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

Wednesday, March 31, 2021

Egyptian Pyramids and Biblical History

Some people believe that the pyramids of Egypt are devastating to the biblical timeline, but that belief is based on fatally-flawed dating methods. The Great Pyramid (ordered by Cheops, also called Khufu — I think they named a hat after him) and others have yielded unreliable age tests.

Some people believe that the pyramids of Egypt wreck the biblical timeline, but that is based on flawed dating methods. The truth is quite different.
Credit: RGBStock / Michal Zacharzewski

There are some Christians who think that they were built before the Genesis Flood, but that idea does not hold water. A proper understanding of creation science Flood models reveals that the event was so cataclysmic, nothing would have remained. Also, the pyramids and Sphinx were built on sedimentary rock.

In addition to problematic assumptions used in carbon-14 dating, one problem is glaringly obvious. The half-life of carbon-14 is supposedly about 5,730 years. Rocks that are claimed to be millions of Darwin years old have organic materials that are tested to have carbon-14. Just study on that a spell and you can see the difficulty.

So let's dig a bit deeper into the dating problem, and see that secular dating methods are really not troubling for the biblical timeline for several reasons.

The dates for the pyramids’ construction are based on radiocarbon (14C) dating, but the method, and particularly the assumptions behind the method (which when properly understood is really ‘the creationist’s friend’) should be questioned. The dates were obtained from 14C found in wood, reed and straw left by the pyramid builders. In 1984, dates were obtained by the David H. Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon Project for the Giza pyramids that made the pyramids 374 years older than they expected. Between 1994 and 1995 a second analysis reported “significant discrepancies” from the earlier 1984 study. The theoretical date range varied greatly for samples containing organic material associated with Khufu’s Great Pyramid. These dates were based on the 14C dating method, which obtained a wider-than-predicted range of dates for the various materials tested, namely 400 years. This result was described as “history-unfriendly” in an online report, due to the lack of precision in the calculated results. However, even older (First Dynasty) tombs at Saqqara were dated at 2920–2770 BC, which the project report states is in “agreement” with other studies.

To read the full article, click on "Time fears the pyramids? How they fit into the true biblical history".

Tuesday, March 30, 2021

Taking Middle Ear Evolution for a Spin

In a recent post, we saw that when the facts dispute the universal common ancestor narrative, secularist owlhoots spin the data to their own advantage. The story of ear bone evolution defies reason and facts, so they are up to their old tricks again.

The origin of ear bones in mammals is evosplained without evidence. When new facts come to light, secularists put a spin on their deceptive story.
Credit: National Science Foundation / Zina Deretsky
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Even some evolutionists admit the idea that the ears in mammals having evolved from reptilian ancestors does not have evidentiary support, but they persist in evosplaining it anyway. Worse, they incorporate the fake science of recapitulation. That's not science, old son, but it's who they are and what they do. Can't allow the truth about the genius of the Master Engineer in their story.
One of the traits used to identify mammal species, besides mammary glands which produce milk, is the presence of bony ear ossicles — the incus, the malleus, and the stapes (commonly called the anvil, hammer, and stirrup). This auditory trait is a feature shared by all living mammals, including monotremes (egg-laying mammals such as the platypus and the echidna). All known reptiles and birds have only a single middle-ear ossicle, equivalent to the stapes, called the columella. Thus, given the evolutionary theory that reptiles evolved into mammals, the problem for evolutionists is how the single ear-ossicle design became the tri-ossicular design.

Listen up. You can read the rest over at "Mammalian Middle Ear Evolution: Story Gets More Wobbly". There is one complaint I have, however. While Dr. Bergman (the author) is a creationist, he keeps emphasizing intelligent design and seems reluctant more often than not to proclaim the truth of creation. Intelligent Design has its place, but it does not identify the Designer. It's not the Babylonian god Marduk, for example. Instead, the Designer is the Creator God and Redeemer as identified in the Bible.

Monday, March 29, 2021

Santana Fossils Support Genesis Flood

If you hitch up your buckboard and travel down Brazil way, head northeast until you reach the Araripe Basin. The Santana formation has bunches of fossils. The critters are very well preserved. Unfortunately, proponents of the deep-time narrative narrative deny the facts.

When confronted with evidence for the Genesis Flood in the Santana fossils, secularists refuse to change their evil ways.
Credit: Flickr / James St. John (CC BY 2.0)
Because the Bearded Buddha needs a passel of time in which to work his particles-to-paleontologist magic, secularists give it to him — even when it means denying sense and science. What is discovered here (and many other places) shows rapid burial of extremely large proportions — it is still more evidence of the Genesis Flood. Kind of makes you want to take one of these Santana fossils, wave it in the face of a secularist and say, "You've got to change your evil ways, baby!" Be smooth about it, though.
The preservation of fine details is what has made Santana so famous. Every time I took a field trip, I especially looked for my favorite fossil, fish. You can see their little bones and their fins as though they had been buried yesterday. More than that, Santana is famous for the sheer quantity of fish, which many scientists admit must have died and been preserved in mass graves by rare catastrophic conditions . . .

To read the full article (or listen to the audio by my favorite reader), it's smooth sailing over to "Santana Fossils — Delighting in the Details".

Saturday, March 27, 2021

Rescuing the Big Bang from Reality

When secular scientists attempt to do historical science involving deep time, their reality checks keep bouncing. This is primarily because they have a worldview based on atheistic materialism, but observed evidence do not fit the narrative. Nothing left to do but use the standard practice of Making Things Up™.

