Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman

Welcome to the home of "The Question Evolution Project". There is no truth in goo-to-you evolution. We are bombarded with dubious evidence for the "fact" of evolution. Contrary evidence is suppressed. That is against the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Using an unregistered assault keyboard, articles and links to creation science resources are presented here so people can learn something besides materialistic propaganda. — Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Thursday, July 2, 2015

For Fear of Quantum Physics

Quantum physics (a.k.a. quantum mechanics, quantum theory) can be daunting to say the least. It requires a great deal of analytic thought and skill in advanced mathematics and gets into subjects on the subatomic level. (Some people would probably prefer bronco busting to doing this stuff.) But it is a valid operational science. Unlike many of the natural sciences, it is mostly untainted by homages to Darwin, since evolution has nothing to do with it. However, quantum physics is supportive of biblical creation (Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 1:17).

Quantum physics (mechanics) is intimidating to some creationists. This is unfortunate, as quantum physics is actually an ally of biblical creation, and this operational science has nothing to do with evolution.

Newtonian (classical) physics covered a great deal of ground, but some things were left unexplained. (There have been people who say that quantum physics replaced Newtonian physics, but that is incorrect.) Some of the experts in quantum physics were reluctant to accept quantum theory, but they ended up practicing the adage, "Follow where the evidence leads". This area of science is supported by empirical evidence, although there are still unresolved questions, and there is much more to learn.

Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr had many discussions and debates on the topic (Uncle Albert didn't cotton to Bohr's views). Unlike fundamentalist evolutionists who attack biblical creationists, they did not resort to ridicule and call each other, "Liar!" Indeed, they had great respect for each other and kept their disagreements to the subjects at hand.

Some Christians are put off by quantum physics  Perhaps this is because of uncertainties (the above "Bad Joke Dog" image notwithstanding), but all sciences have uncertainties. However, some people are slipping in some spooky stuff with Eastern mystical views and "New Age" practices in books likeThe Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav, The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra, Quantum Healing by Deepak Chopra, and others. But the abuses of science (or numerous other things that can be mentioned) do not negate the validity of the discipline, nor its results. I'll let Dr. Jonathan Sarfati take it from here.

Quantum mechanics is one of the brand new ideas to emerge in physics in the 20th century. But is it something creationists should believe? I argue “yes” for two reasons:
1. The evidence supports it: QM solved problems that baffled classical physics, and has passed numerous scientific tests.
2. Fighting against an operational science idea would mean fighting a battle on two fronts. So there is nothing to be gained by diverting our energies, in an area that does nothing to further the creation cause.
Although quantum mechanics is rather outside the scope of our ministry, since it concerns operational science rather than origins, we do receive questions about QM quite often. And we also sometimes receive requests to sponsor various critics of this field. This paper tries to summarize, with as little technical detail as possible, why QM was developed, the overwhelming evidence for it, as well as the lack of any viable alternative. Finally, the pragmatic issue: jumping on an anti-QM bandwagon would just make our job harder and provide not the least benefit to the creation cause.
To read the rest, click on "Should creationists accept quantum mechanics?" You may also be interested in this recent post, "Quantum and Classical Realities: Reconciled at Last?"

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Organic Materials Are Evidence of a Young Earth

Here I am, still behind my unregistered assault keyboard, bringing you news that annoys Neo-Darwinists and delights biblical creationists! Ready?

Believers in an old earth maintain that our planet is billions of years old, and the fossils they dig up have been around for many millions of years. No wonder they are continually baffled when scientific discoveries contradict their paradigm. If something has been dead, buried, fossilized, it should look and act old.

Image: NASA.gov
Word is spreading, much to the annoyance of evolutionists, that red blood cells, carbon-14, soft tissues and other things have been found in dinosaur bones (several links about that are here). With advances in technology, more biological materials from the olden days are being found. While this information frustrates proponents of evolution, it fits right well with biblical creationist models.
Do we live on an earth that is 4.6 billion years old or only thousands of years old? The age of our planet is a significant stumbling block for many Christians and keeps countless others from even considering the scriptural message—specifically, the gospel. Indeed, an old earth means death isn’t really the wages of sin (Romans 6:23) since violence, pain, and death would have had to reign in the world millions of years before sin made its first appearance. If that were the case, then God, not Adam, would be directly responsible for this cruel regime of endless suffering.

But Scripture is silent regarding the millions and billions of years demanded by the secular scientific community. The New Testament clearly states God was speaking through “the mouth of His holy prophets, who have been since the world began” (Luke 1:70; Acts 3:21). Earth, our solar system, and the universe were created along with God’s first prophet during the six-day creation week just thousands of years ago. Adam, made on Day 6, recorded the first prophecy in Genesis 3.
To finish reading, click on "Ancient Blood Cells Still Red". 

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Religious Attitudes in Evolutionism

Uninformed evolutionists believe that Charles Darwin came up with his hypothesis all by his lonesome, and deny that evolution is actually an ancient religion (Paul debated the Epicurean philosophers in Acts 17, who were evolutionists way back then). The science aspect had been in the works for years before Darwin popularized it. However, even with the trappings of science, evolution is still religious in nature.

