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, April 30, 2015

Don't Let the Bat Bug Bed Things Bite

Bedbugs have been a nuisance for a long time. We hate them today, cowboys hated them, and archaeologists have evidence that ancient people hated the awful blood-sucking things millennia ago. Itches, pain, rashes, psychological difficulties, resistant to most pesticides — but at least these tiny critters don't seem to spread disease like malaria-bearing mosquitoes. If you're afflicted with bedbugs (it's nothing to be ashamed of, most people are likely to have the problem at some point), you may get some useful information at the US Environmental Protection Agency, click on "Bed Bugs: Get Them Out and Keep Them Out".


Scientists are claiming that bedbugs show evolution in action. Not true. They see natural selection and variation, yes, but not Darwinian evolution.
Image credit: CDC/ CDC-DPDx; Blaine Mathison
Moving on to the purpose of this post, some scientists are claiming that there is evidence for evolution. Not hardly. Yes, they probably began drinking the blood of bats, and then varied into the version that afflicts humans. That's not evolution, Edna, that's variation and natural selection. For that matter, it's suspected that we're seeing a loss of genetic information.
From the DNA of bat-biting and people-biting bedbugs, researchers from Tulsa to Prague have demonstrated that bedbugs are still bedbugs. In fact, despite their disturbing resurgence in domestic dwellings, bedbugs are showing no sign of becoming anything else, other than more-difficult-to-eradicate bedbugs. Genetic analysis supports the hypothesis that today’s common bedbug originated in bat-caves and, having transitioned to cave-dwelling people, then developed populations with a preference for people and people’s houses. But is that a model for Darwinian evolution?
The rest of this article has some interesting analysis of the claims of evolution, history, a bit of creationist theology, and more. To see the whole shootin' match, click on "In Bedbugs, Scientists Don’t See a Model of Evolution".




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

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Another Icon of Evolution Takes a Shot

Antibiotic resistance is a serious problem for the medical community. It has also been erroneously — and often disingenuously — used as an icon evidence for Darwinian evolution. This happened because people illogically conflated observed natural selection and unobserved evolution; bacteria remained bacteria and didn't bother to evolve into something else.  A study of well-preserved dental tartar in ancient humans revealed antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which threatened the "evidence" icon

By the way, don't get the notion that all bacteria are bad. They were created for a purpose, and are essential for life.


Antibiotic resistance is a serious problem for the medical community. It has also been erroneously — and often disingenuously — used as an icon evidence for Darwinian evolution.
Interaction of a white blood cell with MRSA
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
Evolutionists still cling to their cherished icon, but a new problem rode into town. Seems that a tribe in a remote part of Venezuela had visitors on missions. One was a missionary group who wanted to share the gospel and do good things for them, the other wanted to study them from a Darwinian perspective. Turns out that these people also have antibiotic resistance, and scientists are mighty bothered by it.
An isolated tribe in a remote place in Amazonia has antibiotic resistance genes in its gut bacteria.

An icon of evolution is antibiotic resistance. Supposedly, after the introduction of antibiotics in the 20th century, bacteria “evolved” the ability to resist their toxic effects. Since some antibiotics are synthetic, and the body still develops resistance, the story is that evolution is quick to evolve resistance by natural selection.
To see what the ruckus is about, read the rest of the article at "Antibiotic Resistance Is Ancient". 
  




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

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Further Adventures in Evolutionary Atheist Morality

Angry evolutionists and atheists try to justify their rebellion against God, but are poor in logic. Ironically, they admit that God exists when they want to judge him by their own "moral standards".


by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Evolution is a foundation for atheism as well as liberal Christianity. So it's not really a surprise when intolerant fundamentalist evolutionists want to slap leather with uncompromising biblical creationists. They want us silenced. We know they are busy with using the courts, such as the atheistic freedom from letting people think for themselves foundation wanting to sue because Eric Hovind had a recent debate in a public school.

My focus today is regarding another way they try to silence us. This is done through bullying, harassment, ridicule, misrepresentation, straw man arguments (attacking a position that the other person doesn't hold, including putting words in his or her mouth), outright lies, and more.

My posts and articles get circulated on Twitter under my monicker for The Question Evolution Project, and I was presented with this gem the other day:
Original screenshot here (unless he deletes it, they do that sometimes)

There are several things wrong with it (some briefly summarized on the image).
  • First, there is no such "meme" that "atheists have no moral foundation". So, that statement was the opposite of the truth. 
  • Second, I made no such claim in the first place. Now, atheists can be moral, most people acknowledge that. But the contention among Christian apologists is that they have no consistent moral standard.
  • Third, he's using a straw man argument to justify his rebellion against God, claiming that the Creator is immoral for judging the world. By what standard? His own opinion? Is God subject to this guy's judgement? Not hardly!

