Search This Blog

Sunday, November 29, 2020

Five Important Soft Tissue Problems for Evolutionists

For people who pay attention to the origins and deep time controversies, it is no surprise to learn that soft tissues in fossils are increasing constantly. (Not as fast as Democrat "votes" in a rigged election, though.) They are not just about dinosaurs.

More soft tissues of dinosaurs and other creatures in fossils are being discovered and reported. Issues about the age of the earth must be addressed.

Soft tissues in fossils, including useable ink, have been churning in the background for many years until they Big Banged on the scene in recent years. If there were one or two instances of soft tissues, those could be considered outliers for further study, but that's not happening. The hands at the Darwin Ranch get on the prod when people discuss such things, but they cannot change the facts. Deny, obfuscate, distract, or other things, but the facts remain. There are five noticeable problematic trends in soft tissue reports, indicating recent creation and not evolution, that need to be addressed.

In December 2019, the journal Expert Review of Proteomics published a paper I authored with Stephen Taylor titled “Proteomes of the past: the pursuit of proteins in paleontology.” The article features a table that lists 85 technical reports of still-existing biomaterial—mostly proteins—discovered inside fossils.

Can proteins last millions of years? Not according to decay rate measurements. Five incriminating trends emerged from these 85 secular reports. Our review sharpens the tension between how short a time biochemicals last and the supposed age of the fossils that contain them. We wrote:

See what was written and the five problem areas at "Soft Tissue Fossils Reveal Incriminating Trends".


Sunday, November 22, 2020

Scientism, Peer Review, and the Sclerotic Ceiling

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This article was inspired a suggestion on Twitter. The article does not address creation science (it is from a site that is sympathetic not only to Roman Catholicism and theistic evolution), but the truth of this particular article stands on its own.

Many praise the peer review process in secular science, but is seriously flawed. Not only regarding creation science, but even our health is at risk.
Credit: FreeDigitalImages / Phil_Bird
Arteriosclerosis is a condition that can be described briefly as hardening of the arteries due to age and medical conditions, so the word sclerotic in the title relates to something that has grown rigid and unresponsive. As we have seen many times, the vaunted peer review process in secular science is not nearly as worthy of admiration as its supporters proclaim.

Secular peer review is a guild for the good ol' boys while blackballing creation science. (It is tremendously ironic that science supporting recent creation and refuting evolution is rejected out of hand, but science itself is impossible without God!) If something passes peer review, it is not a guarantee of truth. Indeed, the sclerotic ceiling is old and rigid, reinforced by the plaque of bad science and circular reasoning. Papers quote papers quote papers to support premises. However, there is a reproducibility crisis where the methods and conclusions of supporting documents have not been replicated — some have even been shown to be inaccurate and even false.

There are a few mavericks that attempt to buck the system and offer hypotheses that don't necessarily fit the established narratives and assumptions. Unfortunately, many of these may be valid but ricochet off the sclerotic ceiling. A few slip through the cracks now and then.

This poor and biased approach to science keeps the grant money flowing and is a means to gain the approval of others (sometimes doing whatever tinhorn researchers think it takes), but it is not just about supporting evolution. It also affects our health because of faulty studies in medical, pharmaceutical, and psychology areas. Again I say that scientists are human and can be just as rotten as the rest of us. All of us have sinned and need to repent, looking to God's Word as our ultimate standard of logic, morality, and ethics.
The problem with ­science is that so much of it simply isn’t. Last summer, the Open Science Collaboration announced that it had tried to replicate one hundred published psychology experiments sampled from three of the most prestigious journals in the field. Scientific claims rest on the idea that experiments repeated under nearly identical conditions ought to yield approximately the same results, but until very recently, very few had bothered to check in a systematic way whether this was actually the case. The OSC was the biggest attempt yet to check a field’s results, and the most shocking. In many cases, they had used original experimental materials, and sometimes even performed the experiments under the guidance of the original researchers. Of the studies that had originally reported positive results, an astonishing 65 percent failed to show statistical significance on replication, and many of the remainder showed greatly reduced effect sizes.

While I cannot endorse the site as a whole, I recommend reading the rest of this article, "Scientific Regress".

Sunday, November 15, 2020

Now we have Superhabitable Planets?

In their efforts to suppress the truth about the work of our Creator, secularists seem to be intensifying their excuses for the existence of extraterrestrial life. They operate from bad logic and fundamentally flawed presuppositions, so the discovery of life out yonder would validate materialism in their eyes.

