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, February 8, 2020

Baby Yoda and Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is not a review of Star Wars-related entertainment, although I did like the first three movies that were released (Episodes 4, 5, 6) somewhat. However, an evolutionist took a notion to use an almost fanatical devotion to Darwin and commence to asserting that The Child ("Baby Yoda") figures into human evolution.

Some evolutionists think that Baby Yoda and other babies are the product of evolution. There is no science involved.
Credit: Pixabay / K.
Some time ago, we looked at the science of cuteness and how evolutionists have tried to make it seem that we evolved to respond to cute things. We like babies. Near the first of the year, stores are filled with calendars, and you can expect to see some of baby animals. Someone offers to show pictures of their children or grandchildren, and people (usually the women folk) make ooh and aww noises over them. I find other ways to be occupied. From my observations it seems that males are less inclined to involve themselves in the adoration of infants.

All of this is supposedly based on an evolutionary urge to respond to cuteness. Uh, define cute. It's not objective, it's subjective. Look on YouTube for "cute" and you'll find many different things, especially animals. Mr. Bean's teddy bear is cute to some people. The entire evolution cuteness "argument" has nothing to do with science or logic.
A woman got on a bus holding her baby. The bus driver said, "Wow, that's got to be the ugliest baby I've ever seen!"

The woman angrily slammed her coins into the fare box and took a seat. The man sitting next to her asked what was wrong. "The bus driver insulted me," she fumed.

The man sympathized with her and said, "Why, he's a public servant and shouldn't say things to insult passengers."

"You're right," she said. "I think I'll go back up there and tell him off!"

"Yes, you do that," the man said. "Here, let me hold your monkey."
The cuteness idea is based on circular reasoning and the presupposition of human evolution. The provocative title of an article indicates that we evolved to love The Child. Not hardly! We are created in God's image, and neither that truth nor the possibility that God gave us an appreciation of cute things may simply be a gift from him, those considerations to not enter the minds of materialists.

From here, I'll turn you over to Dr. Mohler, whose The Briefing podcast was the inspiration for this article. He has some very interesting things to say. I'd be much obliged if you would click on "Why Do Humans Love Babies? Evolutionists and Christians Answer the Question Differently" to listen or read the transcript. The next segment about the child saved from the mountain lion is also interesting.

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

Friday, February 7, 2020

The Worship of Artificial Intelligence

Many advances have been made in the development of AI, and such non-human intelligence is usually based on the particles-to-programmer worldviews of the designers. They even tie evolution into ethics (see "Artificial Intelligence and Evolving Morality"). It is possible to have AI that is, well, disturbing (see "Artificial Psychotic Intelligence"). Despite the obvious possibilities of disaster, some owlhoots want to design a church based on artificial intelligence.

Since humans reject God, they want to replace him with something to worship. A church of AI is being planned.
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
Although science fiction stories have been written about people with good intentions making a powerful intelligence for the good of humanity, disaster usually ensues. Have you ever heard the old Emerson, Lake and Palmer song, "Karn Evil 9, Third Impression"? It involves a futuristic war and a computer. At the end, the man says that he is all there is. The computer argues with him, "I let you live". He objects, "But I gave you life!" That doesn't seem to have gone well, what with the servant becoming the master and all.

As we saw in the recent post on atheism, people are designed with knowledge of God but seek another way to express religious yearning. Man has tried to replace God the Creator with himself and man's own creations to worship. But we are sinful beings in need of salvation, so when we built things that we think are superior, we are only putting our own imaginations on the throne. The one discussed below is expected to be very big, and thankful to those that built it.Nice demon you have there, Hoss.
In the West, due mainly to Christian influence, the practice of worshipping physical idols has been largely abandoned for many centuries. But today, the Christian foundations of the West are crumbling away as more and more people forsake God (just as the Jews did in Jeremiah’s day). With this shift away from Christianity, we find another shift—back to the practice of worshiping the works of our own hands. This time, one of the forms this may take is the worship of artificial intelligence.

Multi-millionaire Silicon Valley engineer Anthony Levandowski has made headlines in recent years by announcing a new official religion: the Way of the Future.1 It is Levandowski’s contention that the human race is currently building artificial-intelligence that is so powerful it will become like a god compared to humanity, and will eventually assume control over this planet. This is an event he calls The Transition.
To read the entire article, click on "Summoning the Demon: Worshiping Artificial Intelligence". Unless your device has other ideas.

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

Thursday, February 6, 2020

Research with Necks to no Evolution

Far too often, we see research that is interesting and moving along nicely that is tainted by homage to Darwin., such as this one. There are times when researchers saddle up and simply do their jobs. Like we saw in the futile effort to link retroviruses in koalas to human evolution, sometimes they try to compare living creatures with what may have happened in the past. What about critters with long necks?

Researchers wondered if the long necks of giraffes had similar characteristics of those in some dinosaurs. They did this without tainting the study with Darwin.
Credit: Clker clipart
A characteristic of giraffes is their extended necks, but so did many sauropod dinosaurs. The Master Engineer designed giraffes with tremendous detail to raise and lower their heads for eating, drinking, and other things. Could certain dinosaurs (which were much larger and taller) had similar characteristics? It is a distinct possibility.
What do giraffes and sauropods have in common? A new paper shows how you can seek answers without Darwin’s help.

From an evolutionary perspective, sauropods (dinosaurs) and giraffes have almost nothing in common except being vertebrates and having long necks. Giraffes did not ‘evolve’ from sauropods, so it would be a remarkable ‘convergence’ to have these large beasts end up with similar neck vertebrae and the ability to lift and swing their heads on their magnificent necks. Call Darwin to help explain this, please!

A team of five led by Daniel Vidal apparently didn’t need Charlie’s help. There is nothing about evolution, convergence, mutation, selection or any other Darwinian concept in their open-access paper in PLoS One, titled “Ontogenetic similarities between giraffe and sauropod neck osteological mobility.” That’s ontogeny (development of the embryo to adult), not phylogeny (evolution) – no apologies to Haeckel. Instead, they consider just the facts: how these animals’ vertebrae possessed similarities and differences that allowed heavy lifting. The Abstract says,
To find out more, click on "Long Necks Without Evolution".

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

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!