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

Saturday, March 30, 2019

The Perplexing Wombat and Evolution

There are all sorts of critters that baffled early Europeans, probably prompting perplexed exclamations of wonder. Some of them were quite a bit different from what they had seen elsewhere such as the kangaroo and the platypus. Others were a mite confusing because they resembled animals that they knew. One of these is the wombat.

The wombat resembles a badger but has significant differences. It is a testimony to the work of the Master Engineer while also baffling evolutionists.
Credit: Pixabay / Vic M
People thought it was a kind of badger because of its appearance and burrowing habits. Their burrows are far from simple. It also had mannerisms similar to that of a bear. To add to their confusion, the wombat is a marsupial while the badger is a mammal. While they seem cute and people try to make them into pets, the wild side comes out and they get dumped to fend for themselves — which is very cruel. To protect Darwin, disciples invoke the non-explanation of convergence because they have no plausible model of its evolution. In reality, the wombat is an example of the Master Designer's work.
Well equipped with powerful claws and shoulders, reports indicate that wombats can dig through 1.8 metres (6 ft) of hard soil in an hour. They use their incisor teeth to cut through underground obstructions such as roots.
The wombat is widely considered an agricultural pest, and not just because of its burrowing habits and its appetite for pasture grass (being semi-nocturnal, it mostly feeds at night). It can also cause considerable damage to rabbit-proof fences when it powerfully pushes its stocky body and wide pelvis through them. Wombats were declared vermin in 1906 in the State of Victoria—and still are, though population control requires a permit. Elsewhere in Australia, wombats are protected by legislation.
To read the entire article, click on "The wombat — ‘Badger’ of the south".



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

Friday, March 29, 2019

Evolutionists Overlooking the Obvious

Because we are human, we naturally see things from a human-centered perspective. Culture, learning, and even personal preferences can have a part in this. You may have seen movies where someone is leaning against an object, saying, "We'll never find it", but he was touching the object the posse comitatus was seeking. He had the wrong perspective while looking for the thing.


Many creatures have effects on their environments, which is the opposite of Darwinian expectations. We may tend to think that large things are important, but small creatures can have a significant impact as well.
Credit: National Library of Medicine / Open-i (CC by 2.0)
Reading the article featured below brought Basement Cat to mind. Some people dislike cats because they are bad people. No, actually, it's often because they operate from a human perspective, expecting cats to act similar to miniature people with fur and four legs. If you have problems with it, you can't treat it like you would a wayward child; Jackson Galaxy will tell you this. The same with other animals. If y'all want to get along with a beast, you have to take it on its terms, not on your own, you savvy?


Our presuppositions often lead us to think that it's the big things that matter, but we may tend to overlook the small things that can have an impact. Termites are small folk, but they build mounds that are the equivalent of skyscrapers — some can be seen from space. Picoplankton feed on organic compounds, but they can grow and foul up the waters. Oyster reefs do a heap of filtering to benefit the ecosystem. Our Creator enabled many creatures, large and small, with engineering abilities to effect their environments, which is the opposite of Darwinian assumptions.
Some ecologists try to limit the application of the ecosystem engineering concept to the impactful and “big” habitat alterations made by animals. Thus, beaver dams and coral reefs are “big enough” to qualify as ecosystem engineering habitat modifications, but bird nests and prairie burrows are often dismissed as de minimis—not worthy of comparable attention.

This is a “bigger is better” fallacy, which is a manifestation of an anthropocentric (human-centered) viewpoint that evaluates a situation only from the human perspective. If something doesn’t seem big to us, it must not be significant.
. . .

An anthropocentric perspective is unrealistic when evaluating whether animal activity is “big enough” to be ecologically important.
To read the entire article, click on "Termite Skyscrapers Hidden in Plain View". To see a related article, click on "Activist Animals and Ecosystem Engineering".




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

Thursday, March 28, 2019

Shining Cold Light on Bioluminescence

Quite a few people have seen living things that give off their own light. It can be a mite disconcerting sometimes, but a wide variety of organisms do this, including fish, algae, fungi, insects, and others. It is called bioluminescence, and is extremely challenging for adherents of microbes-to-miner evolution to explain.

Bioluminescence, where living things give off their own light, is baffling to evolutionists. It also demonstrates special creation.

