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, May 12, 2020

The Amazing Evolution-Defying Octopus

The octopus is popular in adventure movies, animated cartoons, and even as the main course. They are difficult to study because they seem ill-tempered at times, but are considered very intelligent. The hands at the Darwin Ranch do not like them. Not a bit. Octopuses have a habit of being recalcitrant toward evolution.


Octopuses are experts at camouflage and escape. They are so amazing that some creation deniers think that they came from outer space.
Image credit: NOAA Okeanos Explorer Program
Like some of the other denizens of the ocean, they are skilled at camouflage. Except that they take it to levels that are exceptionally detailed. If you sequenced the genome of an octopus, you'd confirm findings that its genome is surprisingly large. Octopuses are also consummate escape artists as well as taking what they want. 

Some creation deniers are so amazed at this creature, they speculate that it couldn't have originated on Earth, but somehow came from outer space! Can't be considering the obvious truth that this is another example of the Master Engineer's handiwork, nosiree. Yes, even though there is nothing but arguments from ignorance and incredulity, that kind of thing passes as science because evolution. They are so soft that they are terrible specimens for fossilization — yet there are exceptionally-well preserved specimens giving mute testimony of the Genesis Flood.
In captivity, the octopus is renowned for ‘unruly’ behaviour. E.g. tampering with or blocking outlet valves, causing its tank to overflow. And it can be very difficult to keep contained. It can squeeze its boneless body through a space not much bigger than its eye—just sufficient for its only hard part, the parrot-like beak, to pass.
‘Inky’ the octopus achieved international notoriety in 2016 when he escaped from New Zealand’s National Aquarium. ‘Tracks’ found next morning showed Inky had forced himself through a small gap at the top of his enclosure, then travelled across the floor to a drainpipe and on to the sea.
This article is fun, interesting, and very informative. To finish reading, click on "The Octopus — Intelligent, evolution-defying master of camouflage".





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

Monday, May 11, 2020

More Evolution and the Coronavirus Pandemic

It will be nice to be able to stop writing and posting about COVID-19, but we have to keep going so we can provide useful information and also refute falsehoods that tinhorns for Darwin are spreading.


Evolutionists are still trying to shove their views into the COVID-19 crisis, and their entire worldview is incoherent and unlivable. Also, their morality itself is dubious.

We saw this in "Evolution and the Coronavirus Pandemic" and "COVID-19, Up Jumps Incendiary Darwinist Opportunism". Now we have a bit more from opportunists who believe in not allowing a good crisis go to waste — may as well propagandize, huh, Darwinists? Following that is a second article showing how their worldview is inconsistent.

Before we get to the two articles linked below, there is something that I have not seen discussed in creationist material. That is the concept of herd immunity (also known by the cumbersome title of community immunity). We saw in another article that the Wuhan Virus is something for evolutionists to celebrate, since it mostly kills the elderly and those with preexisting medical conditions. Correct me if I'm disunderstanding or misrepresenting the concept, but I reckon that herd immunity means most people get a virus like this, build up immunity, and move on. Sure, some will die, but that's the way it goes. Isn't herd immunity something else that Darwinists would applaud?

Some evolutionists insist on applying "survival of the fittest", a term that is nonsensical (may as well say, "survival of the survivors") and spoiling good research. Although debated, most scientists do not consider viruses to be living things. They are more like machines. People with the best immune systems (which our Creator engineered, but no credit is given) are the fittest. (That is, until the next contagion comes along and kills off other people.) Letting those deemed "unfit" die is contrary to the sensibilities of most people, since we are wired to give love and render aid.
Two Darwinians inject “survival of the fittest” into the current crisis. So if the virus kills a patient, is it the fittest?

Across America and the world, volunteers are working hard to help those affected by the COVID-19 crisis. On Special Report (Fox News) today [May 5, 2020], host Bret Baier interviewed Chef Jose Andres, whose organization World Central Kitchen is providing 225,000 meals a day to people across America, regardless of politics, religion or age, who just need a plate of food to keep going. With help from restaurateurs and chefs in cooperation with governors and mayors, they have already served more than 4.5 million fresh meals in 200 cities. Jose’s passion to serve his fellow Americans to help the country get through the crisis is evident in his expression and gestures. Injecting Darwinism into this scene would be like playing white noise so loud that the host and guest would have to run for cover.

