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

Wednesday, February 5, 2020

Atheists Are Indeed Religious

Although they deny it, atheists show that they are very religious. It is also a fact that atheism is a religion through court rulings and more.
We all have a knowledge of God built into us, but when people reject the true God, they do not actually believe in nothing, but substitute false gods. Like evolution, the word religion has several definitions. The original definition of an atheist is someone who believes there is no God, but Modern atheists pusillanimously redefined it to mean "lacks belief". Professing atheists also vehemently deny that they are religious by using the common understanding that a religion involves God or false deities. However, through court rulings and by their own activities, atheism is a religion, including evolution as their preferred mythology of origins.

Surveys have indicated that there is a group of people known as "nones". That is, when asked if they hold to a particular church, denomination, or religion, they answer with "none". Atheists cheer the belief that their hellish horde is growing, but that's not necessarily the case. People who are in-between churches but still believe all the basic tenets of Christianity could still answer "none" but not be irreligious or anti-theistic.

Your typical village atheopath spends an inordinate amount of time and energy attacking the God that he or she claims does not exist. It is amazing to this child that many seek their identities in attacking the God they deny. These sidewinders along with other anti-creationists do not show knowledge of the biblical creation science claims that they misrepresent because they suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-23). Indeed, they do not even show knowledge of rudimentary logic. When encountering atheists on social media (they frequently attack Christians and creationists) or in their anti-theist campaigns, we can easily see that they are typically joyless and angry. Such devotion to hatred of God is done religiously.

Aside from official rulings and such (linked above) and irrational obsession, there are valid reasons to demonstrate that atheism is religious by its very nature.
Because of the secularization of the Western World, many people today now identify as not religious (“the nones”). In 2016 and 2017, according to some national surveys, 48.5% of people in England and Wales and 72% of people in Scotland say they have no religion! Many of these people identified as atheists. But are atheists not religious? Atheists will tell you they are not religious, but several characteristics identify atheists as religious. In this article, I deal with seven of those characteristics.
To learn more, follow the link to "Seven Ways Atheists Are Religious".

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

Tuesday, February 4, 2020

Nanotyrannus is Actually T. Rex, Junior

Back in 1942, a small dinosaur skull was examined and classified as a relative of Tyrannosaurus rex. However, paleontologists did not have much to work with. Eventually, more parts were found as well as a nearly-complete skeleton in 2003 for Nanotyrannus. Upon further examination, it was determined that Nanotyrannus did not exist.

Taxonomy problems bother scientists, especially evolutionists who classify dinosaurs. A long-standing fossil turns out to have been misidentified as a juvenile T. rex.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / MCDinosaurhunter (CC by-SA 3.0)
"You mean like Nanny Pelosi, Cowboy Bob?"

Ummm...sure. While Nanotyrannus was not real under that name, it turns out that it was a teenager. The first of the two articles features is shorter and focuses on the error of growth rings, which seems similar to dendrochronology. Since dinosaurs were unique and there was a lack of data, it should not come as a surprise that this method failed. Young dinosaurs like this one are considered by many creationists to have been on Noah's Ark, and they would have matured after the Flood.
A new analysis of a small pair of T. rex-like fossils, called Nanotyrannus, shows they were actually teenage T. rexes.

Holly Woodward, from Oklahoma State University, and her colleagues reporting in Science Advances, counted the growth rings in the leg bones of the two Nanotyrannus specimens. Their results showed the specimens were not a new species. Rather, they were just 13 and 15-year-old T. rex dinosaurs.
To read the rest of the first article, click on "Teenage T. rex Fossils". The next article is more detailed.

Determining taxonomy has been problematic for a long time — especially for dinosaurs. There is prestige in making a discovery, but there have been many dinosaurs that have been reclassified as juveniles as well male and female of the same type. This is compounded by arrested growth patterns.
The latest research on one dinosaur called Nanotyrannus (Nano- or dwarf and tyrannus or tyrant) has finally firmed up what it was, a teenage T rex. Most of our information was known primarily from a single proven specimen, CMNH 7541. It was originally believed to be a new distinct genus based on a handful of cranial and postcranial features. Now, additional research on the creature’s bone tissue confirms it was merely a juvenile T. rex. The story of arriving at this conclusion is a good example of a big problem in the science of taxonomy, namely determining what is (or is not) a new species. This case also illustrates the problem of extrapolating conclusions about evolution from the fossil record.

The problem is actually central in documenting evolution. What one may conclude is a transitional form between one species and a more evolved species may well be only a juvenile of a known species, and not a new species. Paleontologists admit that “despite its iconic status as the king of dinosaurs, Tyrannosaurus rex biology is incompletely understood,” even though since its discovery in 1905 the famed King of Dinosaurs “was met with intense scientific interest and public popularity, which persists to the present day.”
To finish reading, click on "Kid dinosaur was misidentified as a new species".

