Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Saturday, October 31, 2020

Evolutionists Conjure Spirit of Darwin with Bad Science

A spell back, we saw how some of Darwin's disciples were erroneously asserting that a certain artery in the arm was evolution in action. That was a detailed example, and we can see that it was not simply an outlier.

Evolutionists are sacrificing science to the spirit of Darwin. Promoting naturalism and denying the Creator, they make fools of themselves.
Mostly Made at FotoFunia
Numerous instances of fake science presented as evidence of molecules-to-magician evolution are seen here, with links to other sites for more information.. They presuppose that evolution happened, never questioning if it happened, then assume that whatever they see in nature (or think they see) helps them further understand it. Although we have been taught that evolution takes a very long time, somehow it is so flexible that rapid changes are conflated with evolution and used to support it.

Except that there really is no actual evolution happening. Still, they conjure up the spirit of Darwin (blessed be!) to give themselves credibility and get money for their phony baloney jobs. Naturalism and denying the work of the Creator is more important to some sidewinders than actual science. They are sacrificing their minds as well as credible science.
When critiques have been forbidden, lazy evolutionary biologists get away with incompetent scientific work and inept thinking.

Here are more examples of a theme concluded by Dr Jerry Bergman in yesterday’s post [linked in the reference in the first paragraph]: claims of “evolution occurring before our eyes” fall apart when examined. Why don’t other evolutionists pour shame on such lazy thinkers within their camp? The evolution they’re seeing right before their eyes is in their dreams, because their eyes are closed when they ought to be working.

To read the examples of this spooky stuff that passes as evolutionary science, fly on over to "Evolution in Action, or Evolutionist Inaction?" Bonus: Listen to the song "Hallow's Eve" by Holy Soldier.





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

Friday, October 30, 2020

Concretions and the Genesis Flood

Even though I am not listening to it as I write, sometimes I like some hard rock. So do geologists (but this is a fallacy of ambiguity because of different definitions of hard rock). In geological terms, concretions are very hard rock that uniformitarian geology cannot explain.

This hard rock cannot be adequately explained by slow and gradual processes. Catastrophic processes of the Genesis Flood provide the best explanation.
Arizona concretion image credit: Smithsonian / C Gilmore
"Arizona Concretion" would be a good name for a hard rock band

It may seem that geology is rather simple. You learn some expensive words and identify rocks, but there is much more to it. Geologists also deal with chemistry, biology, and other natural sciences. The article linked below makes this evident.

Because this article was published in the Journal of Creation, it has some technical lingo. Concretions are basically pieces of harder rock embedded in other rock. They vary in size from huge boulders that threaten to flatten Indiana Jones to bits and pieces that are easily overlooked. Concretions are probably formed by diagenesis, where sediments are laid down and while they commence to becoming rock, they are affected by pressures, temperatures, biological agents, and more.

Slow and gradual processes of uniformitarianism (mayhaps moseying is a useful word to associate with uniformitarianism) are inadequate to explain the presence of diagenesis and concretions. Sure, deep-time geologists invoke catastrophes and other rapid processes on occasion, but they prefer to give Darwinists the millions of years they need to work their magick. Concretions are not outliers, and they are found all over the world. The hard truth is that the dynamics of the Genesis Flood are the best explanation for concretions.

Concretions are not forming in modern sediments, which, like many other phenomena, contradicts uniformitarianism:

“One of the great puzzles of early diagenesis is that although concretions are very common in rocks and are thought to be important products of early diagenesis, concretions similar to those in rocks have not been observed in modern sediments (Raiswell and Fisher, 2000). Indeed, Colman and Raiswell (1993) cite this discrepancy as a fundamental challenge to uniformitarianism.”

The rate of formation of concretions is also not known, but like almost every aspect of geology, it has been considered a slow process. Such claimed ‘slow processes’ are a simple outgrowth from the belief in uniformitarianism and deep time.

To read the full article, see "A case for rapid formation of calcareous concretions". You may also like the hard rock video by Project 86 about the end times, below.



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

Thursday, October 29, 2020

A Light Story about Petrified Wood

One of the deep-time myths that gets carried around is that wood takes millions of years to become petrified (turned to stone). Even secular geologists now know something creationists have long said, that it depends on conditions, not time.

https://www.icr.org/article/an-old-friend-came-home/
Building built in 1932 made of petrified wood that is inaccurately claimed to be 175 million years old.
Credit: Library of Congress / Carol M Highsmith (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

There are many anecdotes and actual examples of organic compounds being fossilized of sorts, and even sacks of flour turned to stone. What follows is a simple story about a piece of petrified wood that has a somewhat interesting background, and it illustrates once again that conditions are more important than time for this process.
Years ago, an attendee at an ICR Back to Genesis seminar approached me with a fossil he and his daughter had found while on a hike in Washington State. It was obviously petrified wood, which is common in many localities, and it seemed of no particular use in the creation/evolution forum. But its history and how they found the specimen was of great importance.

To read the rest, rock on over to "An Old Friend Came Home". For heavier material, see "Petrified Forests at Yellowstone Invalidate Long Ages".



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

Wednesday, October 28, 2020

Creationists, Secular Peer Review, and Guard Dogs

A common falsehood spread by those with atheism spectrum disorder and other anti-creationists is that biblical creationists do not publish in secular peer-reviewed journals. Sidewinders like that prefer to use prejudicial conjecture instead of doing their homework. The facts are quite complicated.

