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

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Bugs and Brains in Evolution Maybeland

Don't you wish you were there to see Homer Primitive say, "Mmmm...bugs..."?

Scientists studied some wild monkeys for 436 hours (not at one time) to see how they went about getting bugs for food. They used tools (not in the conceptual manner of humans, of course). Some good observational science was happening.

Then it was spoiled by a trip to Maybeland.

Some evolutionary fantasists are coming up with ideas that the desire to eat bugs helped human evolution along. Seeing monkeys foraging for bugs gave rise to speculation that the same desires caused pre-humans with bugs on the brain to have their actual brains grow and change — therefore, evolution. And yet, we know that the brain itself is not the person, the soul, the source of free will. So that makes this speculation even weirder.

Of course, there is no biological precedent, no model, no real science, but that does not stop them from putting forth wild anti-science tales for that grant money. Mmmm....money...
“Challenges associated with finding food have long been recognized as important in shaping evolution of the brain and cognition in primates, including humans,” explains Dr. Amanda Melin, lead author of the study just published in the Journal of Human Evolution. “Our work suggests that digging for insects when food was scarce may have contributed to hominid cognitive evolution and set the stage for advanced tool use.”

Wild capuchin monkeys locate and extricate insect snacks year-round, but when their favorite fruits are out of season, they really put their brains and hands to work filling in the menu with delectable bugs. (Of course, we all know that true bugs are insects with piercing, sucking mouthparts. The study focused on insects in general as well as any other invertebrates the capuchins cared to consume, but in the media the lot are loosely referred to as “bugs,” so we follow the same convention in this news story.) “We find that capuchin monkeys eat embedded insects year-round but intensify their feeding seasonally, during the time that their preferred food—ripe fruit—is less abundant,” Melin says. “These results suggest embedded insects are an important fallback food.”
You can grab a handful of chocolate-covered ants or something else to snack on, and finish reading the article in full context by clicking on "Did Bugs Give Ancestral Primates a Bigger Brain?" Try not to giggle at the "maybe" stuff they present as science. 

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

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Saturn Further Supports Creation

In a previous article about Saturn, we saw that Saturn presents several enigmas for secular cosmologists. It also provides support for biblical creation models for a young universe. The rings of Saturn should not be there, it is a gas giant, it has low density, has dozens of moons (many of which also pose their own puzzles), and so on.

Credit: NASA / STScI
What is worse for evolutionary cosmologists is that fact that creationist scientist Dr. D. Russell Humphreys predicted the magnetic fields of several planets (including Saturn). Not only was he proved right, but the evolutionists were proved quite wrong. Things are cranking up even more now because the auroras of Saturn are frustrating secular models that have been suggested for the planet's magnetic field.
Over a million people have viewed the NASA video "Walking On Air," which features stunning arctic and Antarctic auroras photographed from the International Space Station.1 They look like glowing green metallic clouds swirling high above broad stretches of Earth's poles. New evidence confirms that, like Earth, Saturn's magnetic field helps create its own auroras. This space spectacle attracts a more fundamental question about where its magnetic field came from in the first place.

Though Saturn is incredibly distant, the Hubble telescope was able to record its auroras in unprecedented detail. It is now clear that Saturn's auroras, best seen in ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths, form when solar outbursts collapse its "magnetotail," the portion of its magnetic field and attending electrified gas that flows in the planet's wake.
You can finish reading by clicking on "Saturn's Magnetic Field Auroras: Evidence for Creation".


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

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

The Tiger of Creation Science Continues Taming Dragons of Evolutionism

"Dragon" is an old word for dinosaur, and dinosaurs are pretty much extinct. Now the term "dragon" has become an illustration of fantasy or personal struggles, such as things that need to be faced and eliminated.

Evolution is not only a fantasy dragon in which people still believe, but it also transmogrifies. The concept of evolution is an ancient pagan religion, and began to take on scientific respectability in more recent centuries. The version that Darwin popularized had already changed shape before he joined the choir invisible. It seems that evolution's magickal transmogrification is accelerating, new speculations are refuted with facts and observations, so more speculations are offered as "science". Darwinoids constantly seek out creationists to attack, mindlessly calling anyone "liar" who dares to disagree with evolution and show evidence for creation, and then making excuses because reality does not fit evolutionary fantasies. Not to mention straw man arguments and outright misrepresentation of creationists... Yet, we still press on.

