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

Friday, November 20, 2020

Ordinary People Can Challenge Evolution

With the tenth annual Question Evolution Day less than three months away, what follows is a useful article to get people thinking. It is not long or complex. When people think it is indecent to question universal common descent evolution, we have some points to raise and questions to ask.

We do not need advanced degrees to ask some pertinent questions of evolutionists. Also, we can catch them using dreadful logic and bad science.

If we have the unmitigated gall to doubt Darwin, fundamentalist evolutionists often say, "Are you a scientist? Where did you get your degree?" These are the same sidewinders that say creationists don't do science, and scientists who are creationists are, therefore, not scientists. Note the double standard that defenders of evolutionism that are encountered online seldom have degrees themselves! It's acceptable to promote their views without degrees, but we must have degrees to question them. This is simply bullying and a kind of appeal to authority. It's who they are and what they do.

What really grinds their goats is when we show that we have some knowledge and reasoning skills. (Some of us who are not scientists catch them dealing from the bottom of the deck where logical fallacies are concerned.) While they scoff at the concept of specified complexity (everything has to be functioning properly in an organism or nothing works, nothing makes sense), they can do little more than evosplain it with nonsensical jargon, lines on charts, and weasel words. "Scientists think...it could be...maybe...perhaps...convergent evolution..." and so on explain nothing. They go to great lengths to deny the Creator's work and also deny his rightful place.
It’s one thing to simply draw a line on a paper between two animals’ pictures to express a belief that they’re related, but how can we know for sure? One test offers a hard stop to evolution between basic kinds: all-or-nothing body systems.

Body parts integrate into body systems. Each part, and each piece that makes up that part, needs the right shape, size, and strength of material to do its job. That’s why brains aren’t made of enamel but of interconnected nerves.

Some body parts can change a little and still allow the system to work. For example, human legs come short and thick or long and thin and every variety in between. But the imaginary process of transforming fish fins into human legs would leave the in-between creature either unable to swim or unable to walk. It would die, as would its evolution. Take enough of a fish’s fins away on its supposed journey to land life, and it loses its ability to track down dinner before it becomes dinner.

To read the rest of this useful article, see "How Can You Refute Evolution?" Also, this eleven-minute video clip is interesting:

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

Thursday, November 19, 2020

Science, the Bible, and GMOs

Folks are a mite confused about this GMO thing, and there are strong passions on both sides of the issue. Some see this genetic manipulation as evil, so some food merchandisers proudly proclaim, "No GMOs!" Others see it as a tremendous scientific boon.

There is a great deal of concern and fear about GMOs. They may alleviate food shortage problems. We need to know if they are biblical and safe.
Both images found at Pexels
Angry fox: Vinicius Altava; Statue facepalm: karatara
There are views all over the map, and a great deal of emotion. Some people who are against GMOs manipulate emotions and say that they're dangerous, and this child suspects that most people have no knowledge of the controversy. What's the hubbub, Bub, about Genetically Modified Organisms?

I'll allow that genetic modification where people modify the gene itself has not been happening for all that long, but a form of genetic modification has been around for millennia. There are foods that we eat that are the product of artificial selection (Darwinists consider artificial selection a form of how natural selection causes evolution, but neither of those are true). Eugenics is an attempt to cause artificial selection to happen in humans so that they "best" humans continue to thrive. If you have a purebred dog or cat, for instance, that is the result of selective breeding, which is also artificial selection.

There are very fine people on both sides of the GMO issue, including Christians. This issue seems to be a darling of leftist "progressive" politics. Scare tactics abound. Instead, people should learn that food safety is not the issue, and we can use our minds and quite possibly use science to utilize what our Creator has given us. It would be great if we could use this science to help alleviate food shortages.

Here in the formerly United States as well as many other countries, there are government agencies that regulate food production and safety. Why do you think you need a license and have health safety inspectors approve of your home baked goods business? Let's get educated on this, and not let emotionalism or faulty theology cloud our judgments. Find out if GMO deniers are really promoting food safety, and if their statements are valid.
Today’s food battle typically wages against seemingly wholesome foods containing “corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, canola, sorghum, and sugar cane seeds.”1 What is common to all these seemingly wholesome foods is that they typically are genetically modified in the US—their DNA has been changed. Currently, the FDA has no requirement to label foods made with these ingredients, and there have been no recalls. But have they acted in a safe and responsible fashion? Or is there anything really wrong with these common “all natural” products? Are GMOs ethical?

 Although I seldom use book chapters here, I reckon this one is very helpful and interesting. To read the whole thing, get comfy for about a half an hour, then head on over to "Are GMOs Ethical?"

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

Wednesday, November 18, 2020

Can You Copy the Cat?

I miss Basement Cat. Can you make a copy? We have pictures and even a video or two for reference. Oh, you need more to work with. What about if you make a copy using a living cat for reference, will that work? 

I miss Basement Cat. Can someone make a copy? Of course not. Evolutionists say living things are the products of accidents. No, all are created.