It is a falsehood that creationists do not publish in peer-reviewed journals. As to why they cannot publish creation science is more complicated.
Original image by Pixabay / skeeze, modified with Pablo

The guard dogs protecting secular journals are vicious. While biblical creationists do indeed get published (as we have said before), the equivalent of throwing the guard dogs raw meat is to say that their material does not threaten Darwin (blessed be!) or support creation science. Naturalists become frenzied when the truth of the Creator receives even a hit, such as when someone let a paper go through that said "creator", even though it means something different in the author's native language.

My conclusion is that they are cowards and willfully ignorant
(Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes)


Atheopaths like Lori here demand evidence for creation, the Genesis Flood, and so on, they reject it because they want it from a peer-reviewed journal. (I lack belief that they have ever read, or would understand, such material. The ones who do afford to pay for, read, and understand them are unlikely to be the trolls encountered on social media.) When we point out that the secular peer review process is loaded with difficulties, even passing computer-generated nonsense, the waving of hands commences.

Also, we point out that creation scientists have their own peer-reviewed journals. 

On a side note, I have had articles published at Creation Ministries International, and it ain't easy. I've had submissions immediately rejected, and others are examined by editors. I was concerned about the red markup on one sent back for my review, and one scientist said about the other who marked it that they "spill a lot of red ink on each other's papers". This is at the lowest level. Can you imagine how stringent they are among other scientists?

Ever notice the paucity of debates between creationists and evolutionists? Invitations are made by creationists. You'd think Darwin's handmaidens would want to shut us down for good. Ain't happenin', Zeke!

When misotheists are told about creation science journals, they impugn the integrity and insult the intelligence of the scientists. In fact, the claim is made that they are not really scientists. Tell that to them face to face, Poindexter! They didn't just send a few grotzits to Billy Bob's Jerkwater Town Bible School and Degree Mill. Instead, they are from credentialed colleges and universities. (You can hate, but drop the bigoted speech and misrepresentation.) It turns out that these angry atheists and evolutionists conveniently redefined scientist to mean atheistic evolutionist, variation is conflated with fish-to-fool evolution, the false war between "science" and "religion", and more. Atheism and evolutionism are easy — especially they can redefine words to confirm their biases.

The "great scientist" Charles Darwin had no formal scientific training. He did earn a degree in theology, but with mediocre grades.

One example of the failure of atheistic presuppositions is that one hatetheist made the claim that creationists are not scientists. He was challenged with a link to a peer-reviewed scientific article in a creation science publication and told to refute it. The answer was that he could not because he's not a scientist. In other words, he refuted himself and admitted that it was written by a scientist.
Peer review is considered the best standard in scientific publication. If a paper has passed peer-review, it is believed that the results are generally scientific, reliable, and accurate. On this basis, evolutionists love to claim that creation scientists cannot do science because they produce no peer-reviewed papers. This claim comes up repeatedly in any discussion with a moderately informed evolutionist. Peer review, they argue, demonstrates that creation science is not science at all but merely an outmoded faith without evidence to back it up.

To read the rest of this very informative article, saddle up and ride on over to "Peer Review in Creation Research". 



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

Tuesday, October 27, 2020

Humans Evolving Now — No 'Arm in Trying

It is tragic as well as humorous when misotheists say that evidence for creation is everywhere, but they must continually reinforce their presumption that there is no God, that things only appear designed. Meanwhile, many silly things are proclaimed as evidence for evolution, but they are nothing of the kind. A recent example is the human median artery.

Some people have an artery in their arms that does not belong. Darwinists are calling it evidence for evolution, but this is false.
Credit: Stocksnap / Michael Mroczek

If you have the median artery, you shouldn't. The Master Engineer put it in place for when a baby is developing so blood reaches the hands. When other arteries develop, this goes away. Usually. Some jaspers took a study of Australian cadavers and found that many still had it. They took this extremely limited population sampling, saw that there was little reference to the artery's existence in old literature (which stinks to me of an argument from silence), the proclaimed evolution. Hail Darwin, blessed be! The area around Deception Pass will be echoing the noise of the celebrations at the Darwin Ranch, you betcha.

Except that this conclusion of evolution was not only based on limited sampling and spotty historical records, the existence of the median artery (divided into median cubital and median antebrachial) is the product of a mutation. There is a maybe-what-if-perhaps-under-the-right-conditions-possibly beneficial mutation, but it has contributed to compressing the median nerve and contributing to carpal tunnel syndrome, as well as other difficulties. This is devolution, not evolution in any Darwinian sense. But these are the same tinhorns that think loss of features is evidence there is no Creator, so there you go.

A new study was published on the human median artery which the authors claim offers support for evolution. The median artery is an embryonic structure located in the forearm, wrist and hand, which after birth is often dissembled and the parts recycled. The median artery follows the median nerve on its medial or lateral side. When the arm is still small, as it is in a fetus, the median artery supplies the blood needed to the arm and hand. When the arm grows in length and diameter as the fetus matures, two larger arteries are required to supply this part of the body with blood. When the other two arteries develop, the small median artery is no longer required, but in some cases may persist even after birth.

The new study reported on here found that the persistence of the median artery in postnatal life has approximately tripled over the last 125 years.[1] Why this has occurred is an interesting question but, not unexpectedly, this small variation has now been exploited by Darwinists. The longer life of the median artery is not a newly evolved trait, as they claim, but simply a variation in its persistence rate.

Learn more by reading "Claims that Humans Are Evolving Fall Apart When Examined".



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

Monday, October 26, 2020

Fake Evidence for Evolution in 1970

It would be a natural thing to wonder why anyone cares about the condition of evolutionary evidence from decades ago, but there are some interesting things to consider. We know that science is supposed to be about things that are observed, can be tested, verified, repeated, and so on. These are not happening with universal common ancestor evolution.