That’s essentially what two Darwinians from the University of South Carolina have done. Look at the title of their piece at The Conversation above a huge picture of Darwin’s hoary face with baggy eyes: “What does ‘survival of the fittest’ mean in the coronavirus pandemic? Look to the immune system.” Pragash and Mitzi Nagarkatti offer this blessing to the likes of Jose Andres:
To read the rest of this first article, click on "Keep Darwinism Out of Pandemic Response". Come back for the next item if you've a mind to. I hope so.

"Nature doesn't care about you", wrote Stephen Asma. Neither does my car, an office building, or a light bulb. None are sentient beings, despite the animistic and pantheistic malarkey of some Darwinists. Come on, man! Asma also tried to slap leather with God by firing at God and Christians. But his entire diatribe is irrational and inconsistent. Rejecting the Creator doesn't make him go away. Nor does mockery and misrepresentation. His evolutionism is his religion and his epistemology is incoherent, revealing that his basis for morality is shifting sand.
As of the time of writing [May 5, 2020], we are in the midst of a global viral outbreak (a pandemic) known as COVID-19 (the “coronavirus”). The majority of us are being confined to our homes in an attempt to mitigate the spread of the disease (“shelter in place”), the goal of which being to save human lives, and protect the most vulnerable in our communities such as the elderly or immunocompromised people.

Commenting on this situation, the New York Times featured an article called:

Does the Pandemic Have a Purpose? Only if we give it one. The coronavirus is neither good nor bad. It wants only to reproduce.
Yes, that is a lengthy title. This is an opinion piece by Mr. Stephen Asma, a professor of philosophy. Obviously an attempt to capture an uplifting tone in the midst of this crisis, Mr. Asma’s opening line is, “Nature doesn’t care about you.”
To finish reading this enlightening article, click on "The deep inconsistency of evolutionism, revealed amid the COVID-19 crisis".



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

Saturday, May 9, 2020

Fake Spider Fossil News and Peer Review

Many times over the years, we have seen that the vaunted secular peer review process is not as helpful as people think. While the process was made with good intentions, there is a large amount of fraud, bad research, favoritism, honest mistakes, and more. A fake spider fossil passed peer review.


Many people think peer review is a guarantee of good science. That is not the case, and a faked spider fossils should never have passed the review process.
Credit: Flickr / Magnus Hagdorn (CC BY-SA 2.0)
If it had been real, this would have been an interesting find because fossils of fragile creatures are much rarer than all those billions of marine creatures and such. It was "found" in the wretched hive of villainy known as the Liaoning Province in China. Many fake fossils have been procured there by people wanting to have a few yuan in their pockets. Or it could be the result of global warming. Apparently some people are good at faking fossils, mayhaps they could market unique crafts instead of being dishonest? While this fugazi fossil may have been purchased, it may have been faked from the get-go.
At a first glance it looks like a very cool, exceptionally preserved fossilised spider, and that’s what you are meant to think. Unfortunately, despite being published in a peer reviewed secular journal as a fossil spider, it most definitely is not.

Published in Acta Geologica Sinica the research team examined it under a microscope, described it in detail, photographed it and drew a diagram of what they thought was a large netted spider. Due to a number of features, including longer legs than other spiders in its supposed genus, the researchers named the new species Mongolarachne chaoyangensis.
To read the rest of this first article, click on "Fake spider fossil passes peer review! — What lessons should be learnt?" I hope you'll come back for the second eye-opening article below.

It is not uncommon to come across atheists and other evolutionists who refuse to read creationist material "because it hasn't been peer reviewed". In my experience, using that genetic fallacy (and subtle ad hominem) is cowardly. I lack believe that Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ would understand peer-reviewed papers in the first place. (Creationists are usually excluded from secular science considerations because they don't saddle up and ride for the naturalism brand. However, biblical creationists have their own peer-reviewing processes.) We have seen that the secular peer-review system is saturated with serious problems.