In their desperate attempts to pretend that God is not the Creator and Earth is not special, secularists are playing bad logic games with exoplanets.
Credit: NASA / Ames / JPL-Caltech
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
A study was done on exoplanets and habitability. There was a "habitable zone" that was defined, but it doesn't really cover all the necessary preconditions for life. (Not to be confused with our own galactic habitable zone.) Like American Democrats, secularists keep changing the rules until they get what they want. Biblical creationists know that Earth is the focal point of the universe (Isaiah 45:18), but materialists keep saying that our planet is nothing special.

Now the size doesn't matter (it used to), and using presuppositions of deep time as well as evolution, they built up some criteria that suit their purposes. These include the expected duration of a star's existence (providing time for evolution), and proposed twenty-four exoplanets that may be superhabitable. Problem is, they only have vague inferences that most of these even exist. Ever notice the pictures of exoplanets? They are guesses. Nice artwork, but guesses because nobody knows what they actually look like.
A recent article in the journal Astrobiology attempted to identify superhabitable planets. What is a superhabitable planet? Much discussion about the possibility of life elsewhere has focused on earth-like planets. But what makes the earth so special, other than the fact that it has life? The authors of this study argued that using the earth as the standard to determine where life is possible is anthropocentric and violates the Copernican principle, that there is nothing remarkable about us or our location in the universe. The authors conclude that life would be more likely on planets that exceeded the earth’s ability to sustain life. The definition they established for superhabitability was planets having greater biomass and higher biodiversity than the earth.

To read the rest of this really far-out article, catch "Superhabitable Planets".


Sunday, November 08, 2020

Darwin's Point and Non-Evolution

To fundamentalist evolutionists, practically everything seen in nature is evidence supporting their belief system. By using presuppositions and circular reasoning, they present some risible items that are later dismissed. One of these is the allegedly vestigial "Darwin's tubercle" (or "Darwin's point").

Some fundamentalist evolutionists believe that a certain bump on some ears is a vestigial trait and evidence of evolution. This is easily dismissed.
If she has Darwin's tubercle, find it
(Credit: Pexels / Agung Pandit Wiguna
This bump on the ear was alleged by the Bearded Buddha to have been functional to our simian ancestors, and our supposed animal cousins still have it because evolution. Problems were seen with this from the get-go, but if a just-so story supports Darwin's fantasy, it must be science. Right? Perpetuators of evoporn still believe this nonsensical story.


It's not just a bump on the curve of the ear, but also related to pointed ears. Some people have these things, some do not. Some apes have these things, some do not. There was no valid reason to even begin to present it as something scientific, let alone as evidence for evolution. To do so smacks of both desperation and mendacity. Much ado about a bump, but the intricacy of the ear itself is ignored. These owlhoots need to cowboy up and admit that they are using the scientific principle of Making Things Up™ to deny our Creator.
Darwin’s Point, also known as ‘Darwin’s Tubercle’ or ‘Darwin’s Bump’, is a very small outer ear trait used by Darwin in an attempt to prove evolution. It consists of a slightly pointed thickening of the cartilage on the posterior helix at the junction of the upper and middle thirds of the external ear lobe called the auricle. . . .1 It is often called ‘Darwin’s Point’ because the idea was first published by Charles Darwin in The Descent of Man as a vestigial feature. . . 

In his 1871 book on human evolution, Darwin wrote about “a little blunt point, projecting from the inwardly folded margin, or helix” which is the outer ridge of the ear lobe. Darwin invested a full page and a half on this topic, as well as one of the few illustrations in the 1879 edition of his book. He commented that some readers might conclude that this “trifling” trait is not worth our notice, but responded to this claim with: “Every character, however slight, must be the result of some definite cause”. . .

Listen up. You can read the rest over yonder at "Darwin's Point".

Sunday, November 01, 2020

The Amazing Design of Hummingbirds

These little birds are considered New World dwellers, so people in the Eastern Hemisphere are missing out on having them buzz around. The biggest variety is found in South America. They are impressive examples of the Master Engineer's craftmanship.

Evolutionists cannot explain all the design features of hummingbirds, so they simplistically say, "It evolved". The planned design is clearly seen.
Credit: Pexels / Frank Cone
Darwin's disciples have a habit of evosplaining with the vacuous claim, "It evolved", but they are only making statements from presuppositions and circular reasoning. Indeed, not only is there no evidence of reptile- or dinosaur-to-bird evolution (dinosaurs and birds existed at the same time even in evolutionary terms), but the fossil record is also a hostile witness.

"B-b-b-b-but mah precious evolushunz!"

Nope. 

Evolution is also invoked when seeing the compatibility between flowers and hummingbird feeding; not only do these birds show no sign of evolution, the flowers from which they take their nectar have been around since creation as well. These birds also metabolize both fructose and glucose, but we cannot because we need a more complex diet. They also have a visual range that exceeds ours. Then we have their vocalizations, which are much higher than humans can hear. Then there's that metabolism. It's very high, but they actually lower it at night.