We can see that Darwin promoters were almost as dishonest in 1970 as they are today. There are things we can learn from an old encyclopedia.
Mostly made at PhotoFunia

We hear Darwin's handmaidens asserting that there are "mountains of evidence" for evolution. By 1970, you would think that a major encyclopedia would have been able to present the accumulated data to convince even the most recalcitrant thinker. Instead, they used fake evidence that had been discredited, spurious arguments, conflating evolution with variation and change, fraud, and more. Also, evolutionists tend to presuppose that what they call evidence can only be explained through naturalism, when in fact much of this better supports the truth of the Master Engineer's handiwork. We have the same things happening today, only worse. You'd think that if there were mountains of evidence for evolution, there would be no need for the slightest hint of dishonesty to believe in it, wouldn't you?
I happen to have in my possession a copy of the World Book Encyclopedia from that year, and it includes an entry on the theory of evolution (it lacks, however, any entry for creationism). It is the section under the heading, ‘Evidence for Evolution’ that particularly interests us for the purposes of this investigation. Are the evidences used for evolution in 1970 the same as those being put forward today? Do any of them stand up to scrutiny? We’ll look at each heading provided, and some relevant quotes.
To read the full article, visit "Exploring the ‘Evidence for Evolution’ … in 1970".



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

Saturday, October 24, 2020

Rethinking Dr. Todd Wood, Evolution, and Creation Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Restrain your equines. This child is not doubting biblical creation science. What follows has some personal material, including a confession and a bit of an apology to Dr. Todd Wood. There are several points to be made, and I hope I can spark your thinking a mite.

Dr. Todd C. Wood has written some things that atheists adore and bothered this writer. Some clarification on several subjects is in order.
Modified from a "meme" floating around teh interweb

Background

Dr. Wood was one of the scientists in Is Genesis History?, a video I reviewed and recommended. I later purchased a set of additional videos from them that had several scientists giving lectures. Some time later, I learned that he said:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

This really put a burr under my saddle. I wrote to Todd, but received no response. (After all, he's a busy guy and I'm not important. Those are simple facts.) I asked for responses from others of his association, mayhaps they could ask him for me, but was ignored or waved off. My concern about him grew because he also co-wrote a book with an evolutionist — which I had no intention of reading. Atheists were rejoicing that there was "an honest creationist" (read: all others are dishonest if they reject universal common ancestor evolution). Great, he's giving aid and comfort to the enemies of God!

Although I don't rightly recollect where, I read a post he made that he believes the Bible anyway. How can someone present evidence for creation and believe evolution? We know that evolution makes people into atheists. I came very close to deleting my article recommending Is Genesis History? and, because of the spate of people apostatizing, I was waiting for (and also dreading) the day that I read how Wood had renounced the faith.

I was having a crisis my ownself. No, not doubting the faith or biblical creation science (there are "gobs and gobs" of evidence refuting neo-Darwinism, as well as supporting both recent creation and the Genesis Flood). Instead, I felt I was wasting my time. After all, I am a nobody who is trying to glorify God and help equip the saints, but too many Christians are like atheists. How? By having bumper-sticker mentalities, not finding time to read, watch videos, listen to messages, get into the Word, get solid biblical teaching in general, and all that boring stuff when Young Sheldon is waiting for a binge-watch? My motivation to keep going was very low.

Finally some clarification

After leaving a somewhat testy comment on a video posted to YouTube, someone finally gave me some things in response that I could use. One was a link to the video embedded below, and some articles. Dr. Wood is not saddling up to ride with the Darwin brand. In fact, not only do I apologize to him for some comments and what I had been thinking, but I am embarrassed because I was not practicing all that I have preached in my articles. Yes, I tried to go to the sources and get clarification, but I did not do enough research. Todd is a creationist. In fact, he is still the president of the Core Academy of Science.

A problem of definitions

As we have seen in several posts right here, Darwin's disciples have used their naturalistic presuppositions to present material that is downright harmful to medical science, and they proclaim incomplete research as evidence for evolution fairly often. The ol' bait-n-switch happens where evolution is conflated with variation, speciation, modifications, and so on — things that are not a problem for creationists in and of themselves.


Dr. Wood may dislike "playing around with definitions", but because of conflation and connotations, people took his statements and ran with them to support atheistic interpretations of science. I fault him for lack of clarity because there are many definitions of evolution. (Also see "Creationism vs. Evolutionism" by Dr. John N. Moore, formerly an evolutionary professor of natural science at Michigan State University. He later became one of the founders of the Creation Research Society.) Creationists do not necessarily use evolution per se, but there are methodologies and systems that they use in the same manner of evolutionary scientists — without the naturalistic presuppositions. Creationists don't just say, "GodDidIt", but want to know how God did something, and what is happening in the natural world that may have cause something to occur.

The James White effect

Yes, this is relevant. Very much so. Dr. White had to deal with crowds armed with torches and pitchforks ready to burn down Castle AOMin because he was having public conversations with Islamic apologists. Another part of my embarrassment about how I reacted to Todd was from what I had learned from James. He has debates with people, but wants to get to know them as people; it is vital to learn what the other side believes and teaches in order to debate properly, and to treat people like people, not objects or potential trophies.

Wood was doing this "getting to know you" thing. The way I put what he says, he can see where someone is coming from. He can understand why they have their beliefs. Creationists try to accurately represent the views of neo-Darwinism and its informed adherents, although few want to return the favor. Todd also says that people who believe in evolution are not evil people. James White has also shown that he can see why people with Islamic views and living in that culture have reached their conclusions. Wood has written a book with an evolutionist where apparently both authors defend their views but respect each other.