This next article has a bit of overlap with the first one, but it has some first-hand insights into peer review and some additional information related to the false fossil discussed. Sure is a great deal of effort in which to engage because of a commitment to naturalism and to deny the Creator, old son.
The first lesson is, although the common claim, at least by laypersons, is that peer review firmly proves the value and validity of a scientific article, such is not always the case. Since I now have close to 1,500 publications, the vast majority of which were peer-reviewed, I have some experience in the procedure, both its merits and shortcomings. I also have published a peer-reviewed monograph on the subject of scientific peer review.

A major problem is that often the author knows more about the subject than the peer reviewers do. Thus, journal editors try to find peer reviewers that are at least as knowledgeable as the author. Then, when they are located, they often have little incentive to spend the time and energy necessary to carefully review the article, unless the university gives them credit for their work. Another concern is time constraints may not allow the required time to do the review properly. This is probably the most common problem.

Finally, the quality of peer review varies enormously. In my experience it is common to send an article to three reviewers to reduce this problem. . . . In short, peer review is no guarantee of a perfect article, or even a valid study, as clearly illustrated in the case considered below.
You can review this article in its entirety at "Fake Spider Scares Experts". Also, you may want save the link to this post or the two articles featured for use when someone demands peer-reviewed material, expecting that such a thing means that the subject is scientifically established and beyond question.





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

Friday, May 8, 2020

Climate Change Factors Part 2

In "Climate Change Factors Part 1", we saw that people were on the prod, blaming humans for global warming or "anthropogenic climate change". But the whole thing is not "settled science" because there are many factors that still need to be considered. Today, we have a severe case of one thing leading to another, beginning with the sun.


It is a fact that the big light in the sky affects global warming. But climate change is actually involves a number of factors that need to be considered.
Sunspots image credit: SOHO, the EIT Consortium, and the MDI Team, but I found it here
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
That bright hot thing in the sky up there, thataway —

"Don't be looking right at it, ya idjit! It'll wreck your eyes!"

Oh, I know not to look at the sun without proper eye protection. Anyway, the greater light that God made to rule the day (Gen. 1:16) is obviously a major component in global warming. It does warm this globe and others. What happens from there is a complicated sequence of events that is being considered. Sunspots are less active now, and we're approaching the same kind of condition that was seen at the coldest point of the Little Ice Age.

Sure, we had some global warming, but now we may have some cooling. While models come and go (and we get a mite irritated at hearing about various models), they are often necessary to explain observed data. The sun is a big part of magnetic fields, electricity, cosmic rays, weather and climate. We have a pair of articles to consider that have a great deal of science and math — and they link to in-depth articles for those who are inclined to dig deeper.
Sunspots are relatively cool blotches on the sun’s surface. The number of sunspots is an indicator of how active the sun is. It has the most sunspots when it’s most active—at solar maximum—and has a slightly higher total energy output during that time. Likewise, the sun has the fewest sunspots at solar minimum. The number of sunspots varies over an 11-year solar cycle. Could there be a connection between sunspot cycles and Earth’s weather and climate? If so, is this relevant to the global warming debate?
To read the rest, click on "Cosmic Rays, Sunspots, and Climate Change, Part 1". The next part will be right here waiting for you. Like so:
One layer in Earth’s atmosphere, the ionosphere, is a very good conductor of electricity. Earth’s surface is also a good conductor. Thunderstorms in the low latitudes act as “batteries” that continuously deposit positive electrical charge on the ionosphere. Because of this charge, there is a large potential difference, or voltage, between the ionosphere and Earth’s surface. This voltage is about 250,000 volts, although it can be higher or lower depending on the number of thunderstorms going on at any given time.
You can read all of that one by clicking on "Cosmic Rays, Sunspots, and Climate Change, Part 2".






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

Thursday, May 7, 2020

Climate Change Factors Part 1

There is global warming. The Creator designed Earth to heat up and cool down, and he even put the sun up there on the fourth day of Creation Week to facilitate the process. There are some people who insist that we are the cause of global warming. However, there are important facts that get ignored.


