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, November 4, 2020

Male Bowerbirds Impress the Ladies

Want to come over and see my place? I designed it with you in mind, and if you step inside, I can show you a good time. As a matter of fact, you probably heard about my reputation for pleasing women...

Male bowerbirds impress females with their bachelor pads and courtship rituals. Darwinists try to hijack what is observed, but this shows design.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / JJ Harrison (CC BY-SA 3.0)
How did you like my impression of the great bowerbird? I've seen human versions of the male bowerbird, and it's tempting anthropomorphize by assigning human behaviors and my values to a critter, so let's move on.

These are down 'Straya and New Guinea way, and are grouped with certain catbirds that have a greater sense of morality (sorry, there I go again), what with being monogamous and all. There are ten species of bowerbirds, and they get their name because, well, they build bowers. They work hard to make them aesthetically pleasing. If you set down your ring and can't find it later, it may not have been a packrat that picked it up, but a bowerbird getting the place all gussied up. Yes, they use a variety of things to decorate their bachelor pads.

It's also interesting that in their efforts to impress the womenfolk, they use modified visual perspective in building bowers. Humans do this through creativity and choice, bowerbirds have it built in. They also were designed by our Creator to have complex courtship rituals. Darwinists claim that all this is evidence for evolution, but some of us need more than your say-so, Chuck.
Before the discovery of bowerbirds’ optical effects, only humans were known to design optical illusions. But does the bowerbird possess an artistic sense like humans?

While a common bird to Australia, the bowerbird shows an uncommon ability to design bowers—structures that look like two-sided thatch huts—to impress possible mates. The males spend much of their days gathering material to build and decorate the bowers with items from sticks and acorns to flowers and shells. The better the bower, the better the chance of winning a mate.

For the rest of the article, see "Bowerbird’s Artistic Sense".



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

Tuesday, November 3, 2020

Lacking Belief in Feathered Pterosaurs

Sometimes people are a mite casual in their use of the word dinosaur, using it to mean wooly mammoths, sauropods, plesiosaurs, pterosaurs, and so on. It is easy group them all together, though, because they lived at the same time.

Evolutionists are wrongly claiming to have found evidence of feathers on pterosaurs.
Credit: Flickr / theilr (CC BY-SA 2.0)
Many believers in dust-to-dinosaur evolution insist that certain dinosaurs evolved into birds. They tend to "see" signs of feathers in fossils, ignoring other (and more reasonable) explanations. Some extravagant claims have been made regarding filaments on pterosaurs, and then unwarranted guesswork was passed off as science. What's a Darwin devotee to do when the same things are not unique to pterosaurs, but are found in dinosaur fossils as well as carcasses of marine reptiles, sharks, and the like? It would be helpful to admit that the Creator made these things, and to stop pretending that they are looking at skin collagen, not protofeathers.
In December 2018, researchers claimed to have found featherlike structures in two specimens of pterosaurs.1 These appendages, called pycnofibres when found in pterosaurs, were said to resemble non-vaned group filaments and bilaterally branched filaments—structures previously thought to be unique to maniraptoran dinosaurs and which have been previously used as evidence that some dinosaurs had feathers. The researchers claim that these pycnofibres are diagnostic of feathers. However, of the four types of pycnofibres they identified in one pterosaur, three were said to be similar to ‘protofeathers’ previously thought to be unique to unrelated groups of dinosaurs. But why would all these diverse dinosaur ‘protofeather’ types be present in one single pterosaur specimen? This paper compares decayed collagen fibres in marine fossils to these pterosaur ‘pycnofibres’ and suggests that these integumentary structures are identical. But if these pterosaur ‘pycnofibres’ are nothing more than decayed collagen fibres, so too are the three types of dinosaur ‘protofeathers’ associated with it. This presents a challenge for those who choose to interpret ‘dino fuzz’ as evidence of feathered dinosaurs.

To read the rest of this very interesting, annoying (to evolutionists), and informative article, see "Feathered pterosaurs: ruffling the feathers of dinosaur evolution". You may also be interested in Dr. Jerry Bergman's article, "Pterosaur Feathers: Another Myth Exploded".



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

Monday, November 2, 2020

Scientists Should Test and not Assume

There are some things we know because we know them. You know? That is, we have some things we presuppose without verification. When we discover that we had something wrong, we are often surprised. Since this is human nature, it happens in science as well.

Dr Sherry Mayo operating the XuM ultra-high resolution X-ray microscope
Dr Sherry Mayo operating the XuM
ultra-high resolution X-ray microscope

Photo by Mark Fergus for CSIRO (CC BY 3.0)
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site
contents; this is a picture of
a scientist doing science stuff)

If you study on it, things that are taken for granted and "conventional wisdom" can be overturned with a bit of research or testing. Sometimes that startles us reg'lar people, and I reckon it does the same for scientists.