Three articles linked here expose secularists for making up ridiculous speculations in their efforts to rescue the frequently-Frankensteined Big Bang.
Image credits:
Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Univ of Missouri/M.Brodwin et al;
Optical: NASA/STScI;
Infrared: JPL/Caltech
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
We have three articles on this theme to consider. The conflict between storyline and reality is seen in both universal common descent evolution and Big Bang cosmogony. In both kinds of evolution, these owlhoots constantly have to rescue their fundamentally flawed worldview with various excuses. They also say things like, "...earlier than previously thought". A lot. Not earlier than biblical creationists thought, though. We are not surprised by discoveries, so we don't have to saddle up and ride over to Spin City for supplies. They wouldn't have this problem if they accepted the reality of recent creation.

The excuse for this astronomical problem sounds like the excuses Darwinists give for sudden appearance.

To set the stage for this little problem that astronomers found, one must have a basic understanding of Big Bang theory. The Bang was the only ‘sudden’ thing about it. . . .

In this grand scheme, Big Bang believers would not wish to find complete galaxies in the earliest 10% of the universe’s assumed age. Similarly, in the Darwinian scheme, evolutionary biologists would rather avoid finding complex animal body plans showing up all at once (the Cambrian Explosion, sometimes called ‘biology’s big bang’). Yet both observations plague the two materialistic theories.

To learn what's happening, see "Big Bang Anomaly Prompts Excuses". Kindly come back for the next surprising installment.

While a minority of creation astronomers believe dark matter is something to seriously consider, most think it is a rescuing device for the frequently-Frankensteined Big Bang. It has never been seen and nothing can detect it, but it supposedly comprises most of the matter in the universe. They also have the problem with antimatter, which never has fit the Big Bang idea. However, new information has secularists scrambling for excuses because the facts are recalcitrant to the narrative. It must be difficult to constantly live with cognitive dissonance, seeing how the fact fit a young universe and all.

If you thought Darwinists were the storytellers while physicists do hard science, look at this.

Observers of modern cosmology already know that the “experts” believe we can only detect about 4% of reality by observation. The rest of the universe is made up of completely unknown entities called “dark matter” and “dark energy,” they tell the non-experts. But their imaginations don’t stop there.

See the rest of the article at "Big Bangers Are Making Things Up". Don't forget to return for the final short installment!

The Hubble constant is used to calculate the expansion of the universe, but since secularists don't get the results they desire, there are other calculations used as well. Since there are discrepancies, a professor used the old Making Things Up™ principle. Assumptions and guesswork, but no actual science.

. . . two different ways to measure H0 have produced conflicting results in the past. The first method assumes that the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation is an afterglow from a time about 400,000 years after the Big Bang. Given this assumption, cosmologists find the values of important cosmological parameters, including the Hubble constant, that give the best overall fit to the CMB data. Using the precise data supplied by the Planck space mission, and making the usual Big Bang assumptions, a value of 67.4 kilometers/second per megaparsec3 is obtained for H0 with this measurement method.

Wow! To read the whole thing, head on over to "Reconciling Two Different Calculations of the Hubble Constant".

Friday, March 26, 2021

Robots, Artificial Intelligence, and Life

We have discussed AI before, including how people get obsessed with it (see the links in "The Worship of Artificial Intelligence") Now we consider if electrical things can be considered alive. Philosophers have debated what constitutes life in the first place, now AI is added to the discussion.

People appreciate robots and artificial intelligence, but those things will never actually become alive. Two articles linked here explain why.
Credit: Pixabay / David Bruyland
Materialists only take a mechanistic view of life based on certain criteria, while biblical creationists know that biblically, life has the breath of life — nephesh chayyāh, (נפש חיה). There are different ways of considering if something is alive. When a houseplant dies, it is discarded because it does not have that breath of life. Animals have it, and so do people. Those with a materialistic bent will deny that we have a soul. Ironically, secularists search for a physical location of the soul in the body, but it is more than body and brain.

We like our robots, simple or intricate. They do dangerous things such as bomb removal, working in radioactive environments, lifting heavy objects, being sent to Mars in a vain search for extraterrestrial life, and more. They are also useful in mundane and repetitive tasks. Many of us say, "Domo arigato (どうもありがとう)". Except that these things are not actually alive, so no point in thanking them. Although they make decisions, that ability is based on programming. Robots and AI conduct activities seen in living things, but there are key differences that keep them from being alive. However, there are some things that computers, AI, or what have you are unable to handle.
Few people would consider disassembling an inoperable robotic ‘dog’ for spare parts to be problematic or shutting off the processor on one to be a form of roboticide akin to slaughtering a pig or euthanizing a pet dog. We know that an entity such as this robotic ‘dog’ is not a “living creature”. Even though the robotic ‘dog’ could meet most of the attributes of life in the dictionary definition, it is not alive.

The example of this robotic ‘dog’ may help us provide a better definition of what it means to be a “living creature”. It appears that there are at least three distinct levels (or types) of organic ‘life’. At the highest level are humans which meet every part of the dictionary definition referenced above—our bodies are composed of organic molecules and water, they grow from zygotes to adulthood, reproduce, are able to perform functional actions, and undergo continual change (e.g., decay and grow old) before they die. However, a missing component of this definition is the sentient capacity of the spirit (“breath of life”) with which humans were endowed by God at creation (Gen 2:7). Animals that are called “living creatures” are similar to humans since they also have a spirit component (Gen 1.30; Ps 104:27–30; Eccl 3:19–21). However, it is generally believed among Christian interpreters that their spirits are not of the same kind as that of humans, since they do not have the same rational capacities or moral accountability and probably are not immortal.