Problems with fideism

Many of us have encountered fideism in one form or another without being able to name it. In simplest terms, it is believing for its own sake, or having blind faith. There are many examples of it in evolutionism, where adherents cannot answer problems with their views or research, instead indicating that "stuff happens" and hoping that explanations will be found someday. That's not science, old son.

I was suspecting that Dr. Wood was engaging in fideism because the way I was taking his words, he was believing the Bible despite what he considered evidence for (chaos-to-chemist) evolution.

Here is something that has me confused. The Institute for Creation Research has an article, "Is Creation Evidence Ambiguous?", showing how fideism is dangerous. Wood is not named, but his material is listed in the references (which, unfortunately, are publications that I do not have). Are they saying that Dr. Wood is a fideist? Did they misunderstand what he wrote? Perhaps Todd also wrote against fideism in those referenced publications. I have not posted that article at The Question Evolution Project, nor have I featured it on any of my weblogs because I am uncertain of what they're doing at ICR.

That ICR article was in their August 2020 edition of Acts and Facts, which would have necessarily been written in July or sooner. Dr. Wood wrote "The dangers of fideism" in August. He believes it's bad. That's good. What's up with ICR, and why do they consider Wood a "young earth evolutionist"? Doc, you may want to write your own article to set them straight.

A few other thoughts

I do not know if Dr. Wood uses presuppositional apologetics, but as I have recommended to readers and others for a few years, I recommend to him Dr. Jason Lisle's Ultimate Proof of Creation, the book as well as video presentations that are available. It seems to me that Wood might find them quite helpful.

There are some practical applications to discuss now.

One is to hold on and wait. Although I came close to shutting all this down (I've had a lifelong struggle with depression) and Todd's remarks came at the wrong time and made things worse, I waited. Satan loves haste. Also, I sought counsel and some good people talked me back from the ledge. Another thing to learn is to keep on trying to get information.

Pay attention. If Todd Wood really was turning against biblical creation science, it seems that some of the big-name ministries would have offered up some direct rebukes. The silence from them helped influence me to take things slowly.

I'll be paying more attention to Dr. Wood's material, and have already picked up a few things for my own use. He has an interesting approach to writing and speaking that sort of resonate with me. He also has an interesting sense of humor. There are things I disagree with (as stated above), but there are things in my own thoughts and life that will bring that same crowd with torches and pitchforks over to kick me out of the Creation Science Hall of Fame.

"You're in the Creation Science Hall of Fame, Cowboy Bob?"

Well, no, but if I was and people read my mind, I'd be kicked out. For that matter, I have some opinions and half-formed ideas that may not sit well with some of my brethren and cistern in some other areas.

Since I dislike embedding more than one video in a post or article, I have one other to recommend. Sometimes people think they're hotshots and ready to slap leather with the opposition, then along comes a question that seems to have no easy answers at first. It's easy to give up instead of wait and persevere. Give a listen to Todd's short lecture on "Why I Am [Still] a Creationist". You'll thank me later.

You learned a bit about me while I learned a bit about Todd Wood (as well as myself), and how God kept things going over all. I hope this article gave all y'all some things to think about. Maybe I should send him a fruit basket or a gift card for Rustic Scoops Ice Cream Cafe or something.




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

Friday, October 23, 2020

His Royal High-Mouse

We know that birds can live at extremely high altitudes, but it is much more difficult for mammals to do this. Especially humans, but some manage this (see "Adapting to High Altitudes" for more). But a mouse lives atop a dormant volcano between Chile and Argentina.

A mouse living at an extremely high altitude has scientists baffled.
Patagonian leaf-eared mouse, or yellow-rumped leaf-eared mouse (public domain image)
Apparently it's the highest known mammal (excluding recreational narcotics), so scientists are a mite startled. (What does it eat, anyway?) There are other critters that live in high places. This adds to the creationist conjectures that the Master Engineer equipped many living things from the beginning to have genetic (epigenetics?) traits that were switched on to allow them to thrive in various environments.
Recently, researchers have reported on the world’s “highest-dwelling mammal,” the yellow-rumped leaf-eared mouse, observed upon a dormant volcano 6,739 meters (22,110 feet) above sea level.1 While the discovery of birds at greater altitudes is not surprising, “that mammals can live at these heights is astonishing, considering there’s only about 44 percent of the oxygen available at sea level. . . . The temperature is also rarely above freezing and can drop as low as –60° Celsius.”

To read the rest, climb on over to "Record-Breaking Mouse, Higher Than Any Mammal".



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

Thursday, October 22, 2020

Another Failed Darwin Theory Still Taught

Not only did Papa Darwin plagiarize other people and hijack Edward Blyth's idea of natural selection in his presentation of evolution, but he also tinkered with the formation of atolls, which was based in incomplete science. It is malarkey, but still taught to students.

Darwin's failed atoll formation theory is still in textbooks, along with other discredited ideas.
Palmyra Atoll, NOAA photo by Erin Looney
Secular science indoctrination centers (schools) are famous for providing false and outdated information regarding evidence for evolution and the age of the earth. Indeed, they use fraud. (This is "education".) We've covered Haeckel's drawings that are used to support both abortion and evolution already, and the Miller-Urey experiment has been thoroughly refuted. Darwin's ideas on atoll formation is known to be junk science, but that and the others are still in the textbooks. Maybe it's because it makes secularists feel good, and they need to make the books bigger?
Darwin investigated other questions than evolution, such as the nature of barnacles, pigeons and things, but they all attempted to promote views of long ages and the gradual accumulation of small changes. His theory on coral atolls has now been criticized as “fatally flawed” – i.e., dead. Schools, however, are still teaching this dead yet “deeply ingrained” theory.