By the way, many people put out special feeders for these cute critters. That's great, but take care of the feeders or your good intentions can kill them. You savvy that?

When using their Darwin spectacles, materialists interpret everything as evidence for evolution and reflexively rule out evidence for design. To interpret the evidence that hummingbirds were designed by God makes a passel of sense, but claiming that they exist (and thrive) because of blind chance evolution is absurd.
. . . the hummingbird, an amazing feathered acrobat, tiny and fearless. Many scientists attempt to explain hummingbirds’ profound innate engineering in Darwinian terms, but the evolutionists’ own explanations reveal the flaws in their logic.

Of all the birds of God’s creation, the hummingbird (“hummer”) might be the most remarkable. Everything about these creatures shouts design. Their little hearts can beat more than 1,000 times a minute, while their wings beat from 50 to 80 times a second.

To read the entire article, visit "Hummingbirds by Design".


Sunday, October 25, 2020

God, Creation, and Government

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Perhaps I am being a mite presumptuous, but it seems to me that scientists want to do science stuff. Biblical creation scientists as well as those of us who write and speak on that material (such as at The Question Evolution Project) would rather talk about how the Master Engineer works, that Genesis is the source of all major Christian doctrines, equip the saints, and so on. But political things creep in anyway.

Our views of origins actually impact our approach to government. Logical thinking is more important now than ever, and self-gratification is harmful.
Original image credit: Pixabay / cojessmom
Although this article is emphasizing the 2020 Presidential election in the United States, it has important points for people in other parts of the world to consider — at least, those who still have rights and freedoms.

It is clear that the secular science industry has a political agenda. We've seen this with several years of global warming/climate change agenda-driven science and ignored truth [1], and now they are more blatantly supporting leftist causes [2], [3], [4]. Materialists are driven by the naturalistic narrative, so particles-to-politician evolution is emphasized. (I hear tell that up at the Darwin Ranch near Deception Pass, they dance around the maypole chanting, "Hail Darwin! Blessed be!" Although figurative and facetious, that disturbing picture is pretty close to the truth.) Since evolution is important for secularists and leftists, science and politics have coupled over COVID-19 [5].

For the most part, politics bores this child to tears. I didn't watch those discussion shows on Sunday afternoons, and now that the media are virulently leftist, they cannot be trusted to be honest and objective, so I don't watch them now, either. They have an agenda. Social media are actively censoring people who are not on the political left [6].

Don't be disunderstanding me, I'm not here to tell you who should get your vote! Voters are mainly selecting the platform (views and objectives) and voting for those who share our values. When John F. Kennedy was running for President, people were concerned that his Roman Catholic religion would interfere with his upholding of the Constitution. Similarly, people wondered if Mitt Romney's Mormon religion would interfere. He rightly said that people were not electing him to be a religious leader. And no, there is no political party that is pure. There are country-club Republicans who act like leftists, and a few Democrats who are more closely aligned to conservative values than the hard left of their own party. 

Again, we usually vote for the platforms more than for individuals. It may come as a shock to some people who make a religion out of politics and political affiliations, but not all Republicans are Christians. Conservatives value free speech and the rational exchange of ideas. Democrat politicians are frequently corrupt and often lie about their opposition. The Republican platform currently reflects values that are consistent with the Bible. Leftist values of the Democrats are essentially based on hatred of God and biblical values [7]. There are a few indicators about biblical values and worldviews in politics:
  • When B. Hussein Obama was elected, the country had a peaceful transfer of power. Republicans did not riot in the streets, commit murder, destroy businesses and the like. When Donald Trump won the election, it was the leftists who committed those atrocities and more — many blaming other people for their own actions! In fact, Democrats utilize violence today, but that is typically not the case with Republicans [8].

  • Leftists cannot win honestly. They misrepresent the Republicans and the President and have been caught lying outright, so they manipulate emotions instead of using logic, and have been repeatedly caught committing voter fraud. Conservatives want the best person for the job, leftists want people of favored ethnicities, genders, sexual preferences, and so forth.

  • Be aware of loaded terminology and misleading headlines (see the video embedded below). If you do an online search for an organization such are Parler or Bitchute that may be friendly to conservative views, leftist-run media invariably uses emotive terms like "right wing" to describe it and put those results near the top. Go ahead, search for Parler on Google and scan the results. While you're at it, look up 'Nazi Party" on Wikipedia and see how they make up "facts" to justify calling the National Socialist German Workers' Party "right wing".

    For that matter, people throw around the word fascist without knowing what it means. (Look it up your ownself and you'll see that Donald Trump is nowhere near a fascist.) Also, Google has redefined the word fascist [9] because they support leftist views [10], [11].