The entire article is located at "What does it mean to be a 'living creature'?" I'd be much obliged if y'all came back for the next section.

In their infinite wisdom to break things so designers can keep their phony-baloney jobs by "improving" them, the "Notes" feature on Fazebook was been eliminated, but this one was finally located. A computer-generated "paper" at The Question Evolution Project looks impressive, but is actually nonsense.

Peer-reviewed journals have allowed offal that was written by AI. Social(ist) media is infested with bots that are churning out propaganda, nonsense, and even trolling. They have no self-awareness and no idea what they're saying — which helps prove the point that they are soulless. We are created in the image of God. While robots and AI are intelligently designed, they are limited by the flaws of the fallen humans that built them.

A uniquely human capacity is to understand what one says. Artificial intelligence doesn’t get it.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is getting so good, machines can write scientific papers and send messages on social media. But there’s a problem: “no comprendo.” The machine doesn’t understand what it is saying. It has no common sense. A news feature in Nature about robo-writers (Nature 3 March 2021) quotes programmer Yejin Choi who laments,

Read the lament and the rest of this startling article by journeying to "Mindless Artificial Intelligence Doesn’t Understand What It Says".

Thursday, March 25, 2021

Social Amoebas and You

While naturalists have their systems and rate various living things are primitive or advanced, many other recognize that our Creator has designed organisms for ecological niches. Sure, why not? Human societies have seemingly less important people to make society function, God has placed social amoebas and the like in the biosphere.

People have unknowingly seen colonies of social amoebas. This kind of mold has its purpose. It is studied for use in transportation system mapping.
Physarum polycephalum image credit: Flickr / Bernard Spragg
It may seem funny or "alpha male" to eat moldy bread, but that is potentially dangerous; some molds can be scraped off and the food is still safe, others must be discarded. Mold has a function, even if people find it disgusting at times.

There is another kind of mold that many have seen but may not be able to identify. One of its names is "social amoeba" because it is actually a colony comprised of single-celled amoebas. Another name is rather unpleasant: slime mold. The Latin name Physarum polycephalum is cumbersome. It is often found in wooded areas chowing down and wood and such. In a surprising bit of biomimetics, its food-seeking ability has been studied and may be applied in the mapping of transportation systems!
The variety that eats decaying wood seeks food by sending out thin strands in various directions. When a nutrient is located, tendrils with the shortest and most efficient path thicken, while other unsuccessful branches pull back.

Scientists wanted to test just how efficient this single-celled, mindless mold is at hunting bits of decaying wood, and they were amazed by what they found. Researchers had found that wood mold can successfully navigate a maze from one food source to another. To test the limits of their foraging ability, Japanese and British researchers created another test.

To read all of this short article (or listen to the audio version by my favorite reader), click on "Slime Mold—Mindless Mapmakers".

Wednesday, March 24, 2021

Bizarre Darwinists Celebrate Defeat

Rusty Swingset and the hands at the Darwin Ranch are celebrating, but they should be lamenting the demise of scientific integrity. Instead, they spin the data like a top, followed by drinking firewater and clog dancing around a portrait of Papa Darwin. Then there's the Secret Satan gift exchange.

Evolutionists are so committed to their beliefs, they see failure as a reason to celebrate. Even when they contradict themselves, they claim victory.
Credit: Pexels / Yogendra Singh
I reckon the best jobs to have for security are weather forecasting and evolutionary science, because both can be wrong a large percentage of the time and people still remain employed. Actually, naturalism is better because if that narrative is protected and the non-explanation of "it evolved" is invoked often enough, they get more money. All the while, counting with pagan bead strings and chanting, "Evolution!"

Here we have paleontologists admitting they were wrong about forms of soft tissues, spinning the storyline, and salvaging Darwin's sorry hide through the complex (and effective) scientific principle of Making Things Up™. This still does not negate our Creator and his work.
Data that should falsify evolutionary timelines instead is used to launch new storytelling speculations.

When men in white suits are hauling you away . . . that is not a good time to ask how the red in the sirens evolved. Something like that happens among evolutionary paleontologists every time they find soft tissue in fossils they say are hundreds of millions of years old. Their trusted dates just went up in smoke, but all they can think about is how the soft tissue might give them more visions of the bearded Buddha.

You can read the rest by dancing on over to "Evolutionary Paleontologists Ask Wrong Questions". For another example of how dishonest evolutionists try to salvage their fundamentally flawed theory, see "A Failed Attempt to Refute Living Fossils: The Case of Coelacanth".

Tuesday, March 23, 2021

Lack of Fingerprints is not a "Beneficial Mutation"

The idea of having no fingerprints may seem a novelty, and obviously, criminals may like the idea. There is a mutation that causes this, and some people may consider it to be beneficial. Beneficial is in the eye of the beholder.

Lack of fingerprints may be a so-called beneficial mutation for criminals, but is a loss of characteristics. It is the opposite of evolution.
Credit: Pixabay / byrev
What some may call advantageous, others would say is detrimental. Sickle cell anemia is "beneficial" because those afflicted can resist malaria, but there are serious disadvantages as well. Some organisms have mutations in the lab that Darwin's votaries consider helpful, but those organisms would not survive in the wild. Having a mutation where people have no fingerprints is the opposite of fish-to-forensic scientist evolution, and there are many societal and physiological disadvantages to this rare condition.

In the modern theory of evolution, mutations in the genome are a key driving force in creating new information. In reality though most mutations are either harmful, or neutral at best. A recent BBC news story has highlighted a family in Bangladesh which have no fingerprints due to a mutation. Is this evolution in action or an example of a harmful mutation?