Where are you going? I do not appreciate that look you gave me! What does it take to make a copy, anyhow? Let's back up a mite. Since believers in universal common descent insist that every living thing is the product of time, chance, random processes, mutations, and accidents. Shouldn't be to hard to do a cat from scratch (heh, she scratched me in rough play a few times!), you just have to get the parts.

What, they're not available at the bit chain retail store or even on those big internet retailers? I could let you off the hook and say you don't have to build the entire feline machine, what with fast reflexes, sensitive olfactory apparatus, radar ears, inquisitive nature, and all that. Could you copy a cat then?

Well of course not! Even if you tried, your result would be cat-astrophic. As we saw yesterday, cells are extremely complex, and we know that living things are even more complex. Cells, cats, dogs, plants, people — it takes a passel of faith to believe in evolution.

It takes far less time to copy than it does to create, and far less thought.  For instance, you can copy the sheet music of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony on a copy machine in a few minutes, and never even know about inverted Cmaj7 chords.  Being able to create it, however, would take years of training and practice, thought and inspiration.

You can copy a video of a movie in minutes, but it takes years of training and months of filming for actors, directors, writers, producers, stuntmen and cinematographers to film the movie.

So there is a giant leap between copying and creating.

There is also a major leap between inability to copy and copying.

To copy Tolstoy’s War and Peace you must have the ability to read and write, ability to make paper, a printing press, ink, typesetters and printers.  A stone age tribe in South America could not copy War and Peace, or any other book.

So what does this say about our inability to copy a cat? Our best scientists can’t even copy a potato. This is embarrassing.

You can read the rest at "Kitty Copying and Evolution". I miss Basement Cat.

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

Tuesday, November 17, 2020

Inner Mechanics of the Cell Cycle

Back when I went to school, I was fortunate when I could hitch a ride on a passing Stegosaurus. Another fiction of bygone days is that cells were simple. As science progressed, complexities of the cell became more and more apparent.

Scientists are continuing to learn that the simple cell is not simple after all. Its complexity defies evolution and affirms the genius of the Creator
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / NHS National Genetics and Genomics Education Centre (CC BY 2.0)

Believers in muck-to-mycologist evolution are confounded by explaining the origin of the first cell, let alone the irreducible complexity of the cell cycle. Before a cell can get its motor running and head out on the cell-division highway, it must go through several stages. It must duplicate its DNA, and those tiny molecular machines minimize mutations so cells don't run out of control. The entire process testifies to those who can understand of the Master Engineer's genius.

The cell cycle is one of the most important biological processes. It describes how cells multiply in number by duplicating the information in the parent cell before dividing into two daughter cells. There are over 10 trillion cells in the human body, and the cell cycle must work efficiently and accurately to increase and differentiate different types of tissues.

Evolutionists admit that the origin of the first cell is one of the most difficult problems for their theory. This is because the very first cell had to include a fantastic amount of stored information. It had to have a substantial number of complex molecular machines to maintain the cell, produce energy, and more. And it had to be able to reproduce itself by dividing. The cell cycle is present in all life forms, from simple bacteria to humans. It is a design element that is necessary for all living things.

To read the rest, see "The wonderfully designed cell cycle".

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

Monday, November 16, 2020

Neanderthal Y Chromosome Frustrates Evolutionists

It becomes difficult to reason with atheists and evolutionists. Some of us want to have meaningful conversations, and we are met with arguments akin to, "You st00pid creatards are wrong because atheism and evolution and stuff". They base their "thinking" on invalid assumptions, such as those in a recent Y chromosome study.

A claim by some evolutionists that the Y chromosome will fade and males will become extinct was silly enough. Research in Neanderthal DNA is startling
Made at Pablo

Secularists who believe that human males are going extinct have made some serious errors in that area, and some of the same problems are still recurring. They claim Neanderthals became extinct 40,000 Darwin years ago. The prediction that the Y chromosome is shrinking and will disappear has a challenge from a study from this Neanderthal Y chromosome study.

DNA is fragile, and continues to deteriorate even after death. A crime lab technician cannot reasonably expect to test DNA after someone has been long dead. Under the right conditions, it can last a while. That's why scientists were able to do a study on Neanderthal DNA and the Y chromosome. The incredible shrinking man chromosome showed no appreciable difference between Neanderthal times and our times.

That's because humans didn't evolve and everything was created recently. Scientific findings continue to illustrate this, old son. It's past time to stop pretending that atheistic naturalism is true. By the way, you can stop criticizing those of us who understand your mythology better than you do.

A new study analyzed the genome of what they termed “our closest relatives, Neanderthals and Denisovans,” which were then compared with modern humans. Most previous Neanderthal DNA research has been on females because the X chromosome preserves better than the fragile Y. Fortunately, a team of geneticists from the United States, China and Europe were able to study the male Y chromosomes from three Neanderthals and two Denisovans. The team found from their limited sample that the modern human and Neanderthal Y chromosomes were more closely related to each other than the Neanderthal and the Denisovan Y chromosomes. They concluded that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals were more similar genetically than were the Neanderthal and the Denisovian. The U.S. National Library of Medicine summary presented the conventional evolutionary explanation by writing the following:

Read the rest of this evolution-frustrating article at "Neanderthal Y Chromosome Looks Modern".

