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, April 13, 2015

Ice Age Climate Theory Wobbles

There was a consensus of sorts that orbital cycles of the earth were the cause of ice ages. New discoveries have had a chilling effect for secular "deep time" scientists because the prevailing uniformitarian view doesn't hold water; it's not "settled science" after all.


The Milankovitch orbital cycles of the earth were postulated, and used to explain ice ages. New evidence supports biblical creationists' models of a single ice age caused by the Genesis Flood.
Pixabay / tpsdave
There are some other items that put a burr under secularists' saddles. First, if the prevailing models about how the earth was frozen in the distant past are shown to be unreliable, then how accurate are their methods when they predict global warming? But even worse, the data once again fit biblical creationists' models regarding a single ice age resulting from the Genesis Flood. These findings should spur creation scientists on to further research in this area.
Orbital cycles do not cause ice ages, a new study suggests. Instead, the whole world experienced an ice age at the same time.

The leading secular theory for past ice ages has taken heat from a new study. According to the theory, orbital cycles called Milankovitch cycles take the earth on excursions nearer and farther from the sun, or on wobbles of tilt, forcing climatic swings. But a study published in Geology calls that theory into question.
You can read the rest of this cool article at "Orbital Ice Age Theory Melts".
    




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

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Flighty Evolutionary Speculations Taint Hummingbird Taste Study

As many people know, hummingbirds live off sweet things like nectar and special feeders with sugar water. (Be sure to clean the feeders often so that mold doesn't form and poison them — and you should avoid cleaning with bleach.) Research was conducted about the sense of taste in hummingbirds and other critters, especially about how these birds can sense sweetness.

Humans can generally taste a variety of flavors, sweet, sour, salty, umami, and bitter. Cats and other animals do not seem to have the ability to taste sweetness, but crocodiles have it. Some animals show no ability to taste anything at all. The "sense of taste" (taste receptors) are actually quite complex, and there is a great deal yet to learn about them.


Interesting research in the sense of taste, especially in how hummingbirds taste sweet stuff, is tainted by unwarranted evolutionary speculations presented as science.
Pixabay / luxlioness
The evidence plainly shows that the special taste apparatus of the hummingbird is the product of the Creator's design. Naturally, evolutionists were operating from their worldview and did some unwarranted philosophical wrangling. "This bird tastes sweet stuff? It's evolution what done it. Now let me offer opinion as fact about how dinosaur-to-bird evolution, and the sense of taste in dinosaurs". Not hardly.
Most birds are blind to sweets. They lack the taste receptor to detect sweet-tasting molecules. Yet hummingbirds—dependent on nectar to fuel their fast wings—are experts at telling what is sweet and even at fending off fakes1—non-nutritive artificial sweeteners. The unusual genetic basis for their ability, according to Harvard Medical School biologist Stephen Liberles and his coauthors publishing in Science, has pinpointed hummingbirds’ place in evolutionary history and suggests theropod dinosaurs had no taste for sweets.
After that sample, you can chew on the rest of the article by clicking on "Our Creator’s Sweet Design for Hummingbird Taste".




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

Friday, April 10, 2015

Rogue Data in the Gene Neighborhood

DNA studies are not helpful to the evolutionary tree of life. Instead of a tree, there is a mosaic, and data support biblical creation, not Darwinian evolution.
Operational science does not support eukaryote-to-engineer evolution — especially DNA sequencing, despite the claims of some evolutionists. Darwin's tree of life may have seemed plausible in the past, but rogue data in gene neighborhoods are not cooperating with evolutionary ideas.

Scientists using presuppositions, assumptions, cherry-picked data, evidence manipulation, and other unscientific methods attempt to preserve their belief systems; they present their stories as factual, even though they are what "could have happened", and not what can be demonstrably true. Other scientists are trying to re-draw the tree of life using microRNA genes. The results are still disappointing, as things refuse to fit the expected patterns.