You can pick up the rest of this article at "The fingerprintless family — A beneficial evolutionary mutation?" Also of interest is this post that includes a link to a video featuring a forensic scientist discussing fingerprints. To see that one, visit "Humans, Marsupials, and Fingerprints". Now, let's sing with Snow White, "Someday, my prints will come..."

Monday, March 22, 2021

Human and Chimpanzee Genomes in 3-D Trouble Evolutionists

Using bad science and Darwinian presuppositions, evolutionists in the 1970s stitched together the chimp genome, compared it with the human genome, and declared we were 98% similar. That falsehood lingers despite being refuted. Now 3-D genomes show even greater differences between us.

After the false claim that human and chimp similarity was refuted, more information shows greater differences. 3-D genome research troubles evolution.
Credits: Good Free Photos / Petr Kratochvil, modified at PhotoFunia
Secular scientists lack humility. That's right, I said it! First of all, they deny the masterful work of the Creator and pretend everything happened through atheistic naturalism. Then they learn a few things, pontificate on the secular concept of reality, and collect grant money. When inconvenient information comes to light, they act like being wrong about many things is "exciting". Amazing how they can keep their jobs.

Here, we see that the human genome is further removed from chimpanzees. (I wonder what they'll do when they get serious about studying the four dimensional genome). Keep this information available so you can present it to tinhorns that use outdated propaganda to "prove" fish-to-fool evolution.
All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in Trends in Genetics evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse.

To read the rest, visit "3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp".

Saturday, March 20, 2021

Keep Pressure on Anti-Creationists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Many biblical creationists have encountered misotheists who act like they have amazing super powers that should make us shake in our cowboy boots. We need to stop allowing them to put us on the defensive, and use truth and reason to put the pressure on them.

Anti-creationists try to put Christians and creationists on the defensive. There is no reason for this, and we must be the ones doing the challenging.
Credit: Flickr / zimpenfish (CC BY 2.0)
One of the first things that we can do is to remember that truth and logic are on our side. Indeed, logic and math are impossible without God, and the same principle applies to science itself. We cannot argue on "neutral ground", which is essentially admitting that what God says about the unbeliever is wrong, and let them decide in their corrupted human wisdom whether or not God is worthy of worship and honor. Are you catching on to the importance of why we must not be obsequious before scoffers?

As a side note, I seldom refer to skepticism. In one sense of the word, people who are skeptical about something are willing to evaluate reasons for a claim. (People should have healthy skepticism, but unfortunately, too many professing Christians are gullible about "miraculous" claims, including the chalk that did not break.) In my experience, a scoffer is mostly synonymous with a mocker, and rejects anything that is said.

Logical Thinking is for All of Us

It may seem to some that logical (critical) thinking is a hobby horse of academics and scientists, smoking pipes in their sitting rooms, discussing things that are only interesting to themselves and useful to no one. That's the opposite of reality. Although the dullard intellectual types I portrayed probably exist, God gave us minds and expects us to use them.

I freely admit that there are many people smarter than me. Even so, with my life experience and education, I can easily see lack of logic, especially in political matters — a subject upon which I'd better stifle myself. After this was written, I had an experience that prompted a separate article that shows how some people are unwilling to think, they get vicious when cornered. If you're interested, see "Logical Thinking and the Lack Thereof".

Arbitrary Assertions and Presuppositions

People who claim to operate from science and reason may be surprised to learn that everyone has presuppositions, which are things that we take for granted and have not been empirically tested. These are incorporated into someone's Weltanschauung — okay, I learned a new word that I can't pronounce. Anyway, presuppositions are important to a person's worldview. It's how we interpret things, respond, and basically live our lives. If someone says, "I don't have a worldview", the worldview was just expressed and the statement is self-refuting!

Interestingly, some presuppositions are erroneously used to support other presuppositions. Keep an eye out for it, and you can see how logical fallacies are thrown into the mix. (I'll keep saying it because I want all y'all to catch on: Learning basics about logical fallacies is important, but is not overly difficult.) Professing atheists claim to use reason and logic, and by virtue of their rejection of the Creator, they are somehow more intelligent than Christians and creationists. Those presuppositions are not empirically tested, but taken for granted by misotheists.

Atheists who refuse to consider the material pretending that
biblical creationists cannot be fair with observed data. How appropriate.
Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
(Click for larger, unedited source is here)
Ironically, they are so determined to hate and ridicule, they actually prove us right many times! I keep telling myself to stop giving them attention, but they generously provide many excellent examples of bad logic and bigotry. If the owner of that Page would provide her name and address, I would send her a fruit basket.

Creationists have been accused of "lying about evolution" many times. The accusers have not been able to demonstrate lying or intent to deceive (something I have discussed before that lying to get people to believe in God is utterly absurd), nor are they willing to admit that lying is different from errors, disagreements, and dislike of what is being said.

Asking Questions

When skeptics make assertions, it is useful to challenge them with specific inquiries. Students can respectfully ask their instructors appropriate questions when deep time and evolutionary assumptions are presented as established facts, but when unbelievers do this, we need to ask them more probing questions.

Doing so can help chip away at the foundations of their worldview, and we can help them realize that their arbitrary assertions and naturalistic presuppositions are actually irrational. Christians and creationists also have presuppositions comprising our worldview. The difference is that we presuppose the inerrant Word of God — at least, we should to do that.

