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

Monday, November 30, 2020

Trusting Eyewitness Testimony

For ages, eyewitness testimony was considered reliable in a courtroom setting and other ways. Some people began to think eyewitness testimony is not valid, and forensic evidence is more important. Such a claim is ineffable twaddle, and the sidewinders creating doubt were using spurious methods!

There are people who use self-refuting logic to say that forensic evidence is more reliable than eyewitness testimony. This is false and refuted.
Credit: FreeDigitalImages / IndypendenZ (yes, really)

From an evolutionary standpoint, the concept is self-refuting. We are all just evolved pond scum, so the brains of witnesses are unreliable because evolution, so it's better to trust forensic evidence about the past — and interpret the evidence with our faulty brains! Remember, evidence does not "speak for itself".

Biblical creationists and biblical inerrantists trust the eyewitness testimony of the Bible, and I reckon that this is one reason atheists and evolutionists reject eyewitness testimony. Nothing in the Bible, written by eyewitnesses, has been controverted by operational science or archaeology. Atheists reject miracles, divine inspiration, and other factors, preferring instead to rely on the views of humans that they know are fallible.

Witnesses as well as those interpreting evidence have their own perspectives at play. One of the primary rules in law enforcement and courtroom activities is to keep the witnesses separated. Discrepancies are actually a strength!

Someone could witness a traffic accident at an intersection and see two people get out of the red car, and one get out of the black car. Another witness sees three people get out of the red car, not two. Is one lying? In this scenario, the first witness had the wrong view, the wrong perspective, and could not see the third person. No lies here, Luke.

Now, if the witnesses got together to compare notes, their testimonies would be suspicious because there were no significant differences. In the Gospels, there are occasional minor differences in narratives. For example, the Gadarene demoniac. Mark 5:1-20 and Luke 8:26-39 mention one man, while Matthew 8:28-34 mentions two men. Is that a contradiction? Not hardly! Clearly, emphasis was placed on the more significant man. Also, there was nothing saying, "One man. Not two, not zero, not three, four is right out".

While doubt was cast on eyewitness testimony by alleged experts using devious methods and who apparently had their own agenda, that has been overturned. We can trust the eyewitness testimony of Scripture, and the account of Creation given at the beginning and affirmed in the New Testament. The Master Engineer created us with reliable brains and the minds to operate in them.

The biggest clash between creationists and evolutionists really has little to do with the evidence we possess. It has to do with how we interpret that evidence. This ultimately leads to a discussion of epistemology: how we know what we (claim to) know. Without getting tangled up in some of the hairsplitting details and in-house debates, what we can say very simply is that creationists base their knowledge and worldview on Scripture first and above all. Evolutionists work within a naturalistic worldview (the presumption that supernatural events can be disregarded or assumed not to occur).

You can witness the full article at "Countering the Assault on Eyewitnesses".

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

Saturday, November 28, 2020

Darwinian Naturalism and Freedom for Evil

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

As regular readers have probably observed, many of my articles were inspired by the work of others. This one from Revolution Against Evolution (a site which is blocked by Fazebook) was written in 2017, and is something that was useful for expansion.

It is not really such a puzzle how anti-Christian people rose to power in the past, and how they are gaining power again. It comes down to foundations.
Public domain image was modified, then the jigsaw effect came from Big Huge Labs
How can we reach a point where evil behavior is not only tolerated, but accepted and encouraged? Far too many people refuse to learn from history, and it is repeating itself today. There are many analyses of how Adolf Hitler came to power, but he was unlikely to have made it with a platform of exterminating Jews and other "races". It seems safe to assume that Eichmann, Göring, and his other henchmen would not have been given the time of day.

Small Beginnings

Hitler's book Mein Kampf was a diatribe against Jews, but the full force of those philosophies was gradual. Propaganda was utilized, one point being that they were the common enemy. Another tactic was concentration and repetition. Added to this is dehumanization, of which ridicule is an essential part. Also important for him and other totalitarians is control of the media.

People have willingly negated the lessons from history regarding Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and many others. Indeed, although communism and socialism have failed, people who want free stuff and resent those who have become wealthy believe propaganda from modern leftist politicians. Those people have also hated Judaism and Christianity. Now we have openly socialist, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian politicians receiving adoration. Those who dissent are labeled, ridiculed, and dehumanized. Indeed, leftists in the formerly United States want to send supporters of President Trump to reeducation camps. The mainstream media is complicit, spreading false news, promoting leftist causes, and attempting to silence news that is not compatible with their agendas.

We don't have time to discuss censorship. There's plenty of information available on that subject anyway.

Have you ever noticed that most professing atheists are also leftists? Most Western countries were founded on Christian principles, and this was extremely obvious for the United States (and to some extent, the formerly Great Britain). Atheists and leftists attempt to rewrite history, changing successful economic principles as well as biblical truths. Further, fundamentalist atheists are becoming more militant, pretending to adore science and reason but showing contempt for both. Instead, they focus on dehumanizing Christians and creationists in their pursuit of suppressing the truth of God, and promoting things that are contrary to scriptural principles.

Eroding the Foundations

There was a time when schools and universities equipped students to face the challenges of the future. Now they have "safe spaces" so their delicate feathers are not ruffled by unpleasant facts or concepts that require actual thought. For ages, debate clubs existed, and forms of debate were utilized for the purposes of not only challenging one another, but sharpening each other.

As mentioned earlier, the media is extremely involved in promoting leftist and atheistic views. Sheeple listen to those news outlets instead of bothering to think critically. (Indeed, critical thinking has been fading from view for quite a spell now.) People do not ask others, or even themselves, how someone can make a claim, where is the support for it, and so on.

The Judeo-Christian ethic of Western nations was not destroyed by Taggart leading owlhoots a-ridin' into town, shootin', hollerin', and a-whompin' every value within an inch of its life. Instead, the foundations were eroded gradually and with subtlety.