Kuniyoshi Project, Tiger and Dragon, Utagawa Kuniyoshi, ca. 1831
Do you know what happens to most mythical dragons? When people grow up, they stop bringing their dragons sealing wax and bits of string, and they stop visiting them in the autumn mist; reality replaces fantasy. Likewise, there are tigers — that is, numerous creation science ministries and individuals presenting information in hopes that little evolutionists will grow up and dare to face reality: Microbes-to-microbiologist evolution is false, and there is a Creator who makes the rules. The science is on our side, and we're still clawing and biting the mythical dragon that enslaves people.
Darwinism as a science has been evolving. That is, it has changed from its original concept and continues to change. It would do us well to pay attention to the latest trends so as not to be caught arguing against yesterday’s theory. When Charles Darwin initially postulated that all living species could be traced back to a single common ancestor, he suggested the mechanism causing these changes was natural selection. That was in 1859. Later, he backed off from his initial hypothesis and suggested that other forms of selection (e.g., sexual selection) were not only involved, but were more important. Worse, not knowing anything about genetics, he came up with and strongly promoted a Lamarckian idea that the environment caused changes in organisms which were then inherited by their offspring. This was contradicted by his contemporary, Gregor Mendel, who published the laws of genetics in 1862, but that was the state of evolutionary theory at the close of the 19th century.
You can use the magic of the Web to keep reading "Slaying yesterday's dragons".

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

Monday, July 7, 2014

Can Scientists Find Free Will?

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen

A frequent complaint that atheists and evolutionist have against the Bible pertains to free will, a subject that has been debated for a long, long time. Some of them complain from prejudicial conjecture (presenting an uninformed, biased opinion), incomplete information or simple ignorance. The problem is compounded because different theologians have varying explanations for free will. Most Christians agree, however, that God did not create us to be robots.

Someone made a comment on Facebook demanding scientific proof for the existence of the soul. Right. That is a logical fallacy called the category error — you cannot use material methods to test for the non-material. It is just as futile to require empirical evidence for the existence of God, who is spirit and outside the confines of time and space. You may as well ask for a bushel basket of patriotism.

If evolution were true, then free will is impossible. Think about it. We are all star stuff, ultimate products of the Big Bang, time, chance, random processes, mutations, natural selection, survival of the fittest and so on. So, there is no right or wrong, and there is no justice; we are just bags of chemicals doing what our electrochemical impulses tell us to do. This also means that we cannot trust our senses, reasoning or our memories in an evolutionary worldview, nor can evolutionists account for morality).

When they lie about creationists, calling us "liars" because we disagree with evolution and its rock star icons, or when they simply misrepresent us because they are incapable of logic, when they plot to deceive people — that's okay. Conversely, those of us who believe that the Bible is true, that God created the world in six literal days about 6,000 years ago — that's okay, too. We're all just slaves to our chemical impulses; we have to believe the way we do, so nobody has any business complaining about us.

Neuroscientists use faulty materialistic presuppositions based on evolution to try to explain the mind itself (but their explanations  fall far short of observations, reason and common sense). Unfortunately, many Christians have gone along with this, and it is akin to theistic evolutionists and other old-earth compromisers using atheistic conjectures and interpretations of evidence to explain Scripture. If we are reduced to electrochemical impulses, we have no soul, the mind is just the brain, and we are not accountable for our actions. A detailed examination of this can be found at "Christians, the Brain, and Person: Conceptual Confusion, Unintelligibility, and Implications".

Ironically, materialists are trying to find the physical cause or location of free will. Again, this seems like the category error to me.
Free will matters to children. It had better exist.

Neuroscientists have been trying for years to locate the source of free will in the brain. They have done this freely of their own will. But if they ever find free will is caused by the physical brain, or has been determined by our evolutionary past, it will cease to be free. The late Cornell evolution professor William Provine used to insist that Darwinism implied there is no free will. Apparently he chose to say this freely by his own choice, but he understood that free will is an illusion except in the Biblical world view that he once trusted as a child. Needless to say, preachers call on their flock to make life choices, because the Bible assumes (despite issues of God’s sovereignty) that people can hear, understand, and respond.

Here is some food for thought on free will from the secular news.
I hope you decide to continue reading "Choosing to Believe in Free Will".

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

Saturday, July 5, 2014

Chameleons, Evidence of Creation

When I was young, I had a couple of chameleons in a small plastic shoebox-like container. At least, I thought they were chameleons. They were marketed that way. Much later, I learned that they were not chameleons at all, but a distant relative known as green anoles. These lizards could do a bit of color changing, and were cute. My mother didn't like them.