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

Monday, February 3, 2020

Koala Retroviruses and Human Evolution

Some proponents of universal common ancestor got a notion that perhaps retroviruses gave humans part of our DNA, but they had no observational evidence. After all, this supposedly took millions of Darwin years. So they decided to see if the retroviruses in koalas provided them some clues.

Evolutionists think that part of our DNA came from outside through retroviruses. An examination of koalas did not support this idea.
Credit: Morguefile / cooee
Such a notion is not entirely unreasonable since scientists have speculations and want to see if there is some evidence to support them. A retrovirus adds its own genome into a host without even asking permission of saying thanks. Koalas have the KoRV that infects genomes, so researchers attempted to correlate this activity to our own genome. However, they neglected many important pieces of information and reasoning, including what the virus does to the koalas, and that the creation explanation is that the retroviruses began with the host organism instead of being interlopers.
Some evolutionists allege that 8% of the human genome originated from viruses. This number is ambiguous, since different authors include different genetic elements as viruses, such as SINEs and LINEs. For example, Alu elements make up at least 11% of the human genome. According to another study, 22.4% of the genome is covered by endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). They claim that this came about when viruses infected humans and inserted their DNA into the human genome. This process is believed to have taken place over millions of years of evolutionary time. However, this has never been scientifically proven by direct observation.
. . .
But how do retroviruses such as KoRV manage to insert themselves in the genome of a species? . . . Usually, retroviruses spread horizontally, from individual to individual, sometimes causing illness as they go along. But this process does not allow them to insert themselves permanently as part of the genetic material of a given species. What researchers want to see is whether the virus can transmit itself vertically, from parent to offspring.
To read the entire article, click on "Do koalas prove that humans got part of their DNA from viruses?"

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

Saturday, February 1, 2020

Age of the Earth and Nuclear Fission Dating

We have examined radiometric dating on this site many times, and the article linked below provides some information that is inconvenient for those who believe in deep time. The age of the earth is calculated this way by testing meteorites, not rocks on Earth. However, the dating methods are unreliable.

Secularists confidently assert that they know the earth is billions of years old because of radiometric dating. However, the methods are actually unreliable.
Assembled with graphics from Openclipart
It should raise the suspicions of almost anyone that there are numerous dating methods used on rocks. This is because they are not consistent and have results that vary wildly with one another, and there are numerous assumptions that must be made. Creation scientists have done their own calculations and shown how secular systems are flawed. Further, a Genesis Flood model is a far better fit for the facts.
Have you ever pulled apart a large mass of taffy and watched it break into two approximately equal masses? This is an illustration of what happens in the subatomic world when a 238U or 235U atom undergoes splitting, or fission. Nuclear fission is often used to date rocks to millions or billions of years old. But are these methods valid?
To finish reading, click on "Nuclear Fission Dating Methods Are Unreliable". Also, you may like to hear the Scripture on Creation podcasts (about thirteen minutes each), "Too Much C-14 To Be Contamination. Part 1" and "Too Much C-14 To Be Contamination. Part 2", which refer to a much more technical article from the Creation Research Society, "Deep Time Philosophy Impacts Radiocarbon Measurements".

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

Friday, January 31, 2020

Can Astrobiology Ever Become a Real Science?

In the previous post, we saw that secular astronomers are all wound up about yet another exoplanet and what they think is hope for extraterrestrial life. Up yonder at Deception Pass, the hands at the Darwin Ranch have themselves a highly profitable enterprise that they call astrobiology. 

The pseudoscience of astrobiology could possibly be changed into something useful if secularists had that desire.
Astronomy / Gentile da Fabriano, ca. 1400s
As we have already seen, astrobiology is a pseudoscience that is used to promote atoms-to-alien evolution; the faulty reasoning is that if it happened out there, then it must have happened here and humans can dismiss the necessary responses to our Creator. 

However, there is a tremendous amount of observed data produced while working in astrobiology. If scientists wanted to do something productive, they could drop Darwin on the trial and ride on with their observations. Of course, a name change would be in order.
Despite its propensity for wild speculation about life in space, there’s one way Astrobiology could provide useful science.
Our Darwin Dictionary defines astrobiology as equivalent to “bio-astrology,” because of its penchant for wild speculation. The new “science” that emerged in the 1990s after NASA announced bogus claims of fossil life in a Mars meteorite is nearly 30 years old, still without a shred of evidence for life beyond the Earth. There’s still no “bio” in astrobiology; that’s why it reduces to astrology. And yet its whole raison d’etre was to find evidence for life – even simple, microbial life. (This distinguishes it from SETI, which searches for intelligent life.)
To continue reading, click on "How Astrobiology Could Be Scientific".