One example is that because of their presuppositions of deep time and evolution, carbon-14 dating of coal, diamonds and other items was slow in happening because they "knew" there would be no carbon in them. There was carbon in them after all, and those of us who support recent creation were vindicated.

Scientists "know" that plastic bags are bad for the environment and allegedly contribute to global warming/climate change. Paper and cloth? Not so much. Someone got the notion to test those ideas, and the results were not as expected. Also, we are told that cattle (including their farms) contribute to global warming. Although people should follow the money because of a possible conflict of interest, some researchers found that if dairy cows were removed, the environmental impact would be small but other significant problems would result.

You can read about these and some other interesting items by following the link to "Science Findings Can Be Counter-Intuitive".



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

Saturday, October 31, 2020

Evolutionists Conjure Spirit of Darwin with Bad Science

A spell back, we saw how some of Darwin's disciples were erroneously asserting that a certain artery in the arm was evolution in action. That was a detailed example, and we can see that it was not simply an outlier.

Evolutionists are sacrificing science to the spirit of Darwin. Promoting naturalism and denying the Creator, they make fools of themselves.
Mostly Made at FotoFunia
Numerous instances of fake science presented as evidence of molecules-to-magician evolution are seen here, with links to other sites for more information.. They presuppose that evolution happened, never questioning if it happened, then assume that whatever they see in nature (or think they see) helps them further understand it. Although we have been taught that evolution takes a very long time, somehow it is so flexible that rapid changes are conflated with evolution and used to support it.

Except that there really is no actual evolution happening. Still, they conjure up the spirit of Darwin (blessed be!) to give themselves credibility and get money for their phony baloney jobs. Naturalism and denying the work of the Creator is more important to some sidewinders than actual science. They are sacrificing their minds as well as credible science.
When critiques have been forbidden, lazy evolutionary biologists get away with incompetent scientific work and inept thinking.

Here are more examples of a theme concluded by Dr Jerry Bergman in yesterday’s post [linked in the reference in the first paragraph]: claims of “evolution occurring before our eyes” fall apart when examined. Why don’t other evolutionists pour shame on such lazy thinkers within their camp? The evolution they’re seeing right before their eyes is in their dreams, because their eyes are closed when they ought to be working.

To read the examples of this spooky stuff that passes as evolutionary science, fly on over to "Evolution in Action, or Evolutionist Inaction?" Bonus: Listen to the song "Hallow's Eve" by Holy Soldier.





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

Friday, October 30, 2020

Concretions and the Genesis Flood

Even though I am not listening to it as I write, sometimes I like some hard rock. So do geologists (but this is a fallacy of ambiguity because of different definitions of hard rock). In geological terms, concretions are very hard rock that uniformitarian geology cannot explain.

This hard rock cannot be adequately explained by slow and gradual processes. Catastrophic processes of the Genesis Flood provide the best explanation.
Arizona concretion image credit: Smithsonian / C Gilmore
"Arizona Concretion" would be a good name for a hard rock band

It may seem that geology is rather simple. You learn some expensive words and identify rocks, but there is much more to it. Geologists also deal with chemistry, biology, and other natural sciences. The article linked below makes this evident.

Because this article was published in the Journal of Creation, it has some technical lingo. Concretions are basically pieces of harder rock embedded in other rock. They vary in size from huge boulders that threaten to flatten Indiana Jones to bits and pieces that are easily overlooked. Concretions are probably formed by diagenesis, where sediments are laid down and while they commence to becoming rock, they are affected by pressures, temperatures, biological agents, and more.

Slow and gradual processes of uniformitarianism (mayhaps moseying is a useful word to associate with uniformitarianism) are inadequate to explain the presence of diagenesis and concretions. Sure, deep-time geologists invoke catastrophes and other rapid processes on occasion, but they prefer to give Darwinists the millions of years they need to work their magick. Concretions are not outliers, and they are found all over the world. The hard truth is that the dynamics of the Genesis Flood are the best explanation for concretions.

Concretions are not forming in modern sediments, which, like many other phenomena, contradicts uniformitarianism:

“One of the great puzzles of early diagenesis is that although concretions are very common in rocks and are thought to be important products of early diagenesis, concretions similar to those in rocks have not been observed in modern sediments (Raiswell and Fisher, 2000). Indeed, Colman and Raiswell (1993) cite this discrepancy as a fundamental challenge to uniformitarianism.”

The rate of formation of concretions is also not known, but like almost every aspect of geology, it has been considered a slow process. Such claimed ‘slow processes’ are a simple outgrowth from the belief in uniformitarianism and deep time.