Marine geologist and oceanographer André Droxler knows Charles Darwin’s theory about atolls is incorrect. But Droxler, who’s studied coral reefs for more than 40 years, understands why Darwin’s model persists in textbooks, university lecture halls, natural science museums and Wikipedia entries.

To read the rest, see "Darwin’s Flawed Atoll Theory Still Taught". You may also be interested in "Coral Reefs and the Young Earth".



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

Wednesday, October 21, 2020

Scorpions in the Post-Fall Creation

People are often nervous about scorpions. They are not just in the desert, and some have lethal stings. Of course, the 25 dangerous species get most of the attention. Darwin's handmaidens are none to fond of these critters.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/BXDqk8jkq1k" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Credit: Unsplash / Wolfgang Hasselmann

The "oldest" fossil scorpion according to evolutionary dating shows no appreciable change over all those supposed years. Also, evolutionists are unable to come up with satisfactory explanations for the development of both venom and the delivery system. Many creationists believe that organisms were "frontloaded" with genetic information at Creation, and genetic switches and so forth were activated at the Fall of man. Scorpions are fascinating critters, so we should take a look.

You can’t ponder the scorpion without noticing all its magnificent weaponry. The most obvious items in its arsenal are the bulbous stinger mounted on the tip of the abdomen and the arm-like pinching pedipalps. The pedipalps seize prey, which mostly consists of insects (bigger scorpions can take on small rodents and reptiles). If the prey is larger and likely to fight back, the scorpion can whip its tail over its head and sting.

For the full article, grab onto "Scorpions—Armed and Dangerous".



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

Tuesday, October 20, 2020

Adapting to High Altitudes

When sports teams are acclimated to playing in lower elevations, it is often a challenge for them to travel to travel higher. They usually spend some time getting used to the conditions instead of immediately playing a strenuous game. The situation is more dramatic for people who need to live in much greater elevations.

Tibet is the roof of the world. This article reaches new heights with a study of adaptation to high altitudes from a creation science perspective.
Tibet and Mt. Everest credit: Flickr / Göran Höglund (Kartläsarn) (CC BY 2.0)

Humans need to adapt to lower air pressure and oxygen levels. The Master Engineer designed epigenetic switches so that certain genes would be expressed in hemoglobin and many other areas. Also, it is not just a couple of genes that are mobilized. Like other living things, humans were "frontloaded" with the ability to adapt to changes such as high altitudes. Just ask the Tibetans and take note of the Denisovans.

One marvellous characteristic of living things is the ability to respond to their environment in a way that sustains life and allows for procreation. This is clear evidence of a wise Creator who blessed living creatures to reproduce and fill the earth (Genesis 1:21–22, 27–28; 8:17; Isaiah 45:18). Of great interest to creation biologists is the underlying design that has enabled living creatures to adapt to numerous, varied environments in a bit over 4,300 years since the Flood.

Using the history in Genesis and observations from the world around us, creation scientists recognize that within various created kinds of plants and animals, considerable diversity has arisen.1 While it is well known that substantial variation has arisen in domestic species (e.g. dogs) within the last few hundred years, evolutionists imagined that the process is orders of magnitude slower in the wild. Given the biblical timeframe, this is clearly not the case. In recent decades, scientific studies have confirmed many examples of rapid diversification in the wild. Creation geneticists have begun to explore some of the mechanisms that appear to be involved.

As more studies uncover the rapid pace of changes and their underlying mechanisms, it becomes increasingly apparent that God designed His creatures with an amazing ability to adapt to a wide variety of challenges that He knew they would encounter in this world. A brief glimpse of this can be seen in organisms that have adapted to living at high altitudes.

To read the rest, climb on over to "Many paths lead to high-altitude adaptation". It could be the high point of your day.



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

Monday, October 19, 2020

A Frankensteined Fish?

You probably know the story of Baron Frankenstein who stitched together various dead body parts and created a monster. (Note that Frankenstein was the scientist's name, not that of the monster.) A misnamed "frankenfish" was produced by scientists using two types of evolution-defying fish.

Scientists accidentally hybridized a sturgeon and a paddlefish. They were surprised these two kinds of fish found yet another way to defy evolution.
Credit: Freeimages / Martin Boose
That's right, the sturgeon and the paddlefish are closely related due to taxonomy, marriage, and global warming. However, they are separated my almost 200 Darwin years, so believers in universal common ancestor evolution are surprised that the two species managed to fall in love and make little hybrid fishies. Some have dubbed the offspring "Frankenfish", but that is greatly inaccurate for a hybrid. Do a search for Frankenfish and you'll see that this incorrect word has been used before. No evolution, no "creation". Just fish giving evolutionists something to carp about and quietly affirming recent creation.
In 2020, Hungarian zoologists described the hybridization of a Russian sturgeon and American paddlefish. Some sources have reported the scientists created a “franken-fish”—as indeed it looks quite bizarre. Researchers, however, are calling it the sturddlefish—with sharp fins and an elongated nose.

A hybrid in zoology is an offspring produced from a cross between parents of different genotypes (the precise genetic constitution of a cell or individual). For example, a zonkey results from a donkey crossed with a zebra; a liger results from a male lion and female tiger producing. This is not evolution, of course—they belong to the horse and cat kind respectively.

 To read the rest, sea "Was a Franken-Fish 'Created'?" Also recommended is "‘Impossible’ Hybrid Suggests Non-Darwinian Change".



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

Saturday, October 17, 2020

Video Review — Genesis Impact

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Under usual circumstances, the secular educational system has students under its control for several hours a day, weeks a year, many years. They are typically given the airbrushed versions of secular humanism and evolution. 