The mechanism is extremely efficient, and evolutionists claim that it happened over forty times. They have no idea how, but "stuff happens" is somehow a valid evolutionary explanation. Scientists are studying fireflies for biomimetics applications (as usual, refusing to give credit to the Creator). The diversity of bioluminescent critters is baffling to evolutionists, as is the specified complexity of the mechanism: everything has to be in place and working at the same time, else nothing works or makes sense. Another puzzler for them is that some self-glowing has no apparent purpose; perhaps the Master Engineer put some in place for our appreciation of their beauty. He does that kind of thing, you know.
Bioluminescence requires a light-emitting pigment, known as a luciferin; the chemical reaction that turns energy into light is aided by an enzyme called luciferase (Latin lucifer, ‘light-bearer’). It is sometimes called ‘cold light’, because the efficiency with which this process turns chemical energy into light rather than wasting it as heat is extremely high; around 40%, some 20 times higher than an incandescent light bulb, and higher than the best fluorescent and LED bulbs.
Marine organisms alone exhibit more than four types of luciferin. Many of these creatures emit blue light which travels farther in water than the green light of fireflies, for example. The enzyme involved varies in structure between species even within the same phylum, and the variants show little correspondence with one another. This lack of similarity makes it impossible to establish a plausible common evolutionary origin for bioluminescence.
To read the entire article, click on "Bioluminescence—the light of living things".



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

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Refuting a Flat Earth Claim about Moonlight

It is a mite distressing that some people believe the earth is flat, and some of them are professing Christians and even creationists. This is ironic because not only was the idea started to make the Bible look foolish, but it has been soundly refuted both scientifically and theologically. (The president of the Flat Earth Society is a Darwinist, by the way.) One of the strangest claims that some flat earthers make is that moonlight removes heat and cools things.


One of the strangest claims flat earthers make is that moonlight makes things cooler. They claim to have demonstrated this, but a proper use of science shows the opposite is true.
Sea View by Moonlight, Ivan Aivazovsky, 1878
This idea should be subject to verification or refutation scientifically. Some owlhoots have made a pretense at proving their claim, but their efforts are woefully inadequate. Like faulty evidence for evolution (including "junk" DNA), people doing what passes for research argue from their presuppositions, find a bit of data they think is confirmation, and think their work is done.


Experiments and research must be done as completely as possible. Neutral or negative results are often omitted from evolutionary and other areas of research, but these are important as well as the results that seem positive. I lack belief that flat earth research on the cooling effects of moonlight included negative results, or that they were even remotely thorough.

In the following article, Dr. Faulkner detailed his experiments. It is rather long and appears even more lengthy than it is because of the charts (I think most people would skim those), but it is useful in that we can learn to have healthy skepticism over unusual claims. It also puts the silliness about moonlight to rest.
Flat-earthers often claim that moonlight has a cooling property. I present the results of three independent experiments that test this claim. The results of all three experiments disprove the claim that moonlight cools objects exposed to it. Not only is this claim not supported by carefully conducted experiments, it defies all that we know about the nature of light and energy. Furthermore, this claim has nothing to do with flat-earth cosmology, and easily could be jettisoned by flat-earthers without jeopardizing their model.
To read the rest or download the PDF, click on "Testing a Flat-Earth Prediction: Is the Moon’s Light Cooling?"

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

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Detecting Baloney in Natural Selection

There is a popular cold cut product in these here United States that is popular for lunches. While it is not my first choice, baloney (Brits call it polony) is okay when it is fried up. The stuff is made of scraps of beef, pork, chicken, or whatever, then seasoned, cooked, and packaged. The word is also an exclamation of disbelief.

Baloney is a meat product and also an exclamation of disbelief. Creationists can learn to use baloney detectors when evolutionists trot out their natural selection silliness pawned off as science.
Cropped from Pixabay / Erad
Ever have someone describe something you said or wrote as baloney? Seems like when people say it with enthusiasm, some bark it out like three short words. Apparently it has been mostly replaced by something more profane involving cattle.) Mayhaps the ingredients of the sausage food product inspired the exclamation.



Biblical creationists who keep up with material on the origins controversy tend to develop an eye for faulty science. It is mighty helpful to learn to spot logical fallacies, watch for arbitrary assertions, just-so stories without substance, piles upon piles of unsubstantiated conjectures, and that sort of thing. Especially in what is considered natural selection.

It's not very difficult to see when the hands at the Darwin Ranch are dealing from the bottom of the deck and cheating in other ways when reading the popular science press, but what about the advanced material? Mr. Coppedge wants to have us engage our baloney detectors and gives us some examples of Creator-denying foolishness pawned off as "science". See "Graduate Level Baloney Detecting About Natural Selection".



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

Monday, March 25, 2019

Engineered Adaptability and Anticipatory Systems

The continuous environmental tracking (CET) model that is being developed by the Institute for Creation Research is getting extremely interesting. Darwin's concept of externally-driven changes is being refuted, and CET shows not only validity, but can be used to predict changes in organisms.


Organisms are not only designed to adapt (the opposite of Darwinism), but they have internal logic and even make changes in their progeny.
Credit: Unsplash / Ivan Timov
People using an engineering perspective desire to have their products able to respond and react to changes and design them accordingly. The Master Engineer has equipped living things to respond in both short-term and long-term situations — including equipping progeny to adapt for changing environments. 