Influence of Darwinian Naturalism

The foundation of almost every major Christian doctrine begins in Genesis, and atheistic naturalism (adherents make a priori assumptions that miracles are impossible and God the Creator does not exist) frequently utilizes the first lie, found in Genesis 3:1. The serpent questioned and misrepresented God's Word. Since people do not have high levels of trust for atheists (nor do they trust each other), the full-on assault approach they have does not carry much impact. Intelligent naturalists appeal to more subtle attacks on the truth.

Essentially, the attack is on the authority of God's Word. The media and atheistic propaganda are exceptionally hostile to it. Secularists not only hate God and his Word, but God in us (John 15:18, 2 Timothy 3:12).

I believe that the most popular attack is an appeal to science. Not actual observed science, but conflating operational science with historical science. People have a strange love/hate relationship with science and scientists. On one hand, depending on scientists to solve our problems, but also exhibiting suspicion. Since critical thinking is seldom utilized by the unwashed masses, people seem to be willing to accept what "scientists say" or what "studies show".

Scientists say that Earth is billions of Darwin years old, never mind that there are many scientific indications that it is far younger than materialists maintain. Further, scientists say that since the world is that old, there was plenty of time for life to evolve. Essentially, the Trojan Horse of false science was brought through the gate and the invaders wreaked havoc on theology, true science, and logical thinking.

The True Root Cause

People don't like to hear this. Maybe because it's too simple, or it could be overused. Still, the true root cause is sin. Study on it. All are sinners in rebellion against God, and we must humble ourselves and repent so Jesus Christ is Lord of our lives. That doesn't set well with human nature. We're proud. We're human. We're special (even though evolutionists say we're just modified pond scum that came on the scene by accident). We think and believe the right things because of what "scientists say" and follow the trends of godless societies.

Further, thinking deteriorates in proportion to sin (Romans 1:18-32, 1 Timothy 4:2). In theology, it is the noetic effect of sin. I have seen people who are cogent, but when they rail against God, their reasoning turns to trail dust.

God's Word says that he is the Creator and he makes the rules. Evolution may appeal to pride and the intellect through philosophy and pretenses at science, but it is a way to justify rebellion against God. It empowers sin. How can Hitler rise to power, and how can God-hating socialists come to today? Gradually, through sinful tactics and the rejection of God's Word. No wonder atheists, leftists, and totalitarians in general hate Christians. Biblical creationists are the worst of the bunch to them because we uphold the authority of the Bible from the very first verse. Are you ready to take your stand against evil and to support the authority of God's Word?

The article that was the springboard for this is "License to Kill", and I reckon that would be worth your time.

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

Friday, November 27, 2020

Dingo Dilemma for Darwinists

Time to saddle up and take a ride down Australia way. See that dog over there? Sure does look like a dog, but you had best leave it well alone, and keep it away from young children. That is the dingo, the wild dog of Australia. 

The dingo is called Australia's wild dog, and is unique to that continent. It is frustrating to evolutionists. It may also be a unique biblical kind.
Who's a good doggie? No way! Think of it more like a wolf.
Credit: cropped from Pixabay / Michelle Maria
While they have a strong resemblance to dogs and can interbreed with them, dingoes have distinct differences and are unique to Australia. They are classified as placental mammals, and 'Straya is littered with marsupials. Meanwhile, the opposite is the case in other parts of the world where placental mammals outnumber marsupials (apparently, the opossum is the only marsupial here in North America). Dingoes are also troubling for evolution. 

Darwin's handmaidens are content to evosplain the dingo's existence with assertions, but have nothing plausible to offer. They are clearly of the biblical dog kind (or possibly even a separate but related kind), and the fossil record supports this fact.
Dingoes look like dogs, but evolutionists say they are not. Pat Shipman writes, “Without question, most people from outside Australia first see a dingo and think, as I did, ‘That’s a dog.’” A dingo looks like a dog, acts like a dog, and runs like a dog. But is not a dog – or so says Pat Lee Shipman in his American Scientist magazine’s cover story, “The Elusive Dingo.” What is it, then, and why is it one of the few placental mammals on a continent full of marsupials?

When Charles Darwin visited Australia in 1836, he saw first-hand the ambiguity of the dingo’s origin. He wrote in 1868 the following, which expresses his instant confusion about this animal’s origin:

You can read the rest at "The Dingo Enigma". Also, you may be interested in a post about how they can be problems, "And Dingo Was His Name-o". The video that follows informs us of trial by media, massive incompetence and injustice, argument from presuppositions — and exoneration.

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

Thursday, November 26, 2020

Also Thankful for True Science Knowledge

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Here in the formerly United States, there is currently a great deal of anger and violence happening. This society has been so secularized — indeed, paganized — that many have forgotten the many blessings that our Creator has bestowed. One of these is science.

One of the many things we have to be thankful for is science. We must be on guard against false philosophies that hijack true science for naturalism.
Made at Pablo
The American observation of Thanksgiving is not only unique, but is distinctly Christian. Why do you think secularists and atheists constantly attempt to rewrite history to remove God? Some have even taught in schools that the Pilgrims gave thanks to the natives. Not hardly! Edward Winslow wrote in 1623 that "...wherein we returned glory honour and praise, with all thankfulness to our good God".

As we have seen in previous posts and articles, our Creator has given us minds that he expects us to use. We draw inspiration from nature, use what has been given us for our bodily needs, and our thinking can glorify him through logic and science.

Unfortunately, there are many people who claim to have the definition of science, but that can get truly bizarre. In discussions, it is expedient to agree upon a definition of science and work from there, though not ceding to the dictates of a secularist who manipulates definitions for his or her own purposes.

People generally agree that science is the use of evidence so that what is observed in nature can be explained. That is an excellent description of observational science, and it also implies something upon which biblical creationists and secular scientists can (or should) agree: the origin of the universe and the origin of life are beyond the limits of observational science.

However, biblical creationists and others point out that evidence does not "speak for itself", it must be interpreted. People interpret evidence based on their experiences, training, and worldviews. Creationists see evidence for recent creation, but secular scientists are married to the atheistic philosophy of naturalism for the sake of their narrative.

We have science and technology, and are thankful that those are some of the abundant blessings that God has given us. Do not be deceived by false philosophies masquerading as knowledge.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defines science as “the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.” This definition suggests that evidence should be the foundation for science.