When posting articles and videos about the Genesis Flood and how the geological evidence supports what is observed far better than secular deep-time beliefs, creationists are often met with ridicule. The Flood never happened. Because atheism. No need to examine science and logic because creationists are morons. (Many refuse to even consider the scientific facts that they claim to desire, which is an excellent illustration of Romans 1:18-22). In the video Dinosaur Extinction: Noah's Flood or an Asteroid?, several questions are raised about the common belief that the Chicxulub asteroid impact theory cause the dinosaur extinction. It is not settled science, is not the consensus, and is infested with difficulties.

Similarly, from this source about the formation of stars:
Yes, astronomers can see stars forming in far off parts of the cosmos. No, they can't observe the process from beginning to end because of the time it takes. Which means Creationist idiots can bay "no one has ever seen a star form!". Just like they bellow that no one has ever observed evolution. Nothing like being an ignoramus in multiple scientific disciplines.

This is an emotional reaction, which leads to refusing to consider the evidence — or even read the linked article that was written by an astronomer who is a creationist. Because atheism. We are also wrong because of anonymous ipse dixit. I am convinced that many of these folks are compelled to disagree because of their hatred for us, and especially from their hatred of God in us.

When dealing with someone who is not hell-bent on contradiction, that person could be asked, "How do they know that stars are forming in this location?" It turns out that nobody ever has seen it, and it is inferred because of materialistic, cosmic evolutionary, and deep-time presuppositions.

Some Other Questions

  • Here is an item from quite a different source. A collection of "scary" clips includes "communicating with the spirit world" using a candle, and the belief is that if the flame changes, a spirit is manipulating it. How do you know that spirits play with candles? The presupposition is actually quite silly, and in this clip, even the narrator seems suspicious that the whole thing is a hoax.

  • We have often encountered anti-creationists who denigrate arguments from the design work of the Master Engineer. Although design is obvious, atheistic and evolutionary dogma dictates that things only appear designed, so there is no God (they use a faulty appeal to authority). Ask what empirical method was used to reach that conclusion.

  • Following up on the above point, they should be challenged to show how something with specified complexity like the kidney evolved through time, chance, random processes, mutations, and so on. As I said, when presented with an article or video, scoffers seldom give the material serious examination. If they had, they would realize that in many cases, the material creationists use cites evolutionists who admit that they have no idea how something came about. Universal common ancestor evolution is simply assumed, then they build on that. Note that the narrative is more important than facts or truth in many cases.

  • Some evolutionary explanations should be carefully read or heard for weasel words and evasion, including scientists think, possibly, consensus, maybe, it could be, and so on. I reckon the worst offender is (whether used directly or indirectly) it evolved. Those are not statements of science.

  • Misotheists often rant that evolution is a fact, then mock us with something like, "Question Evolution Day? Why not have Question Gravity Day, too? Haw, haw, haw!" However, such a vacuous taunt shows ignorance of both science and logic, and it is an invalid comparison. After all, gravity is testable, repeatable, observable — hallmarks of operational science. Evolutionary speculations are constantly changing and disputed even among experts. Meanwhile, anti-creationists lasso something they pilfered from other creationists and use it, no matter how irrelevant or outdated.

    Also, someone who claims that evolution is a proven fact does not know how science works! It falsifies things, but does not prove anything.

    I digressed again, didn't I? The first suitable question for this part is, "If evolution were true and settled science, why are there so many retracted peer-reviewed papers?" More than that, "Why is there so much fraud by evolutionists?" Although the inquirer will probably receive the "science is self-correcting" non-answer, consider asking, "Why are so many candidates for the evolutionary family tree are reclassified and rejected?", such as Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Archaeoraptor, and many others.

  • Evolutionists made assertions about how we evolved with our three basic "primal fears". How do they know? Is there evidence? For an excellent example of what we're talking about here, take a look at "Can Evolution Explain Software? 2.0".

  • This next one fits the Angry Atheist Monkey image, "The kidney is complex! Therefore, it couldn't have evolved! Because we should listen to creationist twits who never studied evolutionary biology". Yes, someone really said that.

    Although this article was not supposed to be a logic lesson, I want to point out that this example has an abusive ad hominem (a staple of misotheists' rhetoric),  as well as genetic, prejudicial conjecture, and straw man fallacies. Several questions leap to mind: "Are evolutionary biologists better than regular biologists? If so, why? Can we expect evolutionary biologists to be objective and driven by science? Will they use circular reasoning to promote naturalistic presuppositions? Did you know that the article on kidneys was written by Dr. Jerry Bergman, who has numerous degrees and publishing credentials? Why do you assume that creationists are 'twits' and have 'never studied evolutionary biology'?" It is likely that any replies will be non-answers (or even abuse) mired in bigotry.

    By the way, even though they have had opportunities, angry atheists like this have not considered people like Joel Tay and Patricia Engler. These are just two of many who have made a concerted effort to learn what evolutionists teach.

Keep the pressure on. They may finally admit to ignorance, and ultimately, seek the truth of the gospel. We have truth, science, and logic on our side. God does not lie and has made scientific investigation possible. There is no reason for us to allow misotheists to put us on the defensive. For a related article and links with an emphasis on theology, see "Christians Must Stop Being Defensive".

Friday, March 19, 2021

The Return of Dagon the Fish God

We saw how Dagon of the Philistines is the fish god of evolution. We read in 1 Sam. 5:1-8 that the Philistines brought the Ark of the Covenant to Dagon. It did not go well. Evolutionists get truly bizarre in their efforts to connect humans with fish.

