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

Thursday, May 14, 2020

Darwin's Promotion of Women as Inferior to Men

It is well known that Charles Darwin had racist views which in turn exacerbated so-called scientific racism through evolutionism. What may be less known is that Darwin also promoted his view that women are evolutionarily inferior to women, which influenced scientific communities.

Darwin's racism is well known, but he actively promoted his view that women are inferior to men. This had a negative influence on the scientific community and society.
A Man and a Woman Seated by a Virginal [an instrument in the harpsichord family], Gabriel Metsu, 1660 
Some people may think that such observations are ad hominem attacks on Darwin and are irrelevant (some even excused him because he was "a product of his times"), but they are quite relevant. His views influenced his doctrines, which in turn had impact on many scientists through the years. These were based on presuppositions of evolution and the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™. There was no scientific, observational, or experimental data. Just beliefs that women were inferior because evolution. Not hardly!

Perhaps the facts this his own family tree had inbreeding and that he married his first cousin, had something to do with Darwin's low view of women. Maybe there's a connection between hating God and contempt for women, since atheists have a misogyny problem. This might be something to research.

There were women who put forward well-reasoned arguments to refute Darwin's ideas. It is interesting that many people rejected them not because of their presentations, but because they were not scientists. Can't have them womenfolk contradicting the great scientist Charles — except that Darwin had no formal scientific training. His only earned degree was in theology. Also, there were some men who also sided with the women.

The tide has turned and women are respected in the sciences and other areas. Intelligence is something that I believe is often relative. I can talk to my wife about presuppositional apologetics, epistemology, fraud in peer review, continental plate subduction, and other things that I have learned over the years and her eyes glaze over. (Other women would gladly engage in such conversations and teach me a few things.) But if I was to attempt to do the work she has been in for years, I would look like a poorly-trained lemur.

Both men and women were created with distinct differences in skills and temperaments to complement each other. We are not the products of time, chance, random processes and mutations, old son.
This review has two goals, to document from Darwin’s writings that he believed women were inferior to men, and to document that his views greatly influenced modern academia and evolutionists. In reviewing Darwin’s writings, there is no question that Darwin both believed, and taught, that women were intellectually, and in other ways as well, inferior to males. Some claim his ideas, as expressed in the late 1800s, had little effect on how women were viewed in the Western world over the last century and a half.
To read the rest, click on "Darwin’s Views of Women Had a Considerable Effect on Society".

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2020

Moles and the Soil Ecosystem

People who own land are usually bothered by those bumps in the ground made by moles. Some people try to drown them out with garden hoses, which strikes me as a mite cruel and mean-spirited. It is easy to confuse moles, which are insectivores, with their relatives the vole and the shrew. Insectivores are not rodents, but they are similar to rodents like gophers and mice.

Moles are found on most of the planet and many people consider them to be bests. Take a few moments to consider some surprising facts on how they help the soil ecosystem.
Eastern mole image credit: USFWS / Gary Stolz
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Just because I'm on a high horse doesn't mean I'm going to sit here and judge people for getting rid of pests, ain't no way. You way want to consider, however, that moles are actually very helpful in the upper-soil ecosystem and chow down on quite a few things that need their populations kept under control. You can also think about their amazing digging abilities. No, our Creator put them here for a purpose, even if we don't catch on at first glance.

We have probably seven species of moles in these here United States. Interesting that they are not found in South America, but not so surprising that their range does not include Antarctica. 
Moles are mostly hidden out of plain sight, but they are actually important members of God’s creation. Many people dislike moles, due to how the creatures wrinkle lawn surfaces, but the ecological benefits usually outweigh such minor yard-care nuisances.
Moles are known for digging. But how do they dig?
. . . 
And moles, like all animals, are hungry. They need food to eat! They hunt earthworms, insect grubs, and other underground prey. In doing so, they serve the subterranean near-surface soil ecosystem.
To burrow into the full article, click on "Think Twice Before Whacking a Mole".

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

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".

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