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

Thursday, January 30, 2020

Pardon My Lack of Enthusiasm over Exoplanet ToI 700d

Let the trumpeters trumpet and the drummers drum, get a sheet cake and invite your friends, exoplanet ToI 700d may be earth-like. We have heard that kind of thing before, then the additional information drops in. If I recollect rightly, there was news about Earth's twin, but only if Earth was a ball of magma. Still, the newly-discovered planet is in the "habitable zone", so it's got that going for it.

Another exoplanet has been discovered and called Earth-like. Many factors to consider that make this less than exciting.
Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
TESS found it. No, not the woman that works in the mail room. It's NASA's own Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite, and ToI is used to denote Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite Object of Interest. An astronomer may want to switch me with snakes for this, but I'm skeptical because observations are limited and conclusions are inferred. Indeed, some think that the outer reaches of our own solar system may be home to a small black hole, others think a massive planet is out there. There are plenty of unknowns closer to home, so I am a mite skeptical about the pronouncements of secularists. They have an agenda to find excuses to promote evolution and deny the Creator, you know.

The habitable zone is not a fixed number, but varies because of the stars involved. Red dwarfs (like the one above) have mixed reactions from naturalists. Some say they are the excellent candidates for extraterrestrial life, others know that flares and such are hostile to life. There are other kinds of dwarf stars (including orange dwarfs, all seven of them live in a hut with an odd woman), red giants, and others with differing habitable zones.

Even if a planet is considered to be in a zone conducive to life, there are many other factors to consider such as the planet's size, density, composition, rotation (or the lack thereof), and more. This Object of Interest may not prove to be so interesting after all, especially based on previous exoplanets.
Here we go again. A recent news story reported the discovery of the latest earth-like planet orbiting another star. This time, it’s TOI 700d, discovered by NASA’s Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS). Launched in 2018, TESS searches for transits of exoplanets as they pass in front of their stars each orbit. . . .
What makes TOI 700d special? Measurements suggest that TOI 700d is 1.19 ± 0.11 times the earth’s size. Therefore, in terms of size, this exoplanet is earth-like. The mass of TOI 700d is less certain than its size. Its mass is inferred to be 1.72 (+1.29, -0.63) of that of the earth’s. If one takes the stated size and mass without the error range, then the density (and hence composition) of TOI 700d is close to that of the earth, again qualifying it as earth-like. However, considering the range of possible values of size and mass given their errors, the density, and composition of TOI 700b could be almost anything.
To finish reading, click on "TOI 700d: The Latest Earth-Like Exoplanet?"

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

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

The Origin-of-Life Phosphate Problem

In A Scandal in Bohemia by A. Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes said, “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” A related remark penned by Agatha Christie in The Mysterious Affair at Styles has Hercule Poirot saying, "Everything must be taken into account. If the fact will not fit the theory—let the theory go". Darwin's acolytes should have heeded these ideas long ago, even though they appeared in mystery novels. Indeed, the greatest mystery to them is the origin of life.

Evolutionists believe and theorize despite the evidence, not because of it. In this case, speculations about phosphorus in the alleged first cells fall flat.
Credit: Unsplash / Elevate
Evolutionists have a bad habit of theorizing without facts and with erroneous assumptions. They also have a strange "science of the gaps" idea, believing despite lack of evidence or in the face of contrary data that maybe somehow someday the data they seek will appear. This is unscientific and irrational, yet they do not throw out the origin and evolution of life beliefs. That would mean that they have to admit there's a Creator, and he's the one who makes the rules, not atheistic interpretations of science.

In materialistic terms, nobody knows how life began, yet they desperately cling to that belief anyway. Every attempt to conjure up an idea has met with dismal failure because of actual science. In this case, phosphate is vital for cellular life. They do not have any idea how phosphorus came to Earth in the first place. Chemistry concepts for how life would have developed have been unable to determine a means that various required ingredients do not cancel each other out. In a flurry of imagination and assumptions, researchers "solved" the problem. But the scenario exists only in their fantasies, not in reality. Abiogenesis is contrary to the law that life only comes from life.
Research associated with the Simos Foundation’s Collaboration of the Origins of Life offers a new answer to an old problem for getting a soup of chemicals to somehow turn into a living cell. Assuming that life arose spontaneously, how did the rarely available element phosphorus get concentrated into high enough amounts to supposedly incorporate itself into the many essential biochemicals that contain phosphorus?
To read the rest, click on "Solving the First-Life Phosphate Problem".

The origin of the first cell is one of evolution’s biggest problems. Though the cell is the basic building block for life, its design is actually very complex. Its functions can be compared to those of computers, building projects—and even whole cities.

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