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

Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Snake Legs and a Double-Header

Submitted for your examination, two articles about snake evolution. First up is a tale of the alleged evolution of snake legs. Darwinists are fond of their mythology, but they do not get it right. The idea of when and how snakes lost their legs is argued, but also false.


Evolutionists are difficult to deal with. First, they get their story about snake legs completely wrong, then they do not celebrate the double-headed rattlesnake.
Emerald tree boa image credit: RGBStock / Juliane Riedl
Evolutionists assume evolution and then work from there instead of questioning whether or not hadron-to-herpetologist evolution is true in the first place. The story is that those bumps or "spurs" on snakes are vestigial; they had them millions of Darwin years ago, and then lost them. Say it with me: loss of functions is devolution, not a gain of function. You savvy that? In reality, these spurs are designed by our Creator for use in trees and for, uh, romance. They don't use their spurs on horses because they can't reach the saddles in the first place.
. . . The fact is, boas and pythons do not have vestigial legs but rather very functional mating spurs. . . . the loss of legs story was begun by Darwin and repeated ever since, as if Darwin had the last word on the topic. Darwin concluded that snake spurs are “rudiments of the pelvis and hind limbs” and are evidence of the evolution of snakes from limbed ancestors. Ever since then, Darwinists have used the fallacious argument that the support system for these claw-like, horny spur structures are vestigial “legs” left over from the snakes’ limbed past.

. . .

These appendage claws, although small—particularly in the case of large constrictors—assist in locomotion. The claws are especially useful when climbing trees–their natural habitat–or when hanging from tree branches.
To read the entire article, navigate yourself over to "Snake 'Vestigial Legs' Debunked", then I hope you'll come back for the next short feature.

Normally, you would expect a trick double-headed timber rattlesnake in a freak show, but this critter is real. Both heads are working independently, too. Seems like the hands at the Darwin Ranch would be riding into town, celebrating by hitting the fire water and shooting holes in the saloon ceiling. Not happening, old son. Why not? Isn't evolution about the oddity, the change, the mutation? Creationists have been saying for a mighty long time that living things are declining, and this snake is not a good thing.
This is just the kind of thing Darwinists have been waiting for! Aren’t two heads better than one?

A two-headed timber rattlesnake has been found in a New Jersey forest, reports Fox News Science. It must be surviving, because it wasn’t born yesterday. Bob Zappalorti, the CEO of the Herpetological Associates of Burlington County, an environmental consulting company that studies endangered reptiles and birds, among other animals, says the snake was found in a nest where it must have emerged from a clutch of newborns.
To finish reading, head on over to "Snake Evolves Two Heads". A bonus for you, Pastor Tommy Mitchell used a rattlesnake narrative as a very interesting sermon illustration. It's just a few minutes, and you can see that here at the 48 minutes 33 seconds mark.







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

Monday, October 7, 2019

Post-Flood Dispersion and the Red Fox

People wonder how animals spread out after they left the Ark, and that is a fair question. We can glean some answers by observing the growth of the red fox population in Australia. It was brought there by Europeans for hunting purposes (something I consider barbaric), and their quantities grew.


Examining the red fox population growth in Australia provides some insights into post-Flood animal migration.
Credit: Pixabay / Karen Arnold
The red fox does not have many natural predators in 'Straya, which helps its numbers grow. This member of the created dog kind is a pest in many areas. Probably because of global warming.



They are intelligent, hardy, and resourceful to ensure their survival. They tend to eat many things (you've probably heard about farmers chasing foxes out of hen houses). Indeed, the red fox can be found in most areas of the world. Biblical creationists believe that they had many ways of spreading out, including land bridges that were available in the Ice Age which was a result of the Genesis Flood. Evolutionists believe (without evidence or explanations) that there were many ice ages.
The red fox in Australia provides a well-documented example showing just how quickly animals can spread geographically. Within 100 years, it had spread across 76% of Australia, about 5.8 million km² (2.2 million square miles) of land, which it continues to inhabit today. The only part of Australia that it did not enter is the tropical north, where the climate is unsuitable for it to thrive. Current estimates for fox numbers in Australia range between 7 and 40 million.

It is incredible to think the red fox was able to colonize such a large geographical area in such a short time. This is despite its relatively average birth rate in the animal kingdom. The female (vixen), sexually mature at 9 months, generally only breeds once a year, and can have up to 11 cubs in a litter, but the average is four to five cubs each time.
You can read the article in its entirety by clicking on "The Red Blanket — Australia’s red fox sheds light on migration after the Genesis Flood".






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

Saturday, October 5, 2019

Examining the Created Kinds Concept

A source of contention between biblical creationists and other biologists is the created kinds that we read about in Genesis. We are not given a great deal of information about what exactly they are, which prompts discussion among creationists as well. The study of biblical created kinds is called baraminology.


Here is our Basement Cat. Creationists attempt to define the biblical created kinds, a field called baraminology. This is close to the families concept, but there are differences.