To read the full article, see "A case for rapid formation of calcareous concretions". You may also like the hard rock video by Project 86 about the end times, below.



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

Thursday, October 29, 2020

A Light Story about Petrified Wood

One of the deep-time myths that gets carried around is that wood takes millions of years to become petrified (turned to stone). Even secular geologists now know something creationists have long said, that it depends on conditions, not time.

https://www.icr.org/article/an-old-friend-came-home/
Building built in 1932 made of petrified wood that is inaccurately claimed to be 175 million years old.
Credit: Library of Congress / Carol M Highsmith (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

There are many anecdotes and actual examples of organic compounds being fossilized of sorts, and even sacks of flour turned to stone. What follows is a simple story about a piece of petrified wood that has a somewhat interesting background, and it illustrates once again that conditions are more important than time for this process.
Years ago, an attendee at an ICR Back to Genesis seminar approached me with a fossil he and his daughter had found while on a hike in Washington State. It was obviously petrified wood, which is common in many localities, and it seemed of no particular use in the creation/evolution forum. But its history and how they found the specimen was of great importance.

To read the rest, rock on over to "An Old Friend Came Home". For heavier material, see "Petrified Forests at Yellowstone Invalidate Long Ages".



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

Wednesday, October 28, 2020

Creationists, Secular Peer Review, and Guard Dogs

A common falsehood spread by those with atheism spectrum disorder and other anti-creationists is that biblical creationists do not publish in secular peer-reviewed journals. Sidewinders like that prefer to use prejudicial conjecture instead of doing their homework. The facts are quite complicated.

It is a falsehood that creationists do not publish in peer-reviewed journals. As to why they cannot publish creation science is more complicated.
Original image by Pixabay / skeeze, modified with Pablo

The guard dogs protecting secular journals are vicious. While biblical creationists do indeed get published (as we have said before), the equivalent of throwing the guard dogs raw meat is to say that their material does not threaten Darwin (blessed be!) or support creation science. Naturalists become frenzied when the truth of the Creator receives even a hit, such as when someone let a paper go through that said "creator", even though it means something different in the author's native language.

My conclusion is that they are cowards and willfully ignorant
(Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes)


Atheopaths like Lori here demand evidence for creation, the Genesis Flood, and so on, they reject it because they want it from a peer-reviewed journal. (I lack belief that they have ever read, or would understand, such material. The ones who do afford to pay for, read, and understand them are unlikely to be the trolls encountered on social media.) When we point out that the secular peer review process is loaded with difficulties, even passing computer-generated nonsense, the waving of hands commences.

Also, we point out that creation scientists have their own peer-reviewed journals. 

On a side note, I have had articles published at Creation Ministries International, and it ain't easy. I've had submissions immediately rejected, and others are examined by editors. I was concerned about the red markup on one sent back for my review, and one scientist said about the other who marked it that they "spill a lot of red ink on each other's papers". This is at the lowest level. Can you imagine how stringent they are among other scientists?

Ever notice the paucity of debates between creationists and evolutionists? Invitations are made by creationists. You'd think Darwin's handmaidens would want to shut us down for good. Ain't happenin', Zeke!

When misotheists are told about creation science journals, they impugn the integrity and insult the intelligence of the scientists. In fact, the claim is made that they are not really scientists. Tell that to them face to face, Poindexter! They didn't just send a few grotzits to Billy Bob's Jerkwater Town Bible School and Degree Mill. Instead, they are from credentialed colleges and universities. (You can hate, but drop the bigoted speech and misrepresentation.) It turns out that these angry atheists and evolutionists conveniently redefined scientist to mean atheistic evolutionist, variation is conflated with fish-to-fool evolution, the false war between "science" and "religion", and more. Atheism and evolutionism are easy — especially they can redefine words to confirm their biases.

The "great scientist" Charles Darwin had no formal scientific training. He did earn a degree in theology, but with mediocre grades.

One example of the failure of atheistic presuppositions is that one hatetheist made the claim that creationists are not scientists. He was challenged with a link to a peer-reviewed scientific article in a creation science publication and told to refute it. The answer was that he could not because he's not a scientist. In other words, he refuted himself and admitted that it was written by a scientist.
Peer review is considered the best standard in scientific publication. If a paper has passed peer-review, it is believed that the results are generally scientific, reliable, and accurate. On this basis, evolutionists love to claim that creation scientists cannot do science because they produce no peer-reviewed papers. This claim comes up repeatedly in any discussion with a moderately informed evolutionist. Peer review, they argue, demonstrates that creation science is not science at all but merely an outmoded faith without evidence to back it up.

To read the rest of this very informative article, saddle up and ride on over to "Peer Review in Creation Research". 



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

Labels