Tomatoes respond with their anticipatory logic and respond to threats (at the speed of plant, of course) and essentially circle the wagons. Honeybees deprived of nutrition have anticipatory responses all the way down to the molecular level. Sea urchins equip their offspring to deal with changing temperatures. These changes (and others in the linked article) are consistent with the CET model. Just between you and me, I think the development of the CET model is exciting.
Previously in this article series, we’ve considered the way organisms use innate logic mechanisms to rapidly produce solutions to environmental challenges that are so targeted they can be predicted.1 This observation deals a serious blow to the central anti-design tenet of evolutionary theory, which holds that evolutionary change must be random with respect to an organism’s future needs.
Now we’ll see that many adaptations are not just reactive in real time but rather flow from logic-based systems that give creatures foresight—both conscious and unconscious—of how they ought to preemptively self-adjust to predicted external conditions. Given that biological anticipatory adaptive systems are both predictive in nature and extend the design features of reactive systems to new heights, their impact is substantial support for ICR’s design-based continuous environmental tracking (CET) model and against chance-based evolution.
To read the article in its entirety, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Creatures' Anticipatory Systems Forecast and Track Changes". For a related article, you may like to see "Research Fails to Identify Causal Mechanism".

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

Saturday, March 23, 2019

The Biases of Evolutionists and Creationists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
 
At The Question Evolution Project on Fazebook and in other places, we see atheists and other anti-creationists complain that we do not share material from unbiased sources. Then they trot out links to sites that promote evolution and atheism. Apparently, they consider "unbiased" to mean "not creationist".


One reason anti-creationists reject creation science material is because we are biased. They often refuse to admit their own biases. Unlike them, we admit to our biases and why we have them.


Who is biased?

People who have read this site have probably seen my remarks that people who want to convince others of their viewpoint are biased. Not only are biblical creationists biased, but we are also quite open that we want to convince people that muck-to-misotheist evolution is false and that the evidence supports special creation and the worldwide Genesis Flood. Evolutionists are biased just like anyone else.

Someone posted my article on the Roku streaming device in a Fazebook group. I mentioned that Roku carries the NRA channel, and someone hysterically typed that nobody should read the article because it was "right wing". Not hardly! She had a leftist bias.

Also politically related, the US media are notoriously leftist and hate President Trump. Their reporting is skewed to the far left, even using frequent dishonest statements. Positive news about Trump is mostly obtained from non-mainstream sources. Respected left-leaning journalist Ted Koppel showed some of his bias, but clearly stated that the media are against Trump. Of course, the biased media tended to ignore his comments.

I had a manager who claimed that the day shift was slacking, but the night shift did all the hard work. His bias interfered with his judgment, and he didn't understand the process: day shift got the ponies saddled and night shift put them into the corral. That is, the system needs several processes that begin early and are completed later.

Ever hear of the Dinosaur Bone Wars? A couple of jaspers back in the late 19th century were competing with each other to find more, bigger, better, impressive dinosaur bones. They spent a lot of money, and I reckon it was more about egos than science. More importantly, their presuppositions and biases contributed to their mistakes. To learn about this, you can see the video and also read the introduction at "The Great Dinosaur Wars".

Biblical creationists are biased because we presuppose the Bible is true. The evidence supports this, including recent creation and the Genesis Flood. I'll allow that my bias shows in that I detest the twisting of Scripture to support old earthism, theistic evolution, and hybrids that compromise secular views with the Bible.


Calling creationists "liars"

Some tinhorns insist on calling us "liars" because of their antipathy for the creation message, although they cannot document their claims. (Some simply continue to repeat them, which is the fallacy of repeated assertion.) If you study on it, you can see that calling us liars is ridiculous. We believe that God is holy, righteous, and just. He hates lying. So we're going to lie to get you to believe in him?



There are people who willingly ignore the difference between disagreement and dishonesty. They prefer to poison the well by calling creationists liars (without evidence, mind you, making them the liars while preaching to their choirs). This sidewinder (who is asking for money via Patreon) ridicules Dr. Jason Lisle because Lisle does not sing from the secular sheet music:


Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes (click for larger)

Fallaciously yours...

Another aspect to the charge of bias is that it is a genetic fallacy. That is, the material is rejected because it came from creationist sources.

Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes (click for larger)

Watch for the subtle combination of ad hominem and genetic fallacy where people distinguish between "real scientists" and "creation scientists", implying the lie that creationists are not "real" scientists.