Genesis Impact is a video geared for students, but anyone can benefit from this presentation that shows serious flaws in evolution.
Image courtesy of Genesis Apologetics

Ironically, when Christian and creationist parents want to do what is right and teach their kids the truth, atheists and evolutionists say that we are "indoctrinating" them. Not hardly! In fact, they are doing the indoctrination, then accusing us of what they are doing themselves. It's okay to question evolution so you can learn how it happened, but it is streng verboten to question if it happened in the first place.

"Go to a natural museum history", they said. "You'll learn a lot." Yes, you'll learn how cherry-picked facts based on the naturalism narrative can be presented as scientific truth. Also, you can see from models and reconstructions how artists' conceptions are both fanciful and deceitful. And we are guilty of indoctrination?

Remember when I did a write-up for the Debunking Evolution series a spell back? The good folks at Genesis Apologetics never dismounted and put their ponies in the stable. They have produced several videos and Seven Myths series, and now Dr. Dan Biddle is leading the charge with Genesis Impact. As with Debunking Evolution, we are able to download a free PDF booklet and see videos that supplement the video.

I found out from their mailing list that the video is available for purchase and streaming rental, but I was able to see it free on Amazon's Prime channel. Now I'll give you my thoughts and observations.

Suspension of Disbelief

People who want to pick nits may criticize:
  • The docent (Reggie McGuire) who presented an evolution story allowed Christine (Hannah Bradley) to ask questions and present evidence for an hour.
  • There was a prairie schooner-full of dialogue that I consider a composite, discussions that could take place between individuals over days or even weeks presented in that hour.
  • She pulls out her phone, makes a connection, and shows video segments on the big screen. (We all know how time-consuming that can be in real life and didn't need superficial details, so it was good that they left those out.)
  • Most of the students were listening respectfully.

Show some Respect

Suppose you are a student who has been learning the truth about creation and how evolutionary evidence is tendentious and highly speculative. To go into a situation guns a-blazing may make you feel mighty fine, but it's counterproductive. While we are often attacked by internet atheists and Darwin devotees, we are to serve Christ with wisdom and grace despite possible raw nerves. It's far too easy to lose an argument (the real kind, not an emotional shouting match) by being obstreperous from the get-to.

Christine shows humility and shows critical thinking skills. She asks pointed questions that are not laden with accusations, and the docet allowed her to make her points.

Know Your Material

Christine said that she had been doing some research. You can set yourself up for a fall by challenging an expert, so do your homework. Nobody can memorize or remember everything, but to simply appeal to the Bible or public figures who support creation science will not be helpful. Remember that many people "think" with their emotions, so they won't care what a person or ministry says (genetic fallacy). Not to say that they cannot be referenced, but there is a time and place — later on up the road.

Cheap Stereotypes

You won't find those here, pilgrim. Some films portray atheists in such a way that the viewer might expect them to grow horns and fangs, then shoot lasers out of their eyes. This docent (Reggie McGuire has an excellent speaking voice, but never mind about that now) was clearly an unbeliever, but he was a decent docent. Also, Christine wasn't acting all highfalutin-like, giving a false victory to Christians by trouncing the docent.

There was an atheist in the audience who criticized Christine, which shows a bit of reality. She and others wouldn't fall for the distraction, but did what unbelievers often loathe: kept to the subject. F'rinstance, I can say, "Sure, my nose is weird. I also cheat at solitaire. But can you respond to my point about how the appendix is not a vestigial organ after all?"

Another cheap trick that was avoided would be to have a group of people falling on their knees, sobbing in repentance like in some comic book tracts. The docent did say, "You've given me a lot to think about". As Christians and creationists, we plant seeds. Some may never grow, and we may never see the results in the future. Remember, we are to be faithful, but it is the Holy Spirit who does the convicting and saving of souls.

Evidence and Faith

Regular readers know that I have problems with the Intelligent Design movement. Creationists use intelligent design arguments and evidence, but the ID movement avoids young-age creation and the Bible. Genesis Impact had a great deal of evidence, but it was not divorced from the gospel message; the idea that we can "leave God out of it" is contrary to Scripture. No, Christine didn't make her arguments with, "The Bible says..." Rather, she intelligently used evidence and brought in the Bible — gently — later.

Genesis Impact is not a showcase of dazzling special effects. That's good, because those would have detracted from the video. (Well, the effect of the video viewer at the beginning was impressive, and I didn't catch on that the very beginning and end were set, say, thirty years into the future.) Having read and watched a great deal of biblical creation science material over the years, much of this material was a review for me. A very useful review. By the way, the majority of the movie is about human origins. Genesis Apologetics has excellent videos about geology and the Genesis Flood, but those areas as well as radiometric dating are not emphasized. Fine, you can watch their channel for them. Or maybe there will be a companion movie later on.

People can use the main video, the supplemental shorter videos, and the booklet to lead a series of discussions. These can be a part of homeschooling, a family event, perhaps at a church function, or more. Use your imagination. I have to interrupt myself here and say that while the target audience is students, anyone who wants to learn about biblical creation science can benefit.

Once again, here is the main page for Genesis Impact, and clicking around the site can be useful to you. I normally dislike embedding videos that are more than about half an hour, but it's been a while since I've done that, and this is important. By the way, if you buy a copy, it's there when you need it even if your internet crashes or something.



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

Friday, October 16, 2020

Ice on Greenland Deposited Rapidly

Believers in an old earth refer to slow and gradual processes (uniformitarianism), and a big part of that involves ice depositions. This idea not only relies on several assumptions, but also relies on circular reasoning involving the Milankovitch theory. New research supports creation science models on ice depositions, the Genesis Flood, and the Ice Age.