But exactly what is evidence? Depending on how it is used, evidence can be an equivocal concept. . . .

Evidence, as legally defined, can and many times does depend upon how the observer interprets what is seen or measured. By leaving out the subjectivity wrapped up in evidence, the NAS definition makes science seem more objective than it often is—especially when used to reconstruct past events.

Be thankful that you can read the article by visiting "Science vs. Falsely Called Knowledge".

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

Wednesday, November 25, 2020

Dinosaur Tracks, Bright Angel Trail, and the Genesis Flood

If you take a notion to visit the Grand Canyon, you can also see smaller canyons and several trails. One of these is the Bright Angel Trail, which was set up by the Havasupai folks. After they were told to get lost, Ralph Cameron improved on it and gave it its current name. Wonder what he would have thought about those tracks.

Dinosaur tracks in the wrong geologic place further confound secular geology, defended by bad science. Especially since they support the Genesis Flood
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Jarek Tuszyński (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Just up yonder above the trackways, separated by fifty million Darwin years, is the Coconino Sandstone. Deep time believers cling to the uniformitarian narrative despite the startling hugely bigness of the flaws of wind-driven narrative. These include lizard tracks, mica in the sand, and more. In fact, biblical creationists have been pointing out this bad science for decades. But naturalists are like political leftists receiving fraudulent votes: if something appears to bolster something in their favor, no matter how absurd, they'll disregard the facts.

Something widely known in geology is that the Coconino Sandstone, discovered in 1508 by Salvatore Coconino —

"Stop it, Cowboy Bob! You made that up!"

Just seeing if you were awake. Moving on...

Widely known in geology is that Salvatore — I mean, the Coconino — sandstone has dinosaur tracks. These alone are convincing evidence for deposition by a watery deluge. However, a "recent" rockfall on the Bright Angel Trail revealed more tracks. In the "wrong" place. In the same style. Researchers have demonstrated that these were made underwater by critters fighting the current. Put the evidence together and you have even more support for the Genesis Flood.
Controversy has raged for decades surrounding mysterious four-footed (tetrapod) trackways preserved in the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon. Creation scientists have convincingly argued, going back to the early 1990s, that these trackways are strong evidence of the global Flood, rather than being imprints in ancient wind-blown sand dunes. Now, apparently as a result of a chance encounter with a rockfall, a highly similar set of prints has been uncovered—though this time from a layer below the Coconino.

To finish reading, stroll over to "The Bright Angel Trail trackways — Another set of arrows pointing to the global Flood".

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

Tuesday, November 24, 2020

Those Other Senses in Animals

Most people have and use their five basic senses, so it may be surprising to learn that many animals could be considered to have sixth senses. This is not about occult things, but it is clear that the Master Engineer built special features into creatures.

It may be surprising to know that many animals have senses beyond our basic five. These testify of the Master Engineer and cannot be evosplained away.
Credits: Original photo from Unsplash / Yu-chuan Hsu, modified at PhotoFunia
A quick aside before we move on, just an unscientific opinion. Sometimes things are considered psychic or a sixth sense in humans, but I think that some of these are based on lost abilities. Many abilities have been undeveloped or negated by industrialized societies where our ancestors would rely on and interpret input from their senses. Even now, we may realize that an air current has changed or a change in lighting and shadows indicated that someone drew near. Just wondering how much may still be built into us but has faded over time and disuse.

Let's get to cognating on the critters, shall we? The beaks of pigeons have particles of magnetite that are linked to their brains, helping their navigation. As many people know, some organisms can see light waves beyond those that the human eye and brain can detect. Ever use night vision goggles or see them in use on television? Some animals have built-in thermal imaging. Or consider the fact that animals can hear sounds that are far above or below what we were designed to hear — and communicate with them.

Darwin's disciples cannot give rational explanations of plausible models for the numerous abilities. They evosplain that such things had to evolve by time, chance, natural selection, dumb luck, and so on. Nor can they provide believable models. No, it makes much more sense to give appropriate credit to the Creator.
We rely on our senses to tell us accurately about our surroundings. However, our five senses cannot detect everything. The world is full of information beyond our reach, but many animals have “sixth senses”—super senses that enable them to experience other dimensions of our world. These bonus senses help these creatures survive and thrive in their habitats.

I hope you have sense enough to read the entire article over at "Sixth Senses in Animals". You can also download the MP3 version by my favorite reader.

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

Monday, November 23, 2020

Reworking the Quote Mine

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Centuries ago, I wrote "Working in a Quote Mine" about accusations by anti-creationists of "quote mining" by biblical creationists. That is, taking remarks by a proponent of molecules-to-miner evolution out of context, misquoting, or other trickery for our own ends. 

When creationists quote evolutionists who admit their belief has problem, we are usually accused of quote mining. Such an accusation is usually fake.
Credit for image of burros at silver mine ca. 1900: LoC / Photochrom Collection

The main advantage of mining for quotes over mining for nose gold is that it's easier to share the quotes. Even better, however, is that using quotes by evolutionists who admit that their belief system has serious problems is a technique in law called statements against interest.

One of the tricks atheists use to dehumanize Christians and creationists is to lie about us. A lot. To say that we are digging up quotes to imply that some materialists suddenly announced, "My pals and I ain't riding for the Darwin brand no more" is sheer fatuousness. I reckon that anti-creationists make this charge for a couple of reasons. One is that their faith is shaken, "Galileo Figaro! Thunderbolt and lightning! Frightening me very!" The other reason is their desire to vilify creationists through poisoning the well and negate the truth of what we have to say.

I'll allow that there are mistakes, and biblical creationists should have a very high standard, what with being human and all. We cannot pass around a quote of a quote of a quote like secularists using non-reproducible peer-reviewed papers. I have discarded quotes myself when I could not find a reliable source. (We don't need hearsay because the facts are on our side anyhow.) Sometimes feral atheists will accuse us of lying because of a wording imperfection or using other typo pouncing. Other times, inefficient research yields an imprecise quote that works against us. Stop that.