What we do see is support for the Genesis account of creation, where everything is to reproduce "after its kind". After all, God did not command, "Go ye and turn therefore into something else over long periods of time". This research not only supports creation science, but should be another spur to the flanks of creationist scientists to find the genetic boundaries of the created kinds.
The ‘tree of life’ (TOL) popularized by Darwin and used as the inferred pattern of life’s history is the centrepiece of evolutionary biology. The molecular genetics revolution has presented many contradictions for the TOL and the modern Darwinian synthesis. Incomplete lineage sorting (ILS) is a discordant and pervasive outcome produced when constructing phylogenetic trees using homologous biological sequence data across all types of life studied. The ILS paradigm is characterized by segments of DNA that produce phylogenetic trees with different topologies compared to hypothetical inferred evolutionary trees. While ILS within closely related taxonomic groups can largely be explained by horizontal genetic variation and limitations on accurately sampling large populations, ILS across clearly different and unrelated kinds of organisms represents a mosaic of DNA sequence patterns that cannot be explained by common ancestry. Other ‘rogue’ genetic data that defy the TOL are microRNA genes and taxonomically restricted genes. MicroRNAs produce completely different trees compared to other gene sequences and appear unexpectedly in taxa. Taxonomically restricted genes also appear abruptly without evolutionary precursors, lack homology to other genes, and uniquely define taxon. Genetics research consistently reveals patterns of DNA mosaics that defy evolution and vindicate biblical creation ‘after their kinds’.
To read the rest, click on "Incomplete lineage sorting and other ‘rogue’ data fell the tree of life", by Jeffrey Tompkins (Ph.D., genetics) and Jerry Bergman (Ph.D., Biology).
    



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

Thursday, April 9, 2015

The Return of Thunder Lizard

The reclassification of dinosaurs to bring back the Brontosaurus raises other questions about scientific reclassification and revisionism.Back yonder in the nineteenth century, two scientists with mutual detestation, Cope and Marsh, were ambitiously trying to outdo each other in the "Bone Wars". That is, they spend money, time, and effort in trying to find and classify dinosaur bones. One of the most notable examples was the Brontosaurus ("thunder lizard", though much larger dinosaurs were discovered later that would have made bigger thunder when they walked than Bronto). But it had the wrong head. In 1903, the mistake was corrected and Apatosaurus ("deceptive lizard") was made. 

The story goes that the Brontosaurus never existed (for fun and more information on the Bone Wars, check out this yet-to-be-updated article at NPR). Funny how this is one of many things that evolutionists don't do very well in getting information to the public, since the Brontosaurus took a long time to fade from the scene — the US Postal Service issued a stamp of the thing in 1989. 

There are larger things than the Brontosaurus to consider, such as scientific classifications and labeling. A dinosaur isn't even a lizard (check the bodily placement difference between lizard legs and dinosaur legs, for one thing). Scientists dispute the definition of a species, and whether or not to classify something as a separate species. Now paleontologists are wondering about their systems of classifying genus and species in their work as well. Not that a dinosaur would care what you called it. I can call a standarbred horse an American quarter horse, but it won't change what it really is, and Silver won't care what you call him.

There may be some scientific revisionism in the air, though.
With the resurrection of Brontosaurus as a valid dinosaur name after a century of repudiation, what’s a kid to think? Thoughts on science’s arbitrary and tentative nature.

Eight-year-olds used to brag about correcting their parents who said “Brontosaurus.” The correct name is “Apatosaurus,” the kid would be quick to say. Now the parent has a comeback: Brontosaurus is a valid name for some of the members of the Diplodocidae, according to a new reclassification of the giant sauropods by a team led by Emanuel Tschopp from Nova University of Lisbon, according to Nature. His team studied all the known fossils of the beasts and concluded that Edward Cope’s name Brontosaurus (“thunder lizard”) is valid, because there are enough distinguishable traits to distinguish it from Othniel Marsh’s earlier find that he had named Apatosaurus (“deceptive lizard”).

Tschopp says he did not start out to resurrect Brontosaurus, but his team’s analysis decided enough differences warranted the reversal. “The Smithsonian Institution accused USPS of favoring ‘cartoon nomenclature to scientific nomenclature,’” Michael Balter writes in Science Magazine. “It didn’t help that the stamps were officially launched at Disney World.” The cartoonists may have the last laugh. Undoubtedly some parents will enjoy rubbing it in to their kids: “See? I was right!” dad will say. “We were both right!” may be the retort.
To finish reading, stomp on over to "Of Brontosaurus, Cartoons, and Revisionism".
  



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

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Largeness

Did you hear about the huge guinea pig fossil? They reckon that bad boy was about 2,000 pounds (907 kg). I'd like to say, "Bacon!", but the guinea pig is a rodent, not a pig. And they're not from Guinea. Darwinists have a thing they call "Cope's Rule", which is supposed to mean that things evolve to be larger (but this idea falls apart when the bad logic is exposed.) There are many large things in the fossil record, and creationists have speculations as to why they were bigger then, but critters just don't grow that big anymore. I suppose evolutionists will invoke "evolutionary stasis" or something.


The fossil record shows that many things grew much larger in the distant past. Why don't we see things that big today? Creationists have some ideas about this.