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

Saturday, November 14, 2020

Discerning Fake Science

Unfortunately, I have to keep gnawing on this bone: scientists are people, too. They make mistakes and have biases. As such, they are not the impartial arbiters of truth and science that many people believe. Many want to do science, others manipulate data for their own agendas.

Although everyone is biased, including scientists, many secularists manipulate data into fake science news. Here's an example of detecting it.

Since nobody is a blank slate and everyone has some kind of bias, it follows that nobody is completely impartial. Try to present creation science materials to atheists and other evolutionists, they often cry, "But that's biased! Those liars for Jesus are trying to convince us of their views!" Brilliant, Sherlock! Doesn't everyone want to present an argument to convince others of their point of view? Also, the ad hominem is entirely irrational — not only from it being a logical fallacy, but also because biblical creationists serve a holy God who requires righteousness and hates lying. To say that we are lying to get others to believe in God is utterly vacuous.

As mentioned several times before, we have seen that certain sidewinders within the secular science industry have used incomplete research and circular reasoning, built arguments from presuppositions instead of facts, and more. While there are scientists who want to do science stuff, many in the secular science industry (and the industry as a whole) have a leftist agenda. This makes extremely difficult to use scientific findings to support biblical and conservative material.

We have seen in the 2020 American presidential election season that fake news can be foisted on gullible people who want their biases confirmed; that is my conclusion based on observations and evidence. Indeed, I wrote an article emphasizing the need for (and practical applications of) critical thinking. Naturalists also confirm their own biases. Today we examine how secularists can manufacture fake science news and deceive people.

I was hesitant to present this because it spooks the horses. That is, some things in the following article are written with a bit of an edge. As you have seen with my own articles and posts, I get a mite agitated at times and let my biases show. Other times, logical errors slip in. 

Also, it is important to watch for unprovable assumptions upon which arguments are built. If the foundation is faulty, the rest of the research or study is doubtful — or even worthless.

One of the first details can appear to be the genetic fallacy (rejecting something because of the source). However, when sources are shown to be biased, unreliable, bigoted, and so forth, it is reasonable to reject them — or at least examine them carefully before accepting their content. We can take that a step further and "follow the money" — that is, determine if the well-heeled individual or organization who is bankrolling the research may be contaminating the writer's objectivity. Also, the writer of the article below shows his own feelings with some blunt terminology. He's not fully objective and may be tainting his own article, but thoughtful readers can work around those and even determine if they think his outrage is justified. A science news article is reproduced and then broken down. That is something we should all consider instead of swallowing it whole.
We are all too familiar with the term Fake News. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference at first, but facts are stubborn and immutable things. Therefore, news is often corrected, at least by honest brokers. This is not the case with science so-called.

I want to share a recent "scientific" article with you. Then show you how to discern Fake Science. The article, "Estimation of Methane Emissions From the U.S. Ammonia Fertilizer Industry Using a Mobile Sensing Approach," published May 28, 2019 in Elementa. The work, funded in part by a grant from the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future stated:

To read the rest, head on over to "Fake News Yields Fake Science!"

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

Friday, November 13, 2020

Idle Scrawling in the Ice Age

Believers in deep time and universal common descent have a silly habit of believing that humans long ago were stupid brutes, freshly minted from evolving and the ink was not dry yet. Yet another archaeological find supports the views of biblical creationists.

Portelet Bay, Jersey / Library of Congress, Photochrom Print Collection
If you are on the southeast coast of the larger British Isles facing Normandy, France, you will also be facing the much smaller Channel Islands. They are in the English Channel (the French call it la Manche). Doing some island hopping, the second nearest to Normandy is Jersey. Some interesting scratchings were found on a plaque that was broken into ten pieces.

They are dated at many thousands of Darwin years old, but their condition and other considerations make the great age implausible. It is interesting that not only did the ancient artist have to do self-expression in stone, but abstract thought is evident — something that atheism and evolution cannot explain.
Archaeologists have discovered a small stone plaque, broken into ten fragments, with intriguing abstract marks in the British Channel Islands. The stone plaques (made of locally sourced microgranite) come from an archaeological site at Les Varines, St Saviours in Jersey, just 28 km from northern France. Researchers interpreted the marks as depicting mammoths, bison, a horse, and possibly a human face.

Using the uranium-thorium dating method they conventionally dated the plaques to the Upper Palaeolithic, supposedly 20,400-8,400 years BP. . . .

The ten plaque fragments represent “new evidence” for art from human ancestors.

The artefacts were brought to the surface by a plough in a farmer’s field. However, the stone surfaces are apparently in a “good state of preservation”, which suggests they are younger than supposed.

To read the full article, tune in "Ancient doodles in stone represent intriguing Ice-Age art".

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