In "That 'Quote Mining' Monkey Business", I quoted George Wald. Misotheists went ballistic, calling me a liar and so on. Their accusations were based on ignorance of the subject matter, their own poor research, and variations on Wald's statements. In this case (and in general) it is up to the accusers to back up their claims, showing that the creationist was disingenuous, incorrect, and embellishing the quote so we can make a straw man argument. 

What follows below is an article by Dr. Jerry Bergman from 2004. He was maligned by someone who did not have his own facts straight, beclowning himself through ridiculous attacks. This analysis is helpful to see how anti-creationists (who often are unskilled in science and ignorant of their own mythology) become desperate to hogtie creationists. Also note that the source of the attack was not from a reputable source, but just another propaganda mill that is revered by anti-creationists.

The claim by Darwinists that  “misquoting” by creationists is universal, or close to it, was investigated in this paper, and a specific example was examined and shown to be incorrect.  Specifically, the claims of Jim Foley were evaluated and were shown to be totally erroneous.  The case I examined, Foley claimed, was one of the worst cases he has identified of creationist misquoting.  I have also evaluated at many other cases of alleged creationist misquoting and concluded the claim of misquoting is usually actually an attempt to misrepresent the creationist, although in some cases it was due to typographical errors, sloppiness, or was in a few cases actually contrived by anti-creationists.

You can read the rest at "An Evaluation of Alleged Misquoting by Creationists—the Case of Jim Foley".

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

Saturday, November 21, 2020

Misotheists Dehumanizing Christians and Creationists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Making fun of an institution through satire and parody can be found throughout millennia to illustrate perceived absurdities of belief systems. These are used for various targets, but the most common seem to be political or religious. 

We have seen that militant atheists attack God, Christians, and creationists. Part of what they are doing is a part of tribalism; dehumanizing us.
C. Richard Dawkins ridiculing Ray Comfort, image credits:
Flickr / David Shankbone (public domain), modified with FotoSketcher
So why attack individuals instead of ideas? It seems like practically everyone does it. Just ask the uncool kids in school. This is far beyond satire or persuasion. A quote commonly (but probably erroneously) attributed to Socrates is, "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser". This child sees a useful principle in that statement.

Although it is common to encounter proponents of atheistic naturalism ridiculing biblical creationists in rallies, books, videos, and so on, it is greatly intensified on social(ist) media. With the option of anonymity, attacks increase with impunity and vitriol. Note that when a professing atheist makes demands on a Christian, there is usually a great deal of sneering and loaded questions.

These tend to sound like:
  • Why do you st00pid creatards hate science?
  • Prove to me God exists. You can't because he doesn't. (Ironically, previous statements made using the falsehood that atheists "lack belief" are conveniently forgotten, as is the fact that atheism is a religion.)
  • Give me evidence that the Genesis Flood happened. You can't because it didn't. In both of these, viciously circular reasoning as well as ad hominem attacks are utilized.
  • I won't read that material because it's not from a reputable scientific journal (the genetic fallacy). When attempting to provide answers, atheists and evolutionists generally refuse to read the material or watch videos because they're not from "reputable scientific journals". This usually means material based on atheistic naturalism, and peer-reviewed creation science journals are rejected.
  • A creation scientist who has a degree in astronomy has no business discussing geology. Never mind the evidence, and never mind the double standard of pretending that Dawkins and other well-heeled atheists are skilled in theology or other fields in which they are not degreed.
  • Creationists don't do science and are not real scientists.
  • Your views on creation don't count because you have the wrong political beliefs.
Just a few other things to consider:
  • When cornered, anti-creationists tend to ignore what was said or offered, then change the subject and attack the person.
  • Constantly attempting to keep us on the defensive. One fellow was asking questions at The Question Evolution Project, and I was giving answers. Suddenly, he said, "But you still can't prove your God exists". Another kept demanding evidence, and I asked him what kind of evidence he wanted. His was that we should produce what we have and he would evaluate it. Doesn't work that way. Besides, to demand empirical evidence for the existence of God is a logical fallacy called the category error.
  • Refusal to admit that because they disagree with someone, that does not justify an accusation of lying.
  • Many of these people exhibit disdain for the laws of logic, an understanding of basic science, and even of minerals-to-misotheist evolution.
  • Evolution is a cornerstone of atheism, so they fight, red in tooth and claw, to keep it going.
These lists can much longer, but that would be excessive.

We have discussed numerous times that we all have the same evidence, but it depends on our worldview-based interpretations of it. Also, evidence aside, a big problem is spiritual: atheists and evolutionists reject the authority of God's written Word, so they suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18-23). Another problem is something I learned about recently from Dr. Todd C. Wood, who was a big part of inspiring this article. A short video presentation by him is at the end.

Tribalism has an "us and them" mentality. After all, we're only ordinary men and women. Atheists have the spiritual problem of hating God (and therefore, God in his people, 2 Tim. 3:12, John 15:19). This intensifies their tribalism into dehumanizing those who do not share their views.

Some time ago, someone named Mr. Gordons posted in an anti-creationist forum, asking if anyone there could say anything nice about a creationist. There was no response. Apparently, that would be acknowledging their personhood. Indeed, although my Author/Public Figure Page on Facebook is monitored by misotheists, the humorous or public service posts have not been acknowledged. It may be against the rules in the Atheist Handbook®.

Related to dehumanizing is the logical fallacy of poisoning the well; why listen to someone when someone is not a real person because he or she is not "one of us"?

I suggest that you keep this concept of dehumanizing in mind when reading or hearing militant atheists. Christians and creationists must use discernment to decide how much time and intellectual energy to spend on anti-creationists. On one hand, we may be able to help remove stumbling blocks so they will be more receptive to the gospel message and possibly inform others who listen or read our responses. On the other hand, many are hard hearted, intent on wasting our time and justifying their rebellion against God. After all, he's the Creator and he makes the rules — we must learn what he has to say.

EDIT: Within an hour or two after posting this, angry militant atheists swarmed like gadflies and managed, with their boilerplate rhetoric and vituperation, the accuracy of this article.

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

Friday, November 20, 2020

Ordinary People Can Challenge Evolution

With the tenth annual Question Evolution Day less than three months away, what follows is a useful article to get people thinking. It is not long or complex. When people think it is indecent to question universal common descent evolution, we have some points to raise and questions to ask.