Evolutionists insultingly, without science, make statements that are related to fish. We do not adore the Philistine fish idol or their pagan views.
Original Dagon image of Dagon fish god, Internet Archive Book Images
by Joseph F. Berg, 1838, then modified
The hands at the Darwin Ranch keep carping that not everyone believes we evolved from fish (nor innumerable transitional forms that are taken by faith, not by sight). Evolutionists want us to apprehend the knowledge of our inner lungfish. Of course, no evidence is presented, just arbitrary assertions and something resembling praise to Papa Darwin. After all, evolutionism is an ancient pagan religion, so bringing Dagon to mind seems quite fitting.

On a scale of one to ten, their resentment of the fact that we were created in the image of God must go to eleven. We've been teaching people about avoiding their lures with healthy skepticism, spotting logical fallacies, and asking Darwinists difficult questions — difficult for them to answer, that is. Brace for insult impact.
Consider this headline: “We’re more like primitive fishes than once believed.” Why aren’t people insulted?

It passes by like the usual Darwinian fluff, perhaps similar to the daily flogging conservatives get in the secular media and are expected to endure without complaint because it’s easier that way. But there’s a lot to dislike in this headline from the University of Copenhagen: “We’re more like primitive fishes than once believed.” Why do people put up with this? Stand back and look at this statement like a rational citizen. Consider how a group of bold non-Darwinian thinkers might respond to it:

Now that you're hooked, read the rest at "You Are More than a Primitive Fish". I fin you'll like it.

Thursday, March 18, 2021

Plate Subduction in China Supports Genesis Flood

Believers in uniformitarian processes and deep time assume that the rate of plate movement in the earth's crust has always been at centimeters per years. However, such ideas cause them many problems with scientific data, and they are unable to explain anomalies in plate subduction.

Secular geologists have trouble reconciling the facts with their deep-time views. Research of plate subduction in China supports the creation science.
Himalayas image credit: Flickr / lensnmatter (CC0 1.0 public domain)
"Is plate subduction like when you get out the fine China plates, someone steals one, so you subduct it from the total number?"

Uh, no. Plates of the earth's crust collide, albeit slowly these days, and one is pushed under the other. It is consumed, nom nom nom! This is part of the process of pushing up mountain ranges, such as the Himalayas. Secular scientists are unable to figure out how plate tectonics began in the first place, but biblical creationists have an excellent model for that. Flood geologists propose catastrophic plate tectonics and runaway subduction that was much faster during the Genesis Flood. Using that framework, the observed data makes a lot more sense.
Scientists have identified a large slab of cold oceanic lithosphere dipping far beneath China. The newly imaged plate is presumably a leftover piece of ocean that was consumed as the Indian subcontinent collided with Asia, forming the Himalayan Mountains. However, its high seismic velocity and apparent cold temperature indicate fast emplacement befitting runaway subduction, catastrophic plate tectonics, and a recent global Flood.

Seismologist Fenglin Niu from Rice University said, “A lot of studies suggest that the slab actually deforms a lot in the mantle transition zone, that it becomes soft, so it’s easily deformed.”

You can finish reading by running over to "Plate Beneath China Verifies Rapid Subduction". Masks are not required.

Wednesday, March 17, 2021

Fake News of Multicellularity Evolution

Believers in universal common ancestor evolution believe that life developed over millions of years, and shloop it to us. There should be innumerable transitional forms. Also, evidence that single-celled evolved into multi-celled organisms. Well, there was that experiment...

Credits: CSIRO / Willem van Aken (CC BY 3.0), modified at Big Huge Labs
Evolutionists make promises in science abstracts, press releases, and more. The obedient lapdog media for the secular science industry put the spurs to the stories to make them really sensational. On it goes. Unfortunately, they present "discoveries" that leave out important details that may prompt thinking people to question their integrity or education. Perhaps both.

A lab experiment involved single-celled algae (is there any other kind?) and another single-celled organism that would eat algae. (Yes, predation exists even at that level.) The fake news? It is claimed that the experiment showed how single-celled organisms could evolve into multi-celled because they wanted to avoid being eaten. This was a bushel of rawmaish because the cells remained unchanged, and epigenetics was conveniently ignored as well. Our Creator designed organisms to adapt, which is something we have discussed here many times.
According to evolutionary theory, living things developed from simpler to more complex organisms over billions of years via several major innovations. One such big step was the evolution of multicellular organisms from single-celled ones. This is a crucial phase of evolution, because multicellular organisms allow for multiple cell tissue types. This in turn permits more variability in living beings, allowing for mutations and natural selection to supposedly create a larger variety of organisms.

Lasses and boyos, you make the journey to "One for all and all for one — Did multi-celled creatures really evolve from single cells?" so you can be reading the rest.

Tuesday, March 16, 2021

Origin-of-Life False Positives in Minerals

Despite the frequent falsehood that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, Darwin's acolytes continue to seek it. This reveals a strong caution about letting the narrative and presuppositions control what is actually observed. For example, claims of life in Martian meteorites.

Although some evolutionists try to deny it, the origin of life is vital to their mythology. Recent research showed there are false positives in OoL.
Credit: D. McKay (NASA /JSC), K. Thomas-Keprta (Lockheed-Martin),
R. Zare (Stanford), NASA
(Image modified, usage of any form of this is not an endorsement of site contents)
The pseudoscience of astrobiology is a blatant attempt to use materialistic philosophies in denying credit for life to our Creator. In addition, there's big money in giving secularists what they want, so rushed announcements accompany incomplete research.

We know that pareidolia is where the mind seeks to make sense of patterns, so we "see" things that are not actually there (like a ghostly face in a mirror). What is it called when votaries of the secular science industry observe things that are nonexistent because they want to see them?