Many important factors regarding the production of carbon dioxide are being discovered, and some people wonder if the COVID-19 crisis causing a slowdown of industrial activity plays a part.
Credit: PIXNIO / Tim Hill
The first facts that climate change alarmists need to realize is that it is not "settled science". It cannot be, especially since we do not have all the facts and understand all the sources of what can contribute to climate change. A big part of climate change is rooted an atheistic beliefs in deep time, and an a priori commitment to naturalism — God is not there, and therefore not in control. (Also, keep in mind that the extremists have leftist political agendas and have been known to twist the data and even lie outright to achieve their ends. It's really sad that some people have to politicize science and others of us have to point out the truth.) Supposedly, an important factor in global warming is carbon dioxide. You know, the stuff we exhale and that plants need, then they return the favor by releasing the oxygen that we need?

An overlooked contributor to carbon dioxide is mountain streams.
Recently, a new study published in Nature Communications found that mountain streams may be much larger contributors to the global carbon cycle than previously believed. The study suggests that this is a consequence of the higher turbulence levels of most mountain streams.
Lead author Åsa Horgby, of the Stream Biofilm and Ecosystem Research Laboratory at École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) in Lausanne, Switzerland, and co-authors found that mountain streams release 184 million US tons of carbon globally each year. This is roughly the same as the total global output of CO2 from all tropical streams and their floodplains, yet mountain streams cover much less surface area.
To read the rest, go to "Massive Releases of CO2 from Mountain Streams". I hope you'll come back for the next section.

Another important factor in carbon dioxide production is from volcanic activity. Volcanoes push a great deal of it into the air, and have been doing so for a mighty long time (which has been verified by examination of the contents of rocks). There was a great deal of volcanism, climate change leading to the Ice Age, and more during the Genesis Flood, and Earth has been adjusting ever since.
Recently, a new study published in Nature Communications has suggested that pulses of massive amounts of lava can release as much CO2 as humanity will produce for the entire 21st century. This indicates that volcanic activity, especially during the global Flood and right after, likely produced tremendous amounts of CO2 that has far outweighed any produced by humans.
This really should be no surprise, because today’s volcanoes still produce vast amounts of CO2 and water. However, these scientists were able to find evidence of vast quantities of ancient CO2 still trapped in the rocks themselves.
You can read the rest of this second installment by clicking on "Massive Releases of CO2 from Volcanism Rival Humans". I'd be much obliged if you'd come back for the final featured item.

The COVID-19 pandemic has not only cost lives, but reactions to it have put many people on standby or entirely out of work. This unpleasant aspect provided an opportunity to examine a hypothesis: carbon dioxide caused by human activity should be down quite a bit. However, that would not be so easy to measure, especially with the other sources and the assumptions that human activity is directly responsible for global warming.

But CO2 increases after warming has occurred, which it can be measured. Secularists are married up with the debunked Milakovitch Theory, which is used to claim that there are variations in the earth's rotation over long periods that affect climate and ice ages (of which only one can be demonstrated to have occurred). The claims include how sunlight changes through this affect climate change. If you study on it, this is self-refuting by their standards, because climate changes happened before humans allegedly evolved — we cannot be responsible. Go measure a volcano or mountain stream, pilgrim.
Some are pointing out that the coronavirus shutdown presents an opportunity to test a major climate change assumption. Because global industrial activity has been curtailed due to the pandemic, pollution in certain urban areas has decreased dramatically. This decrease in industrial activity should also theoretically decrease global carbon dioxide emissions. One of the main assumptions behind concern over global warming is that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is due to human activity, not natural causes. The decrease in economic activity provides an opportunity to test that assumption.
Scientists have been measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory since 1958, and they are still making those measurements even today. If human activity is indeed the cause of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2, then there should be a small downward dip in atmospheric CO2, resulting from the coronavirus shutdown. However, such a trend would take time to become noticeable, and other effects would need to first be taken into account.
To read the rest of this important article, and our last for today, click on "Shutdown: Chance to Test Climate Change Assumption". To keep this warm big blue marble rolling, see "Climate Change Factors Part 2". ADDENDUM 6-06-2020: The shutdown did not falsify the idea that we are responsible for increased carbon dioxide, nor did the test validate climate alarmism, as there are other factors to consider. To see the follow-up, click on "Testing a Climate Change Assumption: Update".