We do not need advanced degrees to ask some pertinent questions of evolutionists. Also, we can catch them using dreadful logic and bad science.

If we have the unmitigated gall to doubt Darwin, fundamentalist evolutionists often say, "Are you a scientist? Where did you get your degree?" These are the same sidewinders that say creationists don't do science, and scientists who are creationists are, therefore, not scientists. Note the double standard that defenders of evolutionism that are encountered online seldom have degrees themselves! It's acceptable to promote their views without degrees, but we must have degrees to question them. This is simply bullying and a kind of appeal to authority. It's who they are and what they do.

What really grinds their goats is when we show that we have some knowledge and reasoning skills. (Some of us who are not scientists catch them dealing from the bottom of the deck where logical fallacies are concerned.) While they scoff at the concept of specified complexity (everything has to be functioning properly in an organism or nothing works, nothing makes sense), they can do little more than evosplain it with nonsensical jargon, lines on charts, and weasel words. "Scientists think...it could be...maybe...perhaps...convergent evolution..." and so on explain nothing. They go to great lengths to deny the Creator's work and also deny his rightful place.
It’s one thing to simply draw a line on a paper between two animals’ pictures to express a belief that they’re related, but how can we know for sure? One test offers a hard stop to evolution between basic kinds: all-or-nothing body systems.

Body parts integrate into body systems. Each part, and each piece that makes up that part, needs the right shape, size, and strength of material to do its job. That’s why brains aren’t made of enamel but of interconnected nerves.

Some body parts can change a little and still allow the system to work. For example, human legs come short and thick or long and thin and every variety in between. But the imaginary process of transforming fish fins into human legs would leave the in-between creature either unable to swim or unable to walk. It would die, as would its evolution. Take enough of a fish’s fins away on its supposed journey to land life, and it loses its ability to track down dinner before it becomes dinner.

To read the rest of this useful article, see "How Can You Refute Evolution?" Also, this eleven-minute video clip is interesting:

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

Thursday, November 19, 2020

Science, the Bible, and GMOs

Folks are a mite confused about this GMO thing, and there are strong passions on both sides of the issue. Some see this genetic manipulation as evil, so some food merchandisers proudly proclaim, "No GMOs!" Others see it as a tremendous scientific boon.

There is a great deal of concern and fear about GMOs. They may alleviate food shortage problems. We need to know if they are biblical and safe.
Both images found at Pexels
Angry fox: Vinicius Altava; Statue facepalm: karatara
There are views all over the map, and a great deal of emotion. Some people who are against GMOs manipulate emotions and say that they're dangerous, and this child suspects that most people have no knowledge of the controversy. What's the hubbub, Bub, about Genetically Modified Organisms?

I'll allow that genetic modification where people modify the gene itself has not been happening for all that long, but a form of genetic modification has been around for millennia. There are foods that we eat that are the product of artificial selection (Darwinists consider artificial selection a form of how natural selection causes evolution, but neither of those are true). Eugenics is an attempt to cause artificial selection to happen in humans so that they "best" humans continue to thrive. If you have a purebred dog or cat, for instance, that is the result of selective breeding, which is also artificial selection.

There are very fine people on both sides of the GMO issue, including Christians. This issue seems to be a darling of leftist "progressive" politics. Scare tactics abound. Instead, people should learn that food safety is not the issue, and we can use our minds and quite possibly use science to utilize what our Creator has given us. It would be great if we could use this science to help alleviate food shortages.

Here in the formerly United States as well as many other countries, there are government agencies that regulate food production and safety. Why do you think you need a license and have health safety inspectors approve of your home baked goods business? Let's get educated on this, and not let emotionalism or faulty theology cloud our judgments. Find out if GMO deniers are really promoting food safety, and if their statements are valid.
Today’s food battle typically wages against seemingly wholesome foods containing “corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, canola, sorghum, and sugar cane seeds.”1 What is common to all these seemingly wholesome foods is that they typically are genetically modified in the US—their DNA has been changed. Currently, the FDA has no requirement to label foods made with these ingredients, and there have been no recalls. But have they acted in a safe and responsible fashion? Or is there anything really wrong with these common “all natural” products? Are GMOs ethical?

 Although I seldom use book chapters here, I reckon this one is very helpful and interesting. To read the whole thing, get comfy for about a half an hour, then head on over to "Are GMOs Ethical?"

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

Wednesday, November 18, 2020

Can You Copy the Cat?

I miss Basement Cat. Can you make a copy? We have pictures and even a video or two for reference. Oh, you need more to work with. What about if you make a copy using a living cat for reference, will that work? 

I miss Basement Cat. Can someone make a copy? Of course not. Evolutionists say living things are the products of accidents. No, all are created.

Where are you going? I do not appreciate that look you gave me! What does it take to make a copy, anyhow? Let's back up a mite. Since believers in universal common descent insist that every living thing is the product of time, chance, random processes, mutations, and accidents. Shouldn't be to hard to do a cat from scratch (heh, she scratched me in rough play a few times!), you just have to get the parts.

What, they're not available at the bit chain retail store or even on those big internet retailers? I could let you off the hook and say you don't have to build the entire feline machine, what with fast reflexes, sensitive olfactory apparatus, radar ears, inquisitive nature, and all that. Could you copy a cat then?

Well of course not! Even if you tried, your result would be cat-astrophic. As we saw yesterday, cells are extremely complex, and we know that living things are even more complex. Cells, cats, dogs, plants, people — it takes a passel of faith to believe in evolution.

It takes far less time to copy than it does to create, and far less thought.  For instance, you can copy the sheet music of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony on a copy machine in a few minutes, and never even know about inverted Cmaj7 chords.  Being able to create it, however, would take years of training and practice, thought and inspiration.

You can copy a video of a movie in minutes, but it takes years of training and months of filming for actors, directors, writers, producers, stuntmen and cinematographers to film the movie.

So there is a giant leap between copying and creating.

There is also a major leap between inability to copy and copying.