A meteorite was generously supplied to Earth from Mars, and something resembling life was found. Resembling is the key word, because there was no life in it. Some researchers realized they needed to to rein in that runaway stallion because there were false positives. Sure is mighty nice when some folks want to do real science. While they're not endorsing the truth of recent creation, they did produce some interesting results.
Fooled by wishful thinking, some paleontologists call round things microfossils when they were never alive.

The drive to connect the dots of an evolutionary worldview can lead scientists astray. In 1996, NASA held a major press conference that launched the “science” of astrobiology. It was all based on tiny little shapes within a Martian meteorite that certain wishful thinkers interpreted as signs of life that had left traces within the rock. It was shoddy science, and years of more rigorous investigations proved that the alleged “fossils” were abiotic minerals that took on peculiar shapes. The damage was done; we are still stuck with a NASA Astrobiology Institute, perpetuating a science with no bio in it and nothing to show for it (astrobiology – bio = astrology).

To finish reading, click on "Seeing Fake Life in Dead Minerals".

Monday, March 15, 2021

Nanobots and Biomimetics

Robots have fascinated people for decades. Science fiction stories have frequently made them as humanity's enemies. Similar stories have been written about nanobots, but that technology is only in its early stages. Scientists are hoping they can be used in space exploration and medical technology.

Made at PhotoFunia
We can guess about the "bot" part of the word, but what is a nano? It's not someone hired to care for the children. A nanometer is very, very small, and nanobots (or nanomachines) are robots that may work on the molecular level, but that is still under development. Sometimes games can be used to stimulate creativity, and there were nanosoccer competitions several years ago — microscopic games, what a concept!

There was a movie in 1966 called Fantastic Voyage that involved a submarine and crew miniaturized, injected into a patient, destroying a blood clot, then escaping. Imaginative stuff, but if nanobots are successfully developed, they may be useful for medical applications. But how to get motors to propel the things? Consider the ATP flagellar motor and others.

Biomimetics is a method of studying what is found in nature and using it for human applications — seldom crediting the Master Engineer for the intricate, specified complexity of his design work. In a bit of irony, a site called Evolution Jobs has an illustration of an imagined nanomachine that looks like it is spot-welding DNA. No, evolution has nothing to do with it, old son.
Inside your body, bacteria whip their spiral-like “tails,” or flagella, to zip from place to place. Doctors would love to harness this nanotechnology to send remote-controlled nanobots into human bodies and target diseases such as cancer. But researchers have discovered that they can’t simply miniaturize standard engines. In addition to small motors, they have to put some muscle into it—artificial muscle, that is.

You can finish reading this by motoring on over to "Nanobots Show Promise with Artificial Muscle". Also, you may be interested in my article inspired by a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode at "Engineered Nanobot Evolution".

Saturday, March 13, 2021

Evolutionists Stealing Science Principles from God

The other day, the hands at the Darwin Ranch went a-riding into town, shot holes in the saloon ceiling, scared the showgirls, overindulged in firewater, and so on. They think they won the bid from the secular science industry for a model to improve science using evolution.

Arrogant evolutionists think they can improve science using Darwinian thinking. Since their worldview is incoherent, they steal from God.
Credit: Pixabay / Fernando Latorre
They have great faith in Darwinian thinking, but insert a passel of presuppositions about what they consider good morals and principles. Great, "improving" science by selecting the best of time, chance, random processes, survival of the fittest, mutations, natural selection, and so on. Would you want that kind of thinking in your program? Not me.

More than that, these tinhorns steal principles from the biblical worldview. Why? Because theirs is incoherent. Instead of giving credit to the Creator, they simply take and pretend those things were their ideas all along.
Need better science? Let the Darwin Party take over. They’ll give the next reformers an even bigger mess to clean up.

Arizona State University graduate Leonid Tiokhin is earning his D-Merit Badge for the Darwin Party. His project was to “change science for the better.” If “Science is society’s best method for understanding the world,” the reader asks, why does it need to be better? (See Best-in-Field Fallacy). Everybody acknowledges severe shortcomings between science’s ideals and real-world practice:

To read the entire article, follow the link that was designed without evolutionary thinking to "Can Evolutionary Theory Improve Scientific Practice?"

Friday, March 12, 2021

Research into the Pre-Flood World

Biblical creationists have long wondered about the world before the Genesis Flood, including why people lived longer. Speculations abound. One thing upon which creationists and secular scientists agree is that the atmosphere was different. Some interesting hyperbaric research ties into geology.

Secular and creation scientists agree that ancient Earth had air with more pressure and oxygen. Research may show a reason for pre-Flood lifespans.
Credit: Pixabay / Sebastian Ganso
There is evidence that the ancient atmosphere was much richer in oxygen and had greater pressure, which is indicated by fossils of very large critters. Hyperbaric chambers are used to treat patients with increased pressure and oxygen levels. Their cell metabolisms and telomeres in chromosomes are positively affected, and this may be an indication for why pre-Flood people lived such huge amounts of time.

All of this is in preliminary stages as far as creation science is concerned, and it will be interesting to see what other creation scientists have to contribute. There are some strong indications about ancient Earth's atmosphere from this hyperbaric research. Lifespan changes are a puzzle for creation geneticists, but atmospheric pressure and oxygenation may have been contributing factors. I seriously doubt that the mostly-rejected "water vapor canopy" theory will be revitalized from this research.
Creationists have long speculated about the earth’s environment prior to the global Flood—conditions which may have contributed to the long human life spans recorded in the Biblical record of Genesis. Specifically, it has been hypothesized by some that the pre-Flood earth atmosphere had higher levels of oxygen and a greater atmospheric pressure than we currently observe. Now, a new study from Tel Aviv University and the Shamir Medical Center in Israel has shown that hyperbaric oxygen treatments in normal healthy adults can halt and even reverse the aging process of blood cells.