Creationists believe that Basement Cat and lions developed from the original cat kind. The same with dogs, horses, and such. We are all from the same human kind. The system of taxonomy we use was devised by creationist Carolus Linnaeus, and scientists have made adjustments to it for many years. He was attempting to determine the created kinds in Genesis, and at first, thought that kinds were on the level of species. Biologists of the creation persuasion tend to think that kinds most closely line up with the classification of family, but there is some variation on that theme.
Sometimes a creationist will say “there are no transitional species” or “animals do change, but one species never changes into another.”  While I appreciate the sentiment, these claims are not true.  In reality, new species do arise over time – a phenomenon we call speciation.  Secularists sometimes claim that speciation is proof of Darwinian evolution, but this too is an error.  All of these mistakes can be eliminated when we distinguish between species and kinds.  Furthermore, when we study what the Bible says about kinds, and when we explore the scientific evidence pertaining to speciation, we see that the science confirms biblical creation and is inconsistent with evolution.
To read the rest of the article and learn more, click on "Species or Kinds?" For additional information, see "Species Confusion and the Created Kinds".






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

Friday, October 4, 2019

More Problems with Chemical Evolution

Although the law of biogenesis shows us that life only comes from existing life, Darwin's acolytes continue to experiment with chemical evolution. Even evolutionists generally admit that abiogenesis is pretty much impossible, but they keep on trying to displace the Creator.

Evolutionists keep trying to displace the Creator, this time with another attempt to explain the origin of life. The study was not very scientific.
Original image from MorgueFile, modified with FotoSketcher
By the way, if someone tells you that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, he or she is misinformed, deluded, or lying outright. They try to back off from the OoL problem.

As is common with evolutionists, a recent study involved dealing from the bottom of the deck instead of playing the hand that they were dealt. That is, numerous assumptions were made, important information was circumvented, and a prairie schooner-full of "givens" had to be made. (Reading the article struck me that the scientist were acting similarly to when kids will play, "What if...?" and then building on those fantasies.) Worse, there was no actual science involved. They need to seriously consider the work of our Creator instead of chasing fool's gold.
The origin of life is a complicated biological problem for those that deny God’s existence. In fact, it is so much an issue that many naturalists refuse even to discuss it. Stephen J. Gould argued that biological evolution had nothing to do with origins. Other more recent scholars have echoed this, claiming “The theory of evolution, both currently and as first conceived by Darwin and Wallace, neither provides, nor requires, an explanation for the origin of life.” Yet many naturalists are also desperately trying to show how life could have originated from non-living materials. This is illustrated by the vast number of origin-of-life studies that have been published, over 78,000 as estimated from Google Scholar. This number includes two recent studies, which we will discuss in this paper, that attacked the origin of life problem from different angles and ended up at cross-purposes with one another.
To read the rest of this rather technical article, click on "Origin of Life Problems for Naturalists".





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

Thursday, October 3, 2019

Baseless Indignation of Atheists and Evolutionists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

We hear, watch, and read about the increasing hysteria from leftists about anthropogenic climate change. Their tendentious, skewed, and inaccurate evidence is exceptionally myopic. This evolution-based atheistic posturing is presenting change made by humans as bad, and ignoring the fact that we have been changing our environments from the beginning.


Secularists assume that we are wrecking the planet, and that this is bad. In their worldview, they cannot defend their positions. It only makes sense in the biblical worldview.
Credit: Freeimages / Flavio Takemoto
Evolutionists act like once we commenced to evolving from an apelike ancestor, we finished and sat around doing almost nothing for a huge amount of time. That's ludicrous on the surface, and it also goes against human nature.

Let's go with atheistic thinking for a moment. Since they think that we are nothing but advanced animals, what about critters? Animals (like beavers) transform their own environments, why can't we? Also, are animals bad because they change things?

The truth is, we have been effecting the world wherever we live. Somehow, modifications are disastrous in the minds of secularists. You want changes to be made?  Yes, there are changes that must be made, but they go far deeper than our behavior. You won't like the truth. To learn more, click on "No New Human Influence Under the Sun", and I hope you come back for the next item.

As I said earlier, these climate change alarmists are myopic. Or perhaps they are conveniently forgetting that climate change has been used as a scare tactic since the 1930s. If they don't take too kindly to doing that much research, mayhaps they can go back and see the faulty predictions since 1970. But no, the latest propaganda is that we only have ten or twelve years to live unless we destroy our lives and civilization, conveniently giving money to leftist globalists, right this doggone minute. They said that before.

"But Cowboy Bob, the predictions are right this time!

Why? Because they fit an agenda and confirm globalist biases? They have the same fundamentally flawed reasoning and presuppositions that led to risible predictions in the past.

Whenever an atheist or evolutionist will complain that something is wrong or evil, that person is tacitly denying their naturalistic viewpoint and standing on the Christian worldview. According to them, it is wrong to reject their twisted climate change data. We are bad, so children are recruited to spread the fear and given erroneous "facts" to promote an agenda. Indeed, many people have made climate change activism into their religion, and they are quick to get on the prod when exposed to inconvenient facts. Gullibility, yes. Healthy skepticism, no.