To copy Tolstoy’s War and Peace you must have the ability to read and write, ability to make paper, a printing press, ink, typesetters and printers.  A stone age tribe in South America could not copy War and Peace, or any other book.

So what does this say about our inability to copy a cat? Our best scientists can’t even copy a potato. This is embarrassing.

You can read the rest at "Kitty Copying and Evolution". I miss Basement Cat.

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

Tuesday, November 17, 2020

Inner Mechanics of the Cell Cycle

Back when I went to school, I was fortunate when I could hitch a ride on a passing Stegosaurus. Another fiction of bygone days is that cells were simple. As science progressed, complexities of the cell became more and more apparent.

Scientists are continuing to learn that the simple cell is not simple after all. Its complexity defies evolution and affirms the genius of the Creator
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / NHS National Genetics and Genomics Education Centre (CC BY 2.0)

Believers in muck-to-mycologist evolution are confounded by explaining the origin of the first cell, let alone the irreducible complexity of the cell cycle. Before a cell can get its motor running and head out on the cell-division highway, it must go through several stages. It must duplicate its DNA, and those tiny molecular machines minimize mutations so cells don't run out of control. The entire process testifies to those who can understand of the Master Engineer's genius.

The cell cycle is one of the most important biological processes. It describes how cells multiply in number by duplicating the information in the parent cell before dividing into two daughter cells. There are over 10 trillion cells in the human body, and the cell cycle must work efficiently and accurately to increase and differentiate different types of tissues.

Evolutionists admit that the origin of the first cell is one of the most difficult problems for their theory. This is because the very first cell had to include a fantastic amount of stored information. It had to have a substantial number of complex molecular machines to maintain the cell, produce energy, and more. And it had to be able to reproduce itself by dividing. The cell cycle is present in all life forms, from simple bacteria to humans. It is a design element that is necessary for all living things.

To read the rest, see "The wonderfully designed cell cycle".

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

Monday, November 16, 2020

Neanderthal Y Chromosome Frustrates Evolutionists

It becomes difficult to reason with atheists and evolutionists. Some of us want to have meaningful conversations, and we are met with arguments akin to, "You st00pid creatards are wrong because atheism and evolution and stuff". They base their "thinking" on invalid assumptions, such as those in a recent Y chromosome study.

A claim by some evolutionists that the Y chromosome will fade and males will become extinct was silly enough. Research in Neanderthal DNA is startling
Made at Pablo

Secularists who believe that human males are going extinct have made some serious errors in that area, and some of the same problems are still recurring. They claim Neanderthals became extinct 40,000 Darwin years ago. The prediction that the Y chromosome is shrinking and will disappear has a challenge from a study from this Neanderthal Y chromosome study.

DNA is fragile, and continues to deteriorate even after death. A crime lab technician cannot reasonably expect to test DNA after someone has been long dead. Under the right conditions, it can last a while. That's why scientists were able to do a study on Neanderthal DNA and the Y chromosome. The incredible shrinking man chromosome showed no appreciable difference between Neanderthal times and our times.

That's because humans didn't evolve and everything was created recently. Scientific findings continue to illustrate this, old son. It's past time to stop pretending that atheistic naturalism is true. By the way, you can stop criticizing those of us who understand your mythology better than you do.

A new study analyzed the genome of what they termed “our closest relatives, Neanderthals and Denisovans,” which were then compared with modern humans. Most previous Neanderthal DNA research has been on females because the X chromosome preserves better than the fragile Y. Fortunately, a team of geneticists from the United States, China and Europe were able to study the male Y chromosomes from three Neanderthals and two Denisovans. The team found from their limited sample that the modern human and Neanderthal Y chromosomes were more closely related to each other than the Neanderthal and the Denisovan Y chromosomes. They concluded that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals were more similar genetically than were the Neanderthal and the Denisovian. The U.S. National Library of Medicine summary presented the conventional evolutionary explanation by writing the following:

Read the rest of this evolution-frustrating article at "Neanderthal Y Chromosome Looks Modern".

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

Saturday, November 14, 2020

Discerning Fake Science

Unfortunately, I have to keep gnawing on this bone: scientists are people, too. They make mistakes and have biases. As such, they are not the impartial arbiters of truth and science that many people believe. Many want to do science, others manipulate data for their own agendas.

Although everyone is biased, including scientists, many secularists manipulate data into fake science news. Here's an example of detecting it.

Since nobody is a blank slate and everyone has some kind of bias, it follows that nobody is completely impartial. Try to present creation science materials to atheists and other evolutionists, they often cry, "But that's biased! Those liars for Jesus are trying to convince us of their views!" Brilliant, Sherlock! Doesn't everyone want to present an argument to convince others of their point of view? Also, the ad hominem is entirely irrational — not only from it being a logical fallacy, but also because biblical creationists serve a holy God who requires righteousness and hates lying. To say that we are lying to get others to believe in God is utterly vacuous.

As mentioned several times before, we have seen that certain sidewinders within the secular science industry have used incomplete research and circular reasoning, built arguments from presuppositions instead of facts, and more. While there are scientists who want to do science stuff, many in the secular science industry (and the industry as a whole) have a leftist agenda. This makes extremely difficult to use scientific findings to support biblical and conservative material.

We have seen in the 2020 American presidential election season that fake news can be foisted on gullible people who want their biases confirmed; that is my conclusion based on observations and evidence. Indeed, I wrote an article emphasizing the need for (and practical applications of) critical thinking. Naturalists also confirm their own biases. Today we examine how secularists can manufacture fake science news and deceive people.

I was hesitant to present this because it spooks the horses. That is, some things in the following article are written with a bit of an edge. As you have seen with my own articles and posts, I get a mite agitated at times and let my biases show. Other times, logical errors slip in. 

Also, it is important to watch for unprovable assumptions upon which arguments are built. If the foundation is faulty, the rest of the research or study is doubtful — or even worthless.