  • Conservatives and Christians have been censored, censured, and shadowbanned on social media platforms. It's happened to my Facebook Pages and those of other people I know. We put up our posts but they are not being distributed to most people (including our followers, and my wife and I can't even see them without actively searching). Sometimes it's bad timing for a post or a bug in the platform, but there are many reports of shadowbanning.

  • The Democrat Party supports domestic terrorist organization Black Lives Matter [12] [13] [14] without speaking against the rioting, murders, and its Marxist views.

  • For the most part, conservatives oppose abortion, but Democrats claim that killing an unborn child is "healthcare" for women. Secularists often appeal to evolutionary pseudoscience to support abortion even though life clearly begins at conception [15].

  • We keep hearing that the polling data supports leftist candidates. Polls showed that Hillary Clinton would thoroughly defeat Donald Trump. Polls apparently also showed that Brexit would not happen. One company did not use skewed data and got it right [16].
No political system or political party is perfect. All are run by sinners. 
Worldviews are important, and the leftist worldview is in keeping with Darwinian naturalistic principles. It would be catastrophic if leftists, who have a fundamentally flawed sense of morality [17], to take control of a country. (Have you ever noticed that the overwhelming majority of professing atheists not only hate God, Christians, and creationists, but are political leftists? For that matter, there are "religious" Democrats who make token observance of religions that have little or no regard for biblical authority.) Leftists have controlled countries before, but people conveniently forget about their destruction of life, liberty, and human rights. Instead, emotion-driven voters believe promises so they can get free stuff instead of trying to build up civilization.

Critical (logical) thinking is more important now than ever. Too many people "think" with their emotions and seek immediate gratification, often believing the promises of sidewinders who will say anything so they can gain power.

Now I would like to turn you over to an article that will bring many things home for you. Yes, I'm asking a lot, but the material you've read and what follows are extremely important.
What does our view of origins have to do with politics?  Everything!  A person’s view on origins will guide his or her thinking on how society should function.  Our understanding of our beginnings will inform our view of politics because it will determine our understanding of the nature of man, the nature of the universe, the existence of God, our moral responsibility, economics, and the purpose and scope of government in society. 

I'd be greatly obliged if you'd see fit to read the rest. You can do that by heading on over to "Creation and Politics". Also, you may be interested in this video that's about 7/1/2 minutes long about bad logic used in deceptive headlines:


Sunday, October 18, 2020

Arguments over the Extinction of Human Males

When I took the buckboard into town for supplies, I noticed some of the hands at the Darwin Ranch were also there. Rusty Swingset, the ramrod, had a bandage on his hand. I asked his lady friend Jacqueline Hyde (who was not herself that day either) what happened, and she told me there was a big ruckus over the shrinking Y chromosome and the extinction of human males. Serving maids and children were alarmed over the events.

Evolutionists are arguing over the possible fading of the Y chromosome. More speculation based on presuppositions with precious little science.
Actual photograph of the fuss at the Darwin Ranch
Argument over a Card Game by Jan Steen

Although some feminazis would be glad to see males extinct, it's not settled science. Not by a longshot. Besides, if genetic entropy didn't refute evolution, we would have more serious problems than the extinction of males or how humans will adapt through probable genetic switches.

Lots of speculation based on naturalistic presuppositions with precious little actual science. One paper says that the Y chromosome is shrinking and will be gone, another says ain't no way, lather, rinse repeat. There are critters that don't need X and Y chromosomes for reproduction, and some scientists are wondering if mayhaps these two have more functions than just determining sex. I reckon that it's mighty difficult to learn from bad experiences, as evolutionary scientists were humiliated by pronouncements of "junk" DNA and vestigial organs. No, the Master Engineer knew what he was doing, and his creation didn't get away from him.

A book published back in 2003 titled Adam’s Curse: A Future Without Men by Bryan Sykes predicted that in the future “the human race will reach the ultimate evolutionary crisis that has been millions of years in the making: The extinction of men.” His prediction is that the Y chromosome will disappear, resulting in the extinction of males as we know them. Is this what is happening really?

The Y chromosome is used in all primates, most mammals, and even in some insects and plants, to produce males. Some animals, such as alligators and turtles, use a complex system that enables the temperature in which embryos develop to determine the sex. Already, evolution faces a problem: a defining trait of primates—the Y chromosome—is found scattered in a wide variety of lifeforms including some plants and insects. Some strange exceptions exist. Birds are ZZ/ZW and the duck-billed platypus, a mammal, boasts ten sex chromosomes!

This is interesting. You can read the rest by traveling to "Is the Y Chromosome Disappearing? Update".