You can finish the article by clicking on "Hyperbaric Research and the Pre-Flood Atmosphere".

Thursday, March 11, 2021

Chilling Secular Ice Age Theories

When secularists ridicule biblical creation science Ice Age models, you may get a variety of answers. That is, if they have anything other than, "Because atheism". Uniformitarian views require billions of years of gradual processes so Darwin's magic can happen, but they fail to explain observed evidence.

Your typical misotheist will insist that creation science Ice Age models are wrong because they are wrong, but secularists cannot explain any ice age.
Upsala glacier photographed from the International Space Station, Image credit: NASA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
In fact, the idea of an ice age was resisted by secularists for many years after it was first proposed. It was viewed as a threat to uniformitarianism, but they later incorporated it into their speculations because they couldn't ignore the evidence. However, they still have no idea how it happened; conjectures are conflicting and contrary to data. So, since they can't explain even one ice age, why not fifty? That's science. Use the fundamentally flawed Milankovitch Theory, because that's science, too. Never mind that biblical creation science models use the Genesis Flood and have plausible explanations.
The lawyer Charles Lyell published his three-volume book Principles of Geology from 1830 to 1833. In it he advocated that all past geological processes were the same as what we observe today, and rejected any geological impact of Noah’s Flood described in the Bible. His uniformitarian philosophy, summarized as ‘the present is the key to the past’, means that everything in geology is ‘slow and gradual’. It powerfully influenced most scientists. Soon after this, however, came the ‘discovery’ of the Ice Age, popularized by an 1840 book by the famous Swiss-American biologist/geologist Louis Agassiz.

You can read the rest of this really cool article by skating over to "Secular scientific problems with the Ice Age".

Wednesday, March 10, 2021

Mudstones, Secularists, and the Genesis Flood

Secular geology is dominated by uniformitarian (slow and gradual beliefs), but when cornered, they invoke forms of catastrophe. One example is the Channeled Scablands. Another is mudstone, which was previously used in efforts to refute the Genesis Flood. It has been proven to form very rapidly.

Mudstone was once thought to refute the catastrophic Genesis Flood. Secular scientists are realizing that mudstone can form extremely fast after all.
Mudstone in New Zealand image credit: Flickr / Rachael (CC BY 2.0)
Indeed, it was proven to form rapidly before (see "Fast-Forming Mudstones and the Genesis Flood"), and things have become worse for proponents of deep time and gradual processes. To be blunt, it's nice to see that there are still some scientists who are willing to admit that part of their paradigm were wrong. To see them admit that this is evidence for the global Genesis Flood — that may happen eventually.
A radical revision of the origin of mudstones in 2014 just got another surprising update favorable to creationists.

Old-earthers have long pointed to mudstones as evidence against a young earth. The thinking for a century or more has been that mudstones, like some of the fine-grained strata throughout the southwestern United States, required placid conditions for their formation. Microscopic particles needed vast ages to slowly settle out of solution and accumulate on the bottoms of inland lakes or seas. Creationists might have had some evidence of rapid formation for some of the sandstones and limestones, but mudstones? No; those disproved rapid formation.

To read the entire article, rock on over to "Theory of Mudstones Evolving Toward Flood Geology".

Tuesday, March 9, 2021

Kidney Evolution Ideas Fail Spectacularly

When misotheists and other evolutionists deny the clear evidence of the Master Engineer's work, they are not using science. They need to know that shlooping and presenting the non-explanation of "it evolved" are intellectually dishonest. The vertebrate kidney is an amazing example of our Creator's handiwork.

Anti-creationists ridicule us for believing that God is the designer, but they have no rational model for how complex organs like the kidney evolved.
Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos / Somkiat Fakmee
There are people in some workplaces that are almost intimidating because they are important to the company and perform complex duties. People who have healthy kidneys may pay them no nevermind, but people who have problems with them learn mighty quickly how important they are. Not only do they perform internal cleaning, they also perform other functions — even communicating with other organs.

Evolutionists make important declarations about life and origins that seem to be based more on wishful thinking than on actual science. Then real science comes along where people learned more (and did research that their predecessors sluffed off) and bring better understanding along. Some liars for Darwin have said that kidney development is a splendid example of the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" propaganda, but that is refuted by those who are knowledgeable in biology. Also, evolutionary conjectures about a pre-kidney are nothing more than wishful thinking, and not supported by fossil evidence.
An unbridgeable gap exists between the simple urinary system used in invertebrates and the far more complex kidney system used in all vertebrates. No direct evidence of the evolution of one system into the other exists, nor have any viable “just-so” stories been proposed to explain the evolution of the simple invertebrate urinary system into the complex vertebrate kidney-urinary system. The common reason evolutionists give for the lack of evidence to bridge this chasm is that soft tissue is usually not preserved in the fossil record.

The problem with this claim is thousands of so-called “living fossils” exist that are claimed to be anatomically close to their hundreds of millions years old design which should display evidence of the less evolved organs. . . . 

All vertebrates use very close to the same design, and the few variations that exist are relatively minor. The main reason the designs are very similar is that, functioning effectively to remove waste products requires a specific, irreducibly complex kidney design.

Although this article is rather technical, even reg'lar folk like me can get something out of it. You're smart people, so you can read the full article at "Evolution of the Vertebrate Kidney Baffles Evolutionists".