One of the first details can appear to be the genetic fallacy (rejecting something because of the source). However, when sources are shown to be biased, unreliable, bigoted, and so forth, it is reasonable to reject them — or at least examine them carefully before accepting their content. We can take that a step further and "follow the money" — that is, determine if the well-heeled individual or organization who is bankrolling the research may be contaminating the writer's objectivity. Also, the writer of the article below shows his own feelings with some blunt terminology. He's not fully objective and may be tainting his own article, but thoughtful readers can work around those and even determine if they think his outrage is justified. A science news article is reproduced and then broken down. That is something we should all consider instead of swallowing it whole.
We are all too familiar with the term Fake News. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference at first, but facts are stubborn and immutable things. Therefore, news is often corrected, at least by honest brokers. This is not the case with science so-called.

I want to share a recent "scientific" article with you. Then show you how to discern Fake Science. The article, "Estimation of Methane Emissions From the U.S. Ammonia Fertilizer Industry Using a Mobile Sensing Approach," published May 28, 2019 in Elementa. The work, funded in part by a grant from the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future stated:

To read the rest, head on over to "Fake News Yields Fake Science!"

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

Friday, November 13, 2020

Idle Scrawling in the Ice Age

Believers in deep time and universal common descent have a silly habit of believing that humans long ago were stupid brutes, freshly minted from evolving and the ink was not dry yet. Yet another archaeological find supports the views of biblical creationists.

Portelet Bay, Jersey / Library of Congress, Photochrom Print Collection
If you are on the southeast coast of the larger British Isles facing Normandy, France, you will also be facing the much smaller Channel Islands. They are in the English Channel (the French call it la Manche). Doing some island hopping, the second nearest to Normandy is Jersey. Some interesting scratchings were found on a plaque that was broken into ten pieces.

They are dated at many thousands of Darwin years old, but their condition and other considerations make the great age implausible. It is interesting that not only did the ancient artist have to do self-expression in stone, but abstract thought is evident — something that atheism and evolution cannot explain.
Archaeologists have discovered a small stone plaque, broken into ten fragments, with intriguing abstract marks in the British Channel Islands. The stone plaques (made of locally sourced microgranite) come from an archaeological site at Les Varines, St Saviours in Jersey, just 28 km from northern France. Researchers interpreted the marks as depicting mammoths, bison, a horse, and possibly a human face.

Using the uranium-thorium dating method they conventionally dated the plaques to the Upper Palaeolithic, supposedly 20,400-8,400 years BP. . . .

The ten plaque fragments represent “new evidence” for art from human ancestors.

The artefacts were brought to the surface by a plough in a farmer’s field. However, the stone surfaces are apparently in a “good state of preservation”, which suggests they are younger than supposed.

To read the full article, tune in "Ancient doodles in stone represent intriguing Ice-Age art".

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

Thursday, November 12, 2020

That Hot Exo-Neptune Should Not Exist

Once upon a time, it was dark and there was nothing. Suddenly, nothing exploded for no reason. This gave us an orderly universe with predictable planetary patterns, and eventually atoms-to-astrophysicist evolution. But the naturalistic origins myth is continually being shown to be just a fairy tale.

An exoplanet has been described as a hot Neptune that should not exist. Secular scientists cannot explain it, but biblical creation can do so.
Made with Paint dot Net, then at PhotoFunia

Materialistic cosmologies expect order and predictability from the Big Bang, but our own solar system belies those notions. We have planets and several moons out yonder that rotate in a manner that doesn't fit secular models. For that matter, secularists have trouble explaining why the composition of the inner planets is rocky, outer planets are gas giants, then rocky stuff out even further. Then there's that gigantic wall of superhot plasma that surrounds our solar system like a bubble. 

No, don't let secularists buffalo you when they pretend they have everything figured out.

"So what about that hot Neptune thing, Cowboy Bob?"

Good timing, that was next. There are, in astronomical terms, bunches of exoplanets. That is, planets beyond our solar system. Secular astronomers are constantly being surprised because exoplanets are recalcitrant to their expectations and predictions. They've found gaseous "hot Jupiters" orbiting close to stars and got used to that idea. They have atmospheres and are usually expected to hang onto them.

A "hot Neptune" should not exist at all, but they found one and it has an atmosphere. That should not exist, either. It should not be there after billions of Darwin years, but there it is. Mayhaps they should cowboy up and discard their presuppositions of cosmic evolution and deep time? After all, evidence persistently points to recent creation.

An exoplanet 260 light-years away is being described as the first of its kind ever detected.1,2 This exoplanet, catalogued as LTT 9779b, is called an “ultra-hot Neptune” because of its large size and nearness to its host star. This exoplanet is so close that its surface temperature is over 1700° Celsius, and the length of its year—the time it takes to orbit its star—is just 19 hours! Astronomers think the planet lacks a solid surface and that its atmosphere is substantial, about 9% of the planet’s total mass. But the atmosphere is so hot that, by secular reckoning, it should not exist:

The system itself is around half the age of the Sun, at 2 billion years old, and given the intense radiation, a Neptune-like planet would not be expected to keep its atmosphere for so long, providing an intriguing puzzle to solve; how such an improbable system came to be.

To read the rest, set course for "Hot Neptune Atmosphere 'Shouldn't Exist'". Another short article of interest is "This Exoplanet Shouldn’t Exist".

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

Wednesday, November 11, 2020

Worldviews and the Bad Legal Judgment at Dover

The Kitzmiller v. Dover legal decision was one of the worst miscarriages of justice and violations of American freedom of our time. Atheists and other anti-creationists have celebrated it for years — which is both ironic and instructive for us.

Anti-creationists are still thrilled about the Kitzmiller v Dover legal ruling. It was fraught with poor logic and biases that were contradictory.

The ironic part is people having Atheism Spectrum Disorder cheer the ruling, saying that the judge was wise in declaring Intelligent Design a religious movement (and other words to that effect). Darwin's handmaidens will also tell creationists that we have no business discussing flaws in evolution if we are not scientists — but Judge Jones was not a scientist. Two standards, no waiting.

Let me make this worse for them: they have no business promoting evolution because they are not scientists themselves, nor can they criticize the Bible because they are not theologians. They get shot with their own guns that way.

This decision was not binding outside of the school district, but anti-creationists have acted like it was a Supreme Court ruling. They sure do put a great deal of work to deny the Creator his due.