Several examples at the link illustrate that evolution is religious at its core.

Using presuppositions that evolution happened, proponents use that as their starting point when attempting to interpret evidence — especially anthropologists. Of course, many questions remain unanswered, and their speculations often raise more questions than they claim to answer. The real answer is that evolution did not happen, everything was created.
There’s something magical about believing in evolutionary anthropology: a sense of numinous awe at how much they don’t know but believe might be possible.

A man ponders a bone in his hands, holding it as if it were a sacred relic. “Fossil raises puzzling questions about how upright body plan of great apes evolved,” reads the subtitle of a piece called “Walk like a Man” in the Harvard Gazette. Harvard staff writer Peter Reuell seems to relish the mysteries that lie beyond the great unknown. One thing is certain: he doesn’t ask “if” upright posture evolved, but “how” it evolved. That dogma is beyond question; everything else is up for grabs.
To read the rest of this and other examples, click on "Evolutionary Anthropology as Religion". 

Monday, June 29, 2015

Homosexual "Marriage", Creation, and the Bible

As expected, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) voted to legalize homosexual "marriage". This has serious implications for Bible-believing Christians, not only in the US, but everywhere.
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There are about 30 links provided for further reading, curiosity, and research. They can be springboards for people who want to do further research. Each should open in a new window or tab when clicked. I do not endorse every site, or even every article, so I do expect all y'all to utilize your own minds.

As most people expected, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) voted to legalize same-sex "marriage". This has serious implications for Bible-believing Christians, not only in the US, but everywhere. But it's not like the US was the first country to do this, just the latest to date.

Let me point out right now that some professing Christians are expressing rage over the ruling. Frustration and righteous anger are understandable (especially when faced with the ridicule and gloating of "gay rights" supporters), but there is no justification for acting in a sinful manner toward homosexuals!

Those who demand "tolerance" are often exceptionally intolerant of those of us who believe the clear teachings of the Bible. Indeed, look at how many people are "offended", a leftist tactic which in cases like this essentially means, "I can't be bothered to think and respond rationally, and I can't control my emotions, so I want to stifle your free speech because you say things I don't like".

People tend to "think" with their emotions, and "gay rights" proponents utilize that fact quite effectively. The word gay has been co-opted from its original meaning to indicate people with a homosexual preference. When Bible-believing Christians say that homosexuality is unnatural and violates God's prescribed manner of marriage, we are called homophobes, which is a meaningless emotion-laden word used for labeling, ridicule, and provoking emotional reactions. As I've often said, I don't phobe any homos, and I don't know anyone who is afraid of them. Another appeal to emotion is when people say that "everyone has a right to love". Can homosexuals love? Yes. Sexual activity is not to be equated with love.

Homosexual "marriage" has been made into a civil rights issue, which is ironic, because fewer homosexuals want to be "married" than people have been led to believe. "Gay" is not the "new black", and there are black people who are offended by the comparison. Sexual preference and ethnic origins are a horribly fallacious comparison, but people are emotionally manipulated into accepting that comparison anyway. Homosexuals are not victims, despite the rhetoric — well, they're victims in places like Iran, but not in the United States. Did you know about that? It's difficult to get accurate information when the news has a leftist slant.

Did the SCOTUS redefine marriage? Yes and no. Those tinhorns who voted in favor of it were waving their bony middle fingers in the face of God, and rejecting thousands of years of societal norms. Dissenting Judge Antonin Scalia had some strong remarks about what the Supreme Court has become. Yes, they redefined marriage on paper, and essentially made it meaningless. (See what Matt Walsh says in "Gay Marriage Still Doesn’t Exist, No Matter What the Supreme Court Says".) I can redefine our Basement Cat as a salamander, but that does not change reality — she's still a black cat, not a green or brown reptile.

The Gaystapo insists that homosexuals have been denied a right to marriage, but where do they get that right? Evolution? Not a chance. By simply asserting it? Because they're "born that way"? Let's work with this for a moment. People have urges that they have to restrain. I can think of several women that I would like to have sex with (or even marry as a group). Do I have the right to give in to my urge? No, and never mind that God and my wife would strongly disapprove of my actions! Or this: I am a white heterosexual male who believes that the Bible is the Word of God, that that everything was created recently, and salvation is to be found in Jesus alone (John 14:6, Acts 4:12). To use evolutionary logic, we're just bundles of chemicals following electrochemical impulses, and there is no right and wrong.  I was born that way, you have no right to complain or object, so accept and celebrate my choices! Makes perfect sense.