Yemen chameleon / Pixabay / miniformat65
True chameleons are famous for being able to change their colors so they can blend with their backgrounds. This is only a legend. There are about 160 species, and many do change color to some extent, but the blending with the background is part of their natural coloration and their conduct. Chameleons are skilled hunters and hiders, with extremely efficient abilities. Eyes, tail, ultra-fast tongue — truly a product of the Creator, not of evolutionary processes.
He might look bizarre to you, but not to a bug. With his impressive arsenal of specialized hunting equipment, the chameleon is truly a master of disaster.

Stealth. Patience. Vigilance. Slowly the hunter moves unseen among the branches. His independently rotating eyes constantly scan the leafy canopy in every direction. No insect is safe within striking distance of his infamous weapon—a fast-acting and deadly accurate catapulting tongue. Aided by his steady grip and excellent vision, the chameleon is always ready to seize unsuspecting prey.
To read the rest, click on "Chameleons — A Bug’s Worst Nightmare".

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

Friday, July 4, 2014

Approval of Seals

Pinnipeds (walruses, sea lions, seals) have many features that testify to the intelligence of their Creator. Their swimming ability is amazing, and some can dive to depths that should kill them if they were not built for it. The insulation of those that live in cold climates (which is the majority) is also impressive. Naturally, Darwin's Drones insist that they are a product of evolution, but they cannot give any account for it or a believable mechanism. The best explanation is that they were created.
Around the world, seals and sea lions represent different things to different people.

One superstition says that it’s bad luck to kill a seal because they embody the souls of dead sailors. To marine theme park visitors, they are cute and talented performers able to balance balls and walk on their flippers; to environmentalists, they are defenceless pups slaughtered for their pristine fur; to commercial fishermen they are a threat to fish stocks; and to wild-life enthusiasts they are among the most spectacular creatures to watch at play in the wild.

Throughout history, seals have played a substantial role in many cultures, providing food, fuel and clothing for indigenous tribes in the Northern Hemisphere’s frozen regions. Because of their expressive faces, these marine mammals have also been the focus of many legends, ranging from the ‘selchie’ stories of north-western Europe (in which seals are believed to be women and children condemned to a life where neither land nor sea provide a permanent home) to the superstitions that it is bad luck to kill a seal because they embody the souls of dead sailors.
You walrus wanted to know these things, water you waiting for? To finish reading, click on "Spectacular, surprising seals". 

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

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Neanderthals in Spain — Or Were They?

Neanderthal bones in Spain fell nowhere near the plain. They have caused a great deal of controversy in several locations, throwing off evolutionary dating timelines and more. Now it seems that remains in Spain may not be Neanderthal. Or they may be. Or both. Or neither. Huh? Personally, I opt for "both", since they are nowhere near the Neander Valley, they may be Neander-Spanish, like other immigrants that hyphenate their old and new homes. Ya dig?

It seems that whenever there is a variation in any living organism, the Evo Sith are looking for a way to say that it is an example of evolution in action. This is not only very fallacious because they use circular reasoning, ignore conflicting explanations and so on, but an example of their biases. Trying to shove variations of these ancient humans into some "that must be evolution" scheme seems desperate. If you're confused, it is not surprising, considering the ever-changing speculations that are offered as "science".

Neanderthal bones in Spain are giving more problems for anthropologists. Were they Neanderthal or not? Both? Actually, the evolutionary speculations fall apart. The biblical creation explanation is a far better fit for the facts.

How about trying something else? Since the evidence does not lead to evolution, the biblical creation model (which is far more plausible) should be considered.
A famous fossil cave in Spain yielded some 6,500 human fossils from at least 28 ancient individuals. Investigators analyzed the human skull parts and compared them with typical Neandertal skulls. Their findings, published in the journal Science, unwittingly support a biblical creation model for Neandertal origins.

Along with human bones in two of its distinct floor layers, the Spanish cave Sima de Los Huesos, which means "bone chasm," also had remains of predators including bears.

What did those ancient people look like? In short, the Science authors found that the human skulls showed a combination of Neandertal traits and modern traits. Were they true Neandertals? Not exactly, but neither were they not Neandertal. What does this do to evolution or creation concepts of Neandertal origins?
You can read the rest at "Human Remains in Spain: Neandertal or Not?"

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