Some vitally important things come out when reviewing this historical event that apply to discussions of origins. One is something that we've dealt with several times, and that is worldviews. Everyone has one, and our worldviews have many presuppositions. This judge had his worldview, and was biased toward those fond of atheistic naturalism.

Another important point is something else that we've examined, and that's the importance of definitions. As you should know by now, evolution has several definitions, so evolutionists can be sneaky in conflating words in order to "prove" fish-to-fool evolution. Atheists have conveniently redefined atheism from the long-accepted definition of "believes that there is no God or gods" into the nonsensical "lack of belief". They also deny that atheism is a religion, but that is completely false. Redefining words and denying the facts do not change reality.

A key element in the Dover case is how the Intelligent Design movement was mischaracterized as a kind of creationist covert operation. The ID people detest being called creationists, as that group is under a wide umbrella that includes biblical creationists, old-earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, agnostics, and people from other religions. 

Judge Jones knew that creation is a foundation for Christianity, but neglected that evolution is foundational to the religion of atheism. To reject the falsely-redefined ID material because it is allegedly a part of the Christian religion, thereby violating the establishment clause in the Constitution, was actually favoring the religions of atheism and it's ugly kid brother, Secular Humanism. The false belief of Jones was a double standard.

He also presumed to know what was going on in a typical student's mind, but refused testimony from students.

Now that I've made my points, I want to turn you over to an article on this case that was written by a lawyer. It's extremely interesting and should be helpful when you encounter misotheists and other evolutionists who want to act like this case was somehow conclusive and not just subjective opinions.

On November 19, 2004, the Dover County Area School Board in Pennsylvania passed a resolution requiring ninth grade biology teachers to read their students a disclaimer concomitant with their mandatory teaching of evolution.The short disclaimer made three basic assertions: (1) that evolution was a theory with gaps in the evidence and, like all theories, was subject to continuous testing as new evidence was discovered; (2) that the idea of Intelligent Design (ID) provided an alternative explanation for the origin of life; and (3) that, with respect to any theory, the students should keep an open mind. No questions were permitted, nor any further discussion of ID allowed.  In a decision issued December 20, 2005, and after a six-week non-jury trial, United States District Court Judge John E. Jones, III, declared the resolution unconstitutional, opining that it violated the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, et al., 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005). Thereafter, eight of nine school board members lost reelection, and the school board president announced that the board would not appeal. I believe Judge Jones’ ruling to be among the worst decisions never appealed.

I really hope you'll read the rest of this. It's a mite long, maybe half an hour's reading time. Kindly go to "The Worst Decision Never Appealed".

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

Tuesday, November 10, 2020

Depictions of Dinosaurs with Humans

Although the dirt-to-dinosaur evolution narrative precludes humans coexisting with them, there are historical evidences. We have examined some of these before, such as "St. David's Dragon", the dinosaur on Bishop Bell's tomb, and others. There are others to consider.

Evolutionists are generally outraged when creationists present evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. There is abundant evidence.
Spinophorosaurus image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Nobu Tamura (CC BY 3.0)
Because of naturalistic evolutionary and deep-time presuppositions, Darwin's disciples evosplain away written historical accounts and biblical depictions of dinosaurs. If you strip away the storyline and assumptions to look at the evidence, it is not so easy to dismiss the fact that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

In addition to arguing from presuppositions, materialists argue from silence and ignore other possibilities. Is that a carving of a stegosaurus? No, because of this and that. Other possibilities neglected would be that it's a different dinosaur altogether, the carver was unskilled or made some adjustments, male and female dinosaurs are different (note that paleontologists pared back the numbers of dinosaurs listed because they were doing extra counting for adults, juveniles, male, female — all the same species) and so on.

The article linked below discusses different kinds of evidences: most reliable, need more verification, should be avoided, and to definitely be avoided. There are disagreements among creationists about some of these questionable entries (such as the Ica stones or a certain pterosaur pictograph), and I agree that we should present the strongest evidence in discussions and so forth. However, if we do present some of the more questionable areas, we should use caution.

One area on the list to avoid was the Paluxy river tracks. This area is famous for dinosaur footprints, but there is contention that there were also human footprints there. For various reasons, creationists decided that the evidence was not conclusive and shelved the idea. This is an area of dispute that some folks couldn't put out to pasture.

Bob Helfinstine and Jerry Roth of the Twin Cities Creation Science Association did research and wrote a book in 1994, Texas Tracks and Artifacts, which was revised in 2007 with additional information. Ian Juby also believes that the evidence should be reexamined and reconsidered (including the Delk track). You can see his interview with Dr. Carl Baugh who also conducted research on the Paluxy tracks here.

What all this means is that there are serious creationists who debate some of the issues while keeping the authority of the Bible in focus. It also means that we do have strong evidence for the concurrent existence of humans and dinosaurs. We we can lead with the best points in such discussions, and use qualifiers when mentioning areas that need research. Definite bad stuff should be left alone.
Biblical creationists have often pointed to some ancient accounts or legends of battles with dragons and dragon legends as based on real events. But dragon legends are not the only evidence of mankind living with dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and marine reptiles. There are often pictorial representations of these creatures on cave or canyon walls, carved into brass or clay, and drawn onto pottery.

Scripture itself testifies that all land animals were created on the same day as mankind, with sea and winged creatures created just one day prior (Genesis 1:20-28). Therefore mankind did live with dinosaurs, marine reptiles, and pterosaurs before the flood. Scripture also states that Noah was commanded to bring two or seven (or seven pairs) of all terrestrial air-breathing animal kinds and the seven (or seven pairs) of all winged creature kinds aboard the Ark (Genesis 6:19–20, 7:2–3). Therefore we definitely know that mankind lived with dinosaurs and pterosaurs after the flood, and with the biblical mention of Leviathan in Scripture, at least some types of marine reptiles also survived the flood. Outside of these sure testimonies of Scripture, some of the best and most-reliable evidences for man living with these creatures will be discussed and pictured in this article. . . 

To read the rest, click on "Humans with Dinosaurs Evidence (Depictions and documentation of dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and large marine reptiles living with man).

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