     
  • Fourth, he hates God (Romans 1:18-22) and wants to justify himself by condemning God (as in Job 40:8 NKJV), but is ironically admitting two things: God exists, and the Flood happened. Many atheopaths do this, "allowing" God to exist when they want to indulge in hatred, but pretending he doesn't exist at other times. Those owlhoots must have dreadful cognitive dissonance. 
  • Fifth, he is showing his naturalistic presuppositions. Yes, atheists and evolutionists have many presuppositions — everybody has them comprising their own worldviews.

After I had this here article all writ up and ready to go, another tinhorn helped support what I'm saying. He was supporting his religion of Scientism, illustrating the incoherence of atheism, and exhibiting his inconsistent epistemology:
"Fair Use" for educational purposes. In this case, his bad logic and bigotry.
He made several unsupported assertions that were based on prejudicial conjecture and blatant untruths. Note the abusive ad hominems as well. If he had bothered to do the slightest bit of research, he'd have learned about how Christians and creationists have been involved in science, past and present, and that creationists have made accurate predictions. No, this was just hatred and bigotry. Another bit of irony is that people like this often claim that they are doing "good" by attacking creationists and other Christians. Later, another one came along with, "Of course there isn't [a war between science and faith]. Science won a LONG TIME AGO." Heil Scientism! And atheists wonder why they are not trusted and so disliked.

I reckon that militant atheists and evolutionists detest biblical creationists for several reasons, two of which are that we will not back down on our consistent standard, and that the Noachian Flood models from creation scientists explain geological features far more effectively than secular uniformitarian views. Attacks from angry atheists and evolutionists help illustrate the bigger picture, that the origins issue is a matter of biblical authority and sinful man's rebellion. The answers to origins questions exist, but some people do not want them.

Sorry if this article is a bit disjointed. It's a mite difficult to concentrate when Basement Cat is snoring behind me.





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

Monday, April 27, 2015

Kicking Dust on "Little Foot" Dating Methods

The australopithecene "Little Foot" was given an age based on index fossils related to the strata where it was found. Standard radiometric dating methods were "unreliable". Now the dates are being revised according to cosmogenic nuclide dating. However, this method has serious flaws.

Evolutionary paleontologists and anthropologists are rummaging around in their saddlebags looking for solid evidence to validate an australopithecene as part of human ancestry. "Little Foot" was given an age based on index fossils related to the strata where they found it. Standard radiometric dating methods were "unreliable". Now the dates are being revised according to cosmogenic nuclide dating. However, this method has serious flaws, and the selection of eleven samples is suspect, especially only two were in close proximity to the fossils.

All of this galloping around, trying to change "facts", making assertions and whatnot will not make evolution true and negate the Creator's work.
Australopithecus prometheus (StW 573)—nicknamed “Little Foot”—began in 2014 to make a bid for the attention accorded to the more well-known australopithecine Lucy. Would Little Foot, from the evolutionary point of view, finally fill the shoes of its mythological promethean namesake by offering humanity an appropriately mythological gift, the gift of identifying our oldest hominid ancestor?

Little Foot’s age has been a matter of great debate since discovery of its nearly complete skeleton buried in a South African cave in the 1990s. Research we reported here one year ago aged Little Foot significantly by showing that the fossil was the same age as the breccia (a kind of conglomerate rock) in which it was buried and not the flowstone insinuated later amongst its pieces.
To finish reading, click on "The Latest on “Little Foot’s” Bid for Status as Humanity’s Most Ancient Ancestor". Also, you may want to check out a related (but shorter) article that focuses on cosmogenic nuclide dating, "Myths Dressed as Science".
   




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

Saturday, April 25, 2015

Creationist Scientists Dismantling Uniformitarian Paradigms

Generally speaking, particles-to-paleontologist evolution requires long ages. Secular geologists (and some compromising Christians) accept faulty justifications for claiming that the earth is very old. Part of this is uniformitarianism (the present is the key to the past, processes that we see now are constant). But geologic explanations based on uniformitarian assumptions seem to be mostly appropriate for telling shaggy dog stories around the campfire while riding the Owlhoot Trail. That is, they're interesting stories, but don't match up with observed evidence.


Evidence for old-earth geology and uniformitarianism is being chipped away by observed evidence. Creationist scientists are accelerating the process.