Nuuk city in Greenland
Credit: Good Free Images / Oliver Schauf

Evidence has existed for a long time that ice accumulates rapidly, and one dramatic example involved airplanes that crash-landed there in World War II. There are times when secular scientists conduct research instead of following the herd mentality of "consensus science". Creation science Flood models involve extreme volcanic activity. Not only does this contribute to planetary cooling, but produces tephra (debris) and ash. These materials were detected in ice core samples, and the secular consensus was upended.
The millions of years is built upon assuming the astronomical or Milankovitch theory of ice ages which has many problems. When the researchers first counted the supposed annual layers, they only reached 85,000 years at the 2,800 m depth. Other scientists claimed this result was wrong because the time did not agree with that of deep-sea cores, also based on the astronomical theory. So, the researchers went back and increased the resolution of one instrument from 8 mm to 1 mm and counted 25,000 more annual layers between 2,300 and 2,800 m, and voila! It matched.

To find out what this excerpt is all about, see "New evidence for rapid Ice Age deposition on the Greenland Ice Sheet". You may also be interested in "Faulty Ice Core Ages and Tephra".



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

Thursday, October 15, 2020

Examining False Charges of Deluge Story Copying

Hopefully, I can move to a replacement for this awful Google-owned Blogger platform by the end of the year. Like Facebook, they force changes on its users that are dreadful.

Atheists and tinhorn "Christian scholars" level charges at the narrative of the Genesis Flood for being a copy of similar pagan stories. If so-called scholars actually did complete research instead of arguing from superficialities and anti-Bible presuppositions, they would not be making such foolish assertions.

Enemies of the Genesis Flood have fabricated the idea that the Hebrews copied pagan stories. This is easily refuted.
Library of Ashurbanipal / The Flood Tablet / The Gilgamesh Tablet / Wikimedia Commons /  (CC BY-SA 3.0)

As we know, there are global deluge story all over the world. Creationists believe that after the dispersal at Babel, the people took the historical account with them, but they deteriorated. One of the main problems with the idea of the Hebrews copying from pagan sources is that such a thing would be unthinkable to those Hebrews. The cultures of the ancient peoples in question were extremely different, and even a cursory comparison between the plagiarized novel-like approach on one side compared to the sacred trust and desire for historical accuracy on the other side should be obvious — the Mesopotamians were considering it literature or entertainment. There are other major factors to consider.

For a long time, the discovery of Flood literature in Mesopotamia outside of the Genesis account has prompted a higher critical argument that the Genesis account must have borrowed from the Babylonian and Assyrian versions of the Flood story. This thesis, however, can be seriously challenged based on recent archaeological work that expands both our understanding as to how ancient Mesopotamian religion functioned, and how their scribes related to their texts.

. . .

For these and other reasons, the long-held higher critical argument about an alleged textual exchange is now outdated. It is untenable to argue that Hebrew scribal tradition based their sacred history on a foreign text that not only had a hostile religious worldview to that of the monotheistic Israelite one, but was not regarded as historical and sacred by those who circulated them.

Although rather long, this interesting analysis should prove valuable to people who desire historical accuracy and useful information in defense of the Bible. To read all of it, click on "The Mesopotamian Deluge Accounts: Neither History Nor Revelation". You may also be interested in "Gilgamesh, Genesis and Myths". Also, "Another Gilgamesh Great Flood Pretender" deals with a fantasy of one of the sidewinders discussed in the "Mesopotamian Deluge" link, above.



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

Wednesday, October 14, 2020

Brain Complexity is Problematic for Evolution

Rusty Swingset, the foreman at the Darwin Ranch, tends to spill the beans about their weekly chapel meetings. While bowing to Hanuman the Monkey God, the ranch hands chant about simple life forms becoming more complex. A recent study of mammal brains short circuited that idea.

Research on brain size and neural connectivity refutes yet another bit of evolutionary dogma.
Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos / Renjith Krishnan

Biblical creationists affirm that God made life fully functional from the beginning, so we are not exactly surprised that big brains and little brains in mammals have the same complex connectivity. (For that matter, this is right in keeping with the knowledge that brain size has nothing to do with intelligence or evolution.) Many critters were never scanned before, which seems a mite surprising to me. The results of this study fly in the face of evolutionary dogma.

The evolutionary model of brain development predicted that the complexity of neural connectivity should have increased as brains became larger and the creatures more complex. However, a groundbreaking study has just been published showing that, across the spectrum of mammals, the levels of brain activity are equally complex. In other words, mammalian brain connectivity and its amazing complexity appeared suddenly and fully functional across the board with no evolutionary precursor.

To cognate on the rest of the article, see "Mammalian Brains Prove Evolutionary Disconnect".



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

Tuesday, October 13, 2020

Siberian Cave Bear on Ice

Siberia is famous for extreme cold and political prisoners, yet some people call it home. Imagine if you will some reindeer herders going about their routine and finding the frozen remains of a cave bear. They saw fit to make the finding known. We have a couple of articles on this subject for your consideration.

A frozen cave bear dated at 40,000 Darwin years old raises serious problems for secularists. Creation Science Ice Age models provide superior answers.
Assembled with items from Clker clipart
This critter was dated at many thousands of Darwin years ago, but was in surprisingly good condition. Such a huge amount of time assigned to it is based on the naturalism narrative, not science or even good sense. Ever put a slab of meat in your freezer and then find it again some time later, only to find it has deteriorated and not worth putting in a stew? That's in a well-controlled environment. We're supposed to suspend reason and believe what scientists say, follow the consensus, and believe that seasonal changes, earth movements, predators, and whatever else didn't bother it.
They say this bear, with soft tissue, organs, soft nose and all, died almost 40,000 years ago. Is that credible?