Back to Ultra Rodent and His Stupendous Friends. Things were larger back then, even though Cope's erroneous "rule" is not exactly seen in action. What happened to the big guys?
As if living creatures don’t display enough variety in God’s creation, fossil forms bring that diversity to a whole new level. Consider the fossil skull of a guinea pig from Uruguay so big the living rodent might have weighed 2,000 pounds! Size estimates vary, but any rodent even close to a buffalo’s bulk attracts attention. Surprisingly, its largest modern relatives only reach about knee high, and the common guinea pig pets are no bigger than a rabbit. Why don’t we see buffalo-sized guinea pigs today? Examining the history of five other humongous or fearsome creatures may help answer this question.
It's not a big task to finish reading, just click on "One-Ton Guinea Pig".
    




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

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Cicadas Living and Dying in Unison

Cicadas are all over the world, but like many other living things, different kinds live in different areas. The "periodical cicadas" (also called Magicadas) are not found on a chemistry table of elements, so don't look there, Hoss. Those critters are mostly in the eastern part of North America. They're not a pest and don't seem to be much good (except as food for other things) and they make a lot of noise.

Periodical cicadas (Magicadas) are baffling to evolutionists with their timing to live, emerge, and die in unison. Also, they are beneficial, a product of the Creator's design.
Public Doman, from Insects, their way and means of living,by R. E. Snodgrass (Plate 7).
"Them's good eatin'. Do you want them deep fried or stir-fry?"

I'll pass right now, but you go right ahead, old son.

Periodical cicadas are baffling to Darwinistas because they live underground for years, then different broods appear in huge swarms. The adults live for a month, mate, and die in unison. (Sounds like it would make for a good country music song.) How do they know? Also, they seem useless at first, but they're actually beneficial.
They march out of the ground a mighty throng. In multitudes of more than a million and a half per acre, they reach plague-like proportions. Among the most familiar of all insects in eastern North America, they are the periodical cicadas.

Insects grab our attention for lots of reasons, both good and bad. Honeybees delight us with sweetness; butterflies entrance us with beauty; wasps frighten us with pain; lightning bugs glow in the dark; and praying mantises are just big, cool-looking predators.

What about cicadas? Well, they’re biggish bugs, but they don’t sting or glow or devastate crops or produce honey, and they’re certainly not rare. What’s fascinating about periodical cicadas is their sheer numbers and the mysterious timing of their emergence from hiding.
To read the rest, you can fly over to "Periodical Cicadas—Synchronized Swarming". In addition, here is some material on their math skills. And if you want to know when Magicadas are scheduled to appear in your area, click on this link to Cicada Mania.
   




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

Monday, April 6, 2015

Why do Biblical Creationists Emphasize a Young Earth?

There are supporters of old earth theology who insist that the Bible does not indicate the age of the earth. True, there is nothing explicitly saying that the world was created on 9 AM Oct 3, 4004 BC, or something similar. OECs (Old Earth Creationists) sometimes claim that biblical creation (YEC, or Young Earth Creation) is something new, and belief in an old earth has been the default position of Christians throughout church history. Not hardly. Belief in recent creation has been taught by the church fathers and the reformers, and getting an ancient planet or universe out of the Bible only comes through eisegesis.

Malicious Advice Mallard does not want you to learn from the sources.
Although church fathers and Reformers can help establish facts of history and offer important insight into Scripture, they were not writing Scripture itself. The opinions of people aren't as important as what Scripture teaches, and what can be reasonably inferred from the Bible. (Some owlhoots actually saddle up and ride with atheists in attacking biblical creationists! An old earth is essential for evolution. Then they claim that we are the ones being divisive for using a historical-grammatical interpretation. ) What does the Bible teach, and how should we respond to Christians who want to believe in an old earth, and claim that teaching a young earth actually interferes with presenting the gospel message?
While CMI predictably regularly receives feedback from sceptics criticizing our stance on creation, some Christians also write in who believe that creation is actually harmful to biblical Christianity. C.M. from the US writes:

The damage you people are doing to the credibility of the Christian worldview is simply incalculable. You are attempting to force upon intelligent people a false dilemma: either believe in the well-established facts of geology, or believe in YOUR unreasonable and incorrect interpretations of Gen1 and Rom 8:19–22. Correct Biblical interpretation requires that vague or ambiguous words and passages be interpreted using the light provided by clear words and passages. In Genesis chap 2 the word "day" clearly means "era." There is no sound reason to invent a DIFFERENT meaning for the same word in Gen 1. Similarly, you cannot ignore a biblical passage’s context & hope to arrive at a correct interpretation. Paul is speaking to humans ABOUT humans in Romans. What type of vicious God would punish poodles and potted plants for a human being’s sin? What kind of monster do you "Christian" saboteurs worship? May God forgive you the ENORMOUS damage you have done and will do.
You can see the response by clicking on "Does creation damage Christianity’s credibility?" In addition, I suggest reading "Is Biblical Creation a Distraction to Evangelism?" 
 




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

Labels