutionists who put in "maybe", "perhaps", "we think", "could be", and other terms to prop up their views without actual evidence.
Unfortunately, if you consult the internet about pretty much anything in the Bible, and especially if you frequent skeptics’ forums, you’re likely to get bombarded with liberal critical views. While the article linked above does a great job making a case for a sauropod identification, it does not address a newer idea coming from liberal scholarship: that Behemoth was a mythical super-bull! I have been directed multiple times by various skeptics online to a particular YouTube video by Ben Stanhope, who has a bachelor’s degree from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and an M.A. in Manuscript Cultures from Hamburg University.1 In this video, Stanhope cites several scholarly sources in his attempt to make the case that the Behemoth refers to the mythical masculine “super-bull” that hearkens to Babylonian mythology and ancient Jewish apocryphal writings. This same conclusion is also reached by old earther and online Christian apologist Robert Rowe.
To read the entire informative (and rather startling) article, follow the link to "Responding to liberal scholarship on Behemoth".

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

Thursday, September 10, 2020

New Research Further Devastates "Junk" DNA

It seems that scientists would learn from their mistakes, especially after being humiliated for decades over the insipience of referring to some parts of DNA as "junk". New research demonstrates even more how sufficient research is needed before waving off things that are not understood.

Another area where evolution has hindered science is in referring to some parts of DNA as "junk". The humiliation continues.
Image assembled from components at Clker clipart
Not only did the assumption of evolution hinder research, but they married that idea up with the fallacy of arguing from ignorance. Essentially, "We don't know what this part of the genome does, it doesn't code for proteins, so it must be junk from our evolutionary past. Because evolution." An important thing for them to learn is that the Master Engineer puts things in place for specific purposes.
Recent research from the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University (OIST) continues to highlight how evolutionary theory influenced scientists to foolishly conclude that DNA in organisms not used to code for proteins (termed “non-coding” DNA) is useless “junk.” A press release highlighted an OIST scientist’s paper published in Nature Communications that identified a specific genomic region that is transcribed into non-coding RNA that is essential for the proper development of the male and female reproductive organs in rice.
We're not talking trash, you can read the rest at "Embarrassment Continues over Evolutionary Blunder about 'Junk DNA'". Also, take a look-see at "How the Evolutionist Struck Out on Junk DNA — Part 1" (Part 2 is linked immediately afterward).

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

Wednesday, September 9, 2020

Meerkats and Network Organization

Many people have seen squirrels on their hind legs, a trait they have in common with prairie dogs and other rodents. Meerkats are not rodents, but they have this hind leg posture. It is useful to watch for danger and sound a warning like a good sentinel should. Meerkats did social networking before it was cool. Deal with it.

Meerkats did social networking before it was cool. Deal with it.
Credits: Freeimages / Tom Low, then run through PhotoFunia
Their society includes the boss lady and her main man, then everyone else is subordinate. Meerkats also have members of their society that act as guardians, mentors of the young, and more. Interestingly, if raised in captivity, those learned traits are lost. Creationists believe that the abilities to learn and teach are part of what was "frontloaded" when they were created. (Incidentally, there is no sign of evolution in the fossil record, even after 2-1/2 million Darwin years.) Evolutionists cannot give a plausible explanation about their learning and teaching abilities.
Meerkats display a spectacularly complex society, typically seen only in insect colonies. Their complex behavior could come from only one source. On day six the Creator gave each kind of land animal unique tools to meet its needs (Genesis 1:24–25). The ancestors of meerkats did not need certain tasks before the Fall, such as hunting, but already had the basics for dividing tasks and developing new roles. Today, their social talents have blossomed in southern Africa.
You can read the rest of the article (or download the audio version) at "Meerkats — The Original Social Network".

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

Tuesday, September 8, 2020

Promoting an Outrageous Sea Microbes Old Earth Yarn

They sure picked the right location for the Darwin Ranch, taking Folly Road and heading toward Deception Pass. Not only do the ranch hands work mighty hard at deceiving us, but they hornswoggle themselves, too. Evolutionists have denied actual science about biosignatures and are doing so with ancient microbes.

Naturalists ignore actual science again in deep-time propaganda. The best explanation of observed facts fits the Genesis Flood models.
Credit: StockSnap / Salvatore Ventura
The narrative of naturalistic evolutionism must be preserved at all costs. Deep time beliefs have been falsified by pollen in the "wrong" places but evolutionists wave this off. However, as with the biosignatures, microbes buried in deep sea sediments are claimed to be about 100 million Darwin years old and revived. The obedient press for the secular science industry saddled up and jumped the fences to promote the story without a modicum of critical thought. Circular reasoning, presupposing the age of the layers, and a passel of propaganda storytelling all ignore the rational explanation that those microbes were buried by the Genesis Flood thousands of years ago.
Japanese scientists, in conjunction with the University of Rhode Island, are either looking for 15 minutes of fame, or testing the gullibility of the public, or (most likely) have gone totally bonkers. Their paper in Nature Communications announces, “Aerobic microbial life persists in oxic marine sediment as old as 101.5 million years.” Yes, that’s what they are saying: microbes have risen from a 100-million-year sleep and are hungry again.
This is like finding a dinosaur slumbering away in suspended animation, then reviving it and finding it ready to eat you. The claim is absurd. . . their Darwin timeline requires it. How much longer will the public put up with this?
Read the rest about fake news to support Darwinian deceptions at "Old-Earth Evolutionists Have Blown Their Cred".

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

Monday, September 7, 2020

Lava Flows of Known Age, and Radiometric Dating

It has been shown many times that radiometric dating has a passel of difficulties. These include circular reasoning, presupposing deep time, unwarranted assumptions, and more. Samples tested by various methods provide wildly differing results, including lava rocks of known ages. Does the eruption make a difference?

Radiometric dating has numerous flaws. Tests of rocks with known ages give wildly differing results, and some people wonder if there is a kind of reset with lava.
Tungurahua eruption image credit: FreeDigitalPhotos / xura
This does seem like a reasonable question on the surface. I saw a comment at The Question Evolution Project about radiometric dating and lava of known ages. He figured that everything would be reset to zero, so old rock that became molten would appear young but is actually very old; a kind of reset. Arbitrary assumptions based on lack of knowledge raise more questions than they solve. Biblical creationists point out these flaws in uniformitarianism because the evidence indicates a young earth.
Once again, our feedback is about radioactive dating, which seems a major roadblock against Christians believing the world is the biblical age of 6,000 years. The basics are simple, but the process is complicated, and supporter Larry R wrote and asked about the issue.
I have a question about radiometric dating. I understand how the process works, and the various assumptions that go into it. My question is, would the age of the magma have any bearing on the age of the rock created from it?
Like, when Mt. St. Helen’s erupted in 1986, obviously we know when the rock was formed. If we were to send in various specimens for various testing, obviously the testing would indicate ages that are much larger than the actual age. My question is, do the isotopes (if any) in the lava/magma play a roll, and if so, how (or how not, if it doesn’t have any effect)?
Thank you for your time.
Larry R.
CMI’s geologist Dr Tasman Walker responded (edited for the web):
Hi Larry,
Thank you for your email and your question.
You said, “I understand how the process works, and the various assumptions that go into it.” I would not put it that way. I would say, “I understand how they say the process is supposed to have worked!”
To read the rest of the response, head on over to "Is radioactive dating affected by the age of the magma?"

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