Greta Thunberg has been dehumanized and made a pawn. The "Church" of Sweden says she is the "successor of Jesus". By the way, why is she telling off the United States and other countries that are successful on dealing with pollution and emissions? Tell it to the ChiComs and India.

In a secular worldview, why does doing what they think is wrong a problem? We are bundles of chemicals responding to our impulses; we were each born this way. For that matter, we are at the top of the evolutionary chain, so we can do whatever we please if it helps us thrive as persons.

In reality, we are God's creation and he is in control. We need to humble ourselves and repent. Also, we are not to trash the planet, but to be stewards of it.
The classic picture of the Scientist is a dispassionate person in a white lab coat looking at a test tube, then recording the data on a clipboard, which journals report in boring text. Real scientists are ordinary people with biases, passions and worldviews that color how they look at things. Quite often, they have strong feelings about what their fellow human beings should do. The word “should” implies moral standards.

Philosophers try to see if ideas comport with each other. Incongruent ideas are illogical by nature. Consider the conundrum of the evolutionary biologist (or any secular scientist, for that matter). Are their propositions consistent?
1. All things came into being without purpose or goal.
2. People should change their behavior.

There is no “should” word in the Stuff Happens Law of Darwinism. If the human race goes extinct, so be it. If the world heats up and we all die, tough luck. Stuff happens. Without a universal, timeless canon of right and wrong—a moral guide star—scientists’ opinions about what people should do have no force. They are just empty opinions that will evolve over time like everything else. Yet in spite of that foundational belief, scientists and journals frequently engage in “should-ing” everyone else. That makes no sense.
I hope you will read all of this article. To do so, click on "Moral Passion by Evolutionists Makes No Sense".






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

Wednesday, October 2, 2019

Imitating the Silent Flight of Owls

Standing on the patio near the bird feeders, I can hear the sound of wings a-fluttering when a customer arrives. It seems that I can even distinguish a couple of different kinds of birds by the sound. If for some reason an owl arrived near the patio, I would not know it.

Researchers are imitating the ability of owls to fly silently for use in various applications. Once again, humans are drawing inspiration from the work of the Master Engineer.
Credit: cropped from Unsplash / Marcel Painchaud
In fact, I would be mighty startled. Not only are they silent, but many are quite large. Their silent flight has attracted the attention of biomimetics researchers. Their wings and flight have already inspired quieter computer fan blades, and more work is being done for use in flying machines. Of course, some owlhoots give praise to Darwin instead of giving deserved credit to the Master Engineer. Intelligently designing devices based on something they believe happened by chance doesn't make a heap of sense, does it?
If you watch an owl flapping or gliding, it’s like viewing film footage with the sound on ‘mute’—they are so silent. That’s because their wings have velvety surfaces, comb-like serrations (see photo) at the leading edge, and trailing-edge fringes which dramatically suppress the sound of air rushing over the wings. Therefore the owl’s prey (mice and voles) can be taken by surprise.
You can read the rest of this short article by clicking on "As silent as a flying owl".





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

Tuesday, October 1, 2019

Java Man, Peking Man, and Other False Transitions

Charles Darwin and his followers have long believed that human ancestors emerged from Africa, but that concept has been threatened by evidence (see "Out of Africa? Not Exactly!" and "Evolutionists Get a Kick Out of Footprints"). The alleged "transitional form" between apelike creatures and man, H. erectus, has cased considerable consternation.


Evolutionists discuss H. erectus, but this guy was not only dubious at best, the fossils and such that they do have cause serious problems to the evolutionary timeline.
H. erectus ergaster image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Luna04 (CC by-SA 3.0)
Homo, meaning man, and erectus, meaning upright, was the name given to "archaic humans" that were supposedly evolving from critters into upright-walking humans. You may have read about early versions such as Java Man and Peking Man (whose bones disappeared). He also had many traits of intelligence,  and will probably become accepted as fully human, just like Neanderthals.



H erectus has several fossils scattered over a large area (and a passel of reconstructions in museums and such), but he puts a burr under the saddles of evolutionists because he overlaps the dates assigned to Australopithecus, and many fossils are nowhere near Africa. That's because atoms-to-anthropologist evoporn is wrong, and the truth remains that we were created far more recently than secularists want to believe.
The archaic human species Homo erectus has been portrayed as an important ape-to-man transitional link. However, these fossils don’t provide any real evidence of evolution. Many paleontologists and a majority of creationists think their unusual features are nothing more than variants of human traits and not transitional at all. Even more, some of them have been found in remote isolated island locations far from Africa and dated by secular calculations at up to 1.9 million years old. This completely derails the evolutionary story that humans migrated out of Africa just a few hundred thousand years ago. A biblical model of human origins provides a much better fit for the data.
To read the rest of this extremely interesting article, click on "Homo erectus:
The Ape Man That Wasn’t".






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

Labels