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

Wednesday, May 6, 2020

The Worship of Logic and Mathematics

Ever since Satan told Even that she and Adam can be like God (Gen. 3:5), people have been believing that lie. They even try to find God through assorted religions and spiritual experiences but reject the God of the Bible. Many even try to replace him with various contrivances including logic and mathematics.

While math and logic are important, they are not to be adored. Math is not the essence of reason that some people think it is. Logic and math are impossible without God.
Credit: Pexels / Retha Ferguson
Don't be disunderstanding me now, logic and math are extremely important. However, they are not supposed to be objects of adoration.

Way back yonder, Greeks believed in the perfection of numbers and worshiped natural numbers. Since logic is necessary in mathematics, some folks took a notion to believe that pure logic was expressed in mathematics, so they subtracted God from the formula and thought they had found the perfect, self-contained source for logic and reason. This did not work. Other mathematicians demonstrated that math cannot be perfect and self-contained; they were essentially using circular reasoning and inadvertently appealing to a higher power.

Found this on Twitter. Someone pointed out that mathematics utilizes imaginary numbers as well.
Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes.
Some even threw in some "maybe" factors including Intuitionism. Our Creator is necessary for all logic, which cannot exist without him. If these owlhoots who thought math was beautiful had appreciated God, they could more fully appreciate and utilize logic. It is interesting that many people who appeal to logic are unable to effectively use it, and they "think" with their emotions.
The effort reached its first pinnacle at the time of the ancient Greeks, but it raised its head again in the last few centuries. At one point, some of the world’s leading minds seemed to be close to reaching their goal. Ironically, another mathematician stepped in to prove that they would never reach it! This mathematician proved that there must be true statements in any given mathematical system that cannot be proved within that system. Thus, math cannot be the ultimate foundation for truth; it must appeal to something beyond itself.
The lesson for Christians is exciting. No matter how hard people try to disprove or sideline God as the foundation for all truth and life, His eternal power and nature shine forth even more brightly. The very effort to destroy Him merely reminds fallible humans, by their own efforts, that God gets the ultimate glory . . . even in the mental world of mathematics and logic.
You can download the audio version or read the article in its entirety by clicking on "God and Math — How God is the Ultimate Foundation for Mathematics".



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

Tuesday, May 5, 2020

Big Dinosaurs, Little Eggs

While some dinosaurs were rather small, the ones that get our attention are the towering heavies. It is easy to assume that big creatures came from big eggs. Cartoons and dinosaur movies sometimes show extremely large eggs, but that is not the case. They hatched small and grew like other critters. What are the implications for Noah's Ark?


Questions about the sizes of dinosaurs and the eggs they hatched from, and implications for Noah's Ark, are considered.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Palauenc05 (CC BY-SA 3.0)
An egg could not be the size of a typical human because the shell would necessarily be thick. In fact, it would be too think for the unhatched dinosaur to breath or even escape if it could breathe in the first place. Paleontologists have learned from fossils that, like humans and critters, dinosaurs had growth spurts in their younger years.

Biblical creationists know that God brought animals to Noah. If you think about it, there would have been no reason to have the largest dinosaurs taking up a great deal of space on the Ark. They would have been juveniles, and after they disembARKed, they went on doing dinosaur stuff.
Have you ever thought about how pairs of each of the large dinosaur kinds were able to fit onto Noah’s Ark? Some of the sauropod dinosaurs reached over 30 m (100 ft) in length and likely some 50 tonnes (55 US tons) in weight! If they had been on the Ark they would have been a bit hard to handle (but there was plenty of room). The rather obvious answer is not to take fully grown adults, but rather juveniles, on board.
However, this still poses a problem in some minds. Wouldn’t such giant beasts have had huge babies, hatching out of monster eggs? While movies like Jurassic World depict dinosaur eggs as fairly small, they have been shown in popular media and cartoons as larger than a man, even. So, what is the truth about the size of dinosaur eggs? Did big dinosaurs lay big eggs, posing big questions for Noah’s Ark?
To read the rest of this eggciting article, click on "The biggest dinosaur eggs — Just how big were they, and what are the implications for the Ark?" Also of interest is a feedback article, "Pre-Flood predatory dinosaur interactions and the fossil record".





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

Labels