They tend to reject the Genesis Flood and explanations from creationist scientists who offer differing explanations of observed evidence regarding geologic history — no catastrophism allowed here, Hoss. (Despite their biases, some geologists do allow for some catastrophes in Earth history). The huge catastrophe of Genesis Flood actually fits observed data far better than the offerings of secular scientists.

Research by the Institute for Creation Research further undermine uniformitarian geology.
ICR’s ongoing Column Project (an analysis of over 500 drilling-core and outcrop samples from across North America) has revealed surprising results that smash entrenched uniformitarian thought. The rocks continue to support the biblical account of one worldwide Flood.

The main area of interest concerns the six megasequences that comprise most of the fossil-bearing strata on Earth. Megasequences are defined as packages of sedimentary rock bounded top and bottom by erosional surfaces, with coarse sandstone layers at the bottom (deposited first), followed by shales, and then limestone at the top (deposited last). The corresponding size of the sedimentary particles is also thought to decrease upward in each megasequence ... The megasequences are interpreted as representing the depth of the sea at the particular time each one was laid. The base sandstone layers of each megasequence are believed to represent the shallowest sea level, the shale a little deeper water environment, and the limestone the deepest water environment in each sequence. By tracking these changes in rock types, geologists are able to define each megasequence.
To drill down into this article, click on "Grappling with Megasequences". 
 




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

Friday, April 24, 2015

Scientific "Facts" Keep Getting Reversed

To many people, science is the ultimate source of truth. But scientific claims are constantly changing. The only real, ultimate truth comes from the written Word of the Creator.
What is the most ironclad kind of fact known to man? To many, it's a fact based on science. "I don't reckon you should dispute that, pilgrim, it's a scientific fact!" Of course, a claim, consensus, or theory is not the same as a fact, but people put a lot of stock in something when you preface it with, "Scientists say..." Then it's promoted to "fact" status in the eyes of a passel of people.

Many think that science is the ultimate source of truth, and they forget (or do not even know) that many indisputable science facts have been discarded over the years. Take a look at phlogiston, f'rinstance. For that matter, the "scientific method" itself (whichever "scientific method" you choose) evolves.

Pay attention to the news from creation science ministries, and even from the secular science press. You keep getting news about something that has changed that had previously been established. Evolutionary "science" is touted by some tinhorns as a fact, yet scientists are constantly being surprised by findings (especially in astronomy and cosmology, it seems), the alleged transitional form called "Lucy" is about to be shelved, and scientists decide to rewrite evolutionary history — so much for evolution having the predictability aspect of a real theory.

Recent news informs us about changing statuses of how salt affects our blood pressure, textbook theories of volcanoes, neuroscience, evolution of mammals, and more. To read about these, saddle up and ride over to "Scientific Claims Are Reversible". Scientific "truths" frequently change. Man-made science philosophies come and go. The only real, ultimate truth comes from the Creator in his written Word (Isaiah 40:8, Hebrews 13:8), and that is where we should be placing our highest trust.
 




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

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Stars, Creation Week, and Scriptural Gymnastics

Some Christians seem to get mighty frightened by the pronouncements of secular scientists, so they tamper with the Bible. Especially when it comes to Genesis. Christians began ceding science to secularists, and it accelerated when Darwin, Lyell, and their ilk were convincing people that their views of long ages and origins were right. Wouldn't want people to say mean things about us Bible believers, would we? No, we need to appear "enlightened", and do scriptural gymnastics so the Bible doesn't say what it means. Then you get odd views like the Framework Hypothesis, the Day-Age Theory, the Gap Theory, and so on.


Some Christians are intimidated by the pronoucements of secular science trends.Is it scripturally feasible to suppose that the stars were created before creation week? Not hardly!
Triangulum Galaxy image credit: NASA/Swift Science Team/Stefan Immler
Some people act like distant starlight is a smoking gun to discredit all of creation science, so they let the secularists lead their minds and spirits into the corral where they won't bother anyone. But scientists are not infallible, and some investigation shows that the dominant Big Bang theory has many major problems — including distant starlight and heat transfer.

Theologically, is it valid to reinterpret the Bible for the sake of current trends in science philosophies, saying that the stars were created long before the actual creation week? Not hardly!
Kenneth M. from New Zealand criticizes one of our classic articles, Morning has broken but when?, which refutes modified soft gap theories that make stars much older than the earth rather than Day 4 creations as God’s Word teaches. In particular, Mr M takes issue with the section, ‘Can stars be billions of light years away in a young universe?’ Dr Jonathan Sarfati responds.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Were stars created in creation week?
  




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

Labels