This next vampiric example involves the old "mountains of evidence" canard (and several other fallacies). When called out on his faulty reasoning, he demonstrated not only his extreme bias and bigotry, but also that he did not have a coherent response. Instead, he resorted to insults and arbitrary assertions:
Click for larger
 
Using the genetic fallacy again, anti-creationists have mocked the RATE project, a creation science initiative on the age of the earth and radiometric dating. Mockery and ridicule are not refutation, nor do they advance an intellectual argument. Their bias prevents them from having intellectual honesty.


Idolatry

In my unfortunate dealings with theistic evolutionists and others who insist on elevating constantly changing man-made science philosophies above the unchanging Word of God, they not only propagate bad science as long as its in their best interests, they also torture Scripture until it confesses to whatever they want to hear. Dealing with TEs is like being invited to a necktie party.

One particular angry bigot stated:

Largely due to changed personal circumstances, I have in fact (if I am being sincere time will tell) re-embraced Christian belief and church going (Church of England).
While I suspect they are mostly sincere in their views, and sincerely think they aren't actually lying about various topics that they go on about (eg geological time or current climate change or the Donald) my views on the fundamentalists in America - notably young earth creationists - remain unchanged.
So if I have 'changed sides' a second time, and I believe I have, that change of sides has its limits.
In an email spam that I indirectly received, he said:
Although I have returned to Christianity, my days of making some - occasional - inconvenient sacrifices for God are probably over. Because all I ever found was an entity that allowed me to make (sincere) mistakes that did not help me, caused me to feel wrongly guilty about some things, and let me think it was a good idea (was there any ready alternative) to listen too much to headstrong church leaders in order to gain 'acceptance' at church. Also an entity that never much helped me to my knowledge, which pretends not even to exist, and which assuming he does also presides over huge injustice in this world whilst calling himself a God of 'justice' (who demands eg that all people - who are not all equally strong - keep to the same general standards of behaviour (of avoiding 'sin') as practising Christians (and who apparently sends murderers, and well-behaved but unsociable or misanthropic people, both to the same 'hell' if they fail to believe in Christ)). And the Bible is patently not (as claimed by people like R T Kendall) 'infallible', and young earth creationism is not truth/the truth/scientific truth even if it is 'sound doctrine'). So - now, better late than never, a better informed and in consequence of that a questioning Christian (a term used once by David Cameron I think). Not - if ever was - a 'fanatic'. I am not going to pretend certainty about things I am not certain of to gain God's acceptance, I am not going to say stuff to non-Christians that I am not certain is true simply because I'm supposed to be terrified of God. I would never - as was the case in the past (from 1979 to 2007) - deny being 'Christian' if asked. But - I now know why I was so reluctant to bring up the subject outside of church. I do not feel very much 'love' for a God who gains converts out of fear and guilt as much as love for sinners. I made a recommitment on 5 January - but nobody else is going to get to define my commitment for me more than myself.
He claimed to be "more Christian" than I am in a forum, but these are not the words of someone who has submitted to God in repentance. He says I am evil and has even called God a liar on more than one occasion, and he expends tremendous amounts of energy attacking biblical creationists in general. I lack belief that he is a Christian, and he needs to humble himself and repent.

Someone else encouraged the aforementioned character, 
...that's a useful piece of text from the Cowboy. It's classic! I've just got to keep it for the record! That sort of spiritually intimidating character deformation and slander of Christians who don't follow the  fundamentalist line is to be found in every sectarian cult between here and the Watchtower's Brooklyn HQ.! Keep up the good work!"
That is a combination of straw man and ad hominem from a professing Christian who acts just like an atheist and is cheering on an enemy of God.

Similarly, I was told by a theistic evolutionist that I need to "follow Jesus" because he disliked an article I wrote. When I challenged him to show what in that article or my statement of faith would indicate I am not a follower of Jesus, I was ignored. His bias prompts him to bushwhack creationists.

Theistic evolutionists are often difficult to distinguish from atheists, and they are frequently found in bed together, hating the God of the Bible. I have concluded that they are idolaters, having made a god that they are comfortable acknowledging. They need to humble themselves and repent. You can easily see bias from their false religion of evolutionism and pretense at religiosity. James 2:19 NLT.


Creationists admit their bias, and why

Many anti-creationists, atheistic or otherwise, think that ridicule is refutation, as if it makes atheism less foolish or Darwinism less false. Folks who think like that are clearly biased against biblical creation science as well as the Bible. But as I said before, creationists are biased and we are open about it.
Creation critics object that creation scientists are biased. Since we seek answers to skeptical objections to the biblical account of creation, this supposedly means our research results are automatically suspect. This argument might seem reasonable at first glance. After all, shouldn’t researchers be completely open-minded and approach their work without any preconceived ideas? Even some intelligent design proponents take pains to claim that unlike “religiously motivated” creationists, their research is purely objective and free of any prior commitments to a particular belief system.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Are Creationists Biased?"




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

Labels