When thinking of fossils, one doesn’t usually think of hair, skin, and internal organs. . . . The scientists are flabbergasted at this first-ever discovery of a whole bear found in melting permafrost, with all its internal organs intact and even its nose soft and completely preserved. It looks like it died a few months ago. How did it get quick-frozen? How did it last up to 39,400 years in such a condition?

You can explore the rest by chilling out at "Ice Age Bear Found Intact in Melting Permafrost". I hope you'll bear with me and come back for the next fascinating article!

Another from Clker clipart
Something else to consider is the extreme contrast between uniformitarian and creation science geology. The naturalism narrative overrides the evidence when it comes to deep time and evolution, so we get tales best suited for telling around the campfire on the trail. Consider an icon of the Ice Age (and of Siberia to some extent), the woolly mammoth. They were all over the northern latitudes.

An animal is not likely to decide to make a home where it will freeze to death , dense fur or not. Also, food and water must be available, among other things. Ice Age critters had needs, and they obviously were met at one time. Using creation science Genesis Flood models for the Ice Age, observed facts make far more sense, and many questions can be answered.
These carcasses, particularly those of the woolly mammoths, present a major mystery to uniformitarian scientists. Millions of woolly mammoths lived in Siberia during the Ice Age. But today, Siberia’s winters are brutally cold, with lows often reaching -40 degrees Fahrenheit. In some places, temperatures occasionally reach -90 degrees Fahrenheit—colder than the surface of Mars! It’s very difficult to see how even woolly mammoths could endure that kind of bitter cold. To make matters worse, uniformitarian scientists think temperatures during the Ice Age were even colder than they are now!

However, the Flood Ice Age model easily solves this mystery.

You can learn quite a bit by reading the full article (I'll allow that the title is weak), "Was This Cave Bear Really 'Prehistoric'?" Also, the short video below (sound optional, no narration) is misnamed. It contains summertime scenes from a place that becomes the coldest on Earth:



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

Monday, October 12, 2020

The Geocentrism Resurgence

Most people accept, and even take for granted, the geokinetic (also called heliocentric) model but may not know it by name. In the briefest sense, the sun is the center of the solar system with Earth and other planets in orbit around it. For a long time, the geocentric view dominated astronomy and astrology.


This post contains links to articles describing the history of geocentrism, the modern resurgence, and thoroughly debunking that idea.
Planetary Orbits, Andreas Cellanius, 1660
The idea that Earth is the center of the solar system was reinforced by the pagan astronomer and astrologer Claudius Ptolemy, who built on Aristotelian ideas. His system was accepted by scientists for many years, and the heliocentric view took a long time to develop and gain acceptance. Although heliocentrism/geokineticism has been established, there is a baffling resurgence in geocentrism. (In addition, many flat-earthers are geocentrists.) Not only do many deny that Earth orbits the sun, but some geocentrists refuse to believe that it rotates on its axis!

One area that atheists ridicule Christians is by accusing us of being flat-earthers as well as believing in geocentrism. Unfortunately, there are professing Christians who believe in these unscientific views. What is worse is that through eisegesis and taking verses out of context, many of them believe they are superior to other Christians. To be blunt, when I encounter flat-earth geocentric creationists, I am embarrassed to be associated with them; creationists have enough problems without sharing the umbrella with believers in such things.

We have a couple of articles to consider. Biblical creation astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner has put a great deal of work into these, and I hope you'll find them as interesting and useful as I do. By the way, keep an eye out for the sections on how scientists were entrenched in their geocentric views and resisted change. Also, how the view that aether was necessary so light could travel through outer space — think of how Darwinian presuppositions are the basis for failed biological and cosmological conjectures of modern evolutionists.






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

Friday, October 9, 2020

The ATLAS Comet and the Kuiper Belt

As it is with any science, knowledge increases over time and with better equipment. This is especially true with astronomy. Classifications of celestial objects seemed to be under control, despite the occasional anomaly. Those pesky creationists with their science facts required a lot of Making Things Up™ to protect the deep time narrative.

Secular cosmologists reclassified a small celestial object into something they falsely think will rescue them from observed facts of recent creation.
Gran cometa de 1882 by Jose Maria Velasco

Don't be disunderstanding me here. It's a common practice to add new terminology to describe new discoveries or to give legitimate reclassifications. (Want an example? Pluto is now considered a dwarf planet, much to my sorrow, because of it size, the abundance of similar objects, and other factors.) However, there was some serious redefining of an object with the poetic name of P/2019 LD2 (ATLAS).

It was a centaur, but because of a computer simulation that fits the deep time agenda, P/2019 LD2 (ATLAS) is now considered to be a comet. It is also a rescuing device from the Kuiper belt, there to save cosmic evolution from the evidence of recent creation. Cue dramatic hero music.

Asteroids and comets used to be much simpler. I remember when there were 2,000 known asteroids. Now the number is closing in on one million. I remember when a dozen new comet discoveries in a year was a bunch. But anymore, even a bad year would have far more discoveries than that. The total number of known comets now exceeds 4,000. And comets and asteroids once were distinct things: asteroids were rocky; comets were icy; and comet ices sublimed into gas that we could see. Furthermore, the orbits of the two types of bodies were very different. But as I’ve previously written, the distinction between the two groups has become blurred. In recognition of that blurring, in 2006 the International Astronomical Union established a new classification, Small Solar System Bodies (SSSBs) to include both asteroids and comets.

To read the rest, fly on over to "P/2019 LD2 (ATLAS): The Latest Proof of the Kuiper Belt?" Also, don't blame me for the weird appearance. Google, owners of Blogger where you're reading; this, decided to change the interface and made things much, much worse. I am seriously considering moving to another blogging platform.



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

Labels