I received a letter from a homosexual friend. Each of us knows that the other is not like the stereotype. This section was interesting:
"Marriage" has a meaning, it's had that meaning (and in all the other languages that have words that mean the same thing) for thousands of years. Why couldn't these activists settle on a different word, have their own different institution if they really needed one, and I'm sure they could have been gladly given the same legal rights. That's not good enough for one reason: the purpose is to destroy something, not to build something new. John Nolte at Breitbart got onto this before the marriage decision, when the [Confederate] flag issue was still raging. Can't have the rebel flag flying on government property? Fine, then the same should go for the symbol of anti-Christian hatred that has tormented bakers and photographers and pizza makers and flower shop owners (and Mozilla CEOs - I quit using Firefox by the way) — the "rainbow pride flag" — which has flown from plenty of government buildings including US embassies. There is nothing to be proud of in that flag of bigotry, but last night the freaking White House was all done up in its colours to celebrate its "win." [Click here for the White House colors.]
Those who are demanding "tolerance" of homosexuals are extremely bigoted and inconsistent themselves. They force Christians to go against their convictions. How about when they are seeking out a Christian bakery and suing the owner who refuses on religious grounds, railing against Chik-Fil-A, persecuting a pizza parlor, and so on? Meanwhile, those hypocrites have no problem with Mohammedan bakers who refuse to bake a cake for a "gay wedding". How about the UK couple who is threatened to sue a church in 2014 to force it to perform their "wedding"? Some of us have enough civility and common sense that, if someone refuses to serve me because it would violate their religion, we'd just saddle up and go elsewhere, problem solved.

For that matter, I don't reckon it's any of my concern about the sexual preferences of the waitress in the diner, the bus driver, the mail carrier, my co-workers, my neighbors, my doctor, or anyone else. Just do your job.

It's almost laughable that when homosexuals "come out of the closet" and declare their sexual preference, people applaud them as "brave". A lot of people respond with, "Big deal. I didn't want to know that about you anyway". Nowadays, the culture is pro-homosexual, and people who believe what Scripture teaches are not tolerated — those of us who stick to our principles are the ones who are really brave!

Where do rights come from, anyway? Demanding and asserting that you have a right does not make it so. Sure, some rights are made through legislation, and the US Constitution has guaranteed some rights for Americans, such as free speech (but those are eroding for Christians very quickly). God is the final authority for rights. He has established the institution of marriage (Genesis 1:27, Genesis 2:24, Mark 10:6-9). We were not created with a "gay gene", which would be a mutation, and my remarks about restraining our urges apply even if we did have one.

By the way, if someone decides that he or she is the wrong sex (except in the rare, difficult area of hermaphroditism), guess what? Mutilation and hormones won't change your XY chromosomes — you're born that way (male or female), and how you feel does not change biological reality. People get "gender reassignment" surgery and have had regrets; their suicide rate is very high.

Some people have argued that since homosexuality exists to a small extent in nature, then it must be all right for humans, too. Yes, this generalization passes as "logic" for some people.

The Bible
There are occasional complaints that Christians are hypocritical for focusing on homosexuality as the primary sin and ignoring their own heterosexual sins. To some extent, this is valid — God hates all sin, and we cannot justify our own adultery and fornication; we must confess and repent of them. Adultery and homosexuality were both capital offenses under Old Testament Law. However, homosexuality is specifically referred to as an abomination, תֹּעֵבָה (Lev. 18:22). It is a sinful choice that can be changed (1 Cor. 6:9-11 NASB, Rom. 1:24-27 NASB). No, the Bible makes it clear that homosexuality is a sin. God is the one who instituted marriage and the family unit, and he is the one who makes the rules. People demanding "gay rights" have a lousy epistemology. Unfortunately, many people do not bother to consider that Christianity is logical, as are our reasons for objecting to homosexual "marriage".

Many homosexuals are atheists, but there are also some homosexuals who call themselves Christians, choosing to rewrite and twist Scripture to suit their own feelings. Dr. James White extensively refuted the disingenuous efforts of "apologist" Matthew Vines. Those "tolerant" gay rights supporters put pressure on Christians, such as trying to force us to go against our convictions. We have to decide if we should attend a "gay wedding" or not, for example, but "gay marriage" is the result of compromise on Genesis. Did you notice that people who tend to accept homosexuality have also compromised on the literal truth of Genesis?

Whether atheist, liberal Christian, or something else, acceptance of homosexual marriage is a rebellion against the authority of God's Word. While the Supreme Court legalized and redefined "gay marriage" on paper, they cannot change reality. Before you hail these mortal, sinful men and women as "wise" because of this decision, remember that in 1857, the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision said black people are not citizens, and upheld slavery. Wrong then, wrong now. This homosexual "marriage" decision will be used against Christians, and persecution will increase; some of us will continue to speak the truth while we still can. We have a great deal to learn, and a great deal to do. Those of us who believe the Bible must remain faithful and remember to keep our faith in God and our eyes on him (Heb. 12:2).

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Viewing Dinosaurs and Logical Fallacies from the Bunker

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Lots of reading, listening, and viewing for you today.

Derek Gilbert allowed me back on "A View from the Bunker", and it was a combination of two main points. First, we discussed dinosaur soft tissues and other evidence that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old. Next, we went into an area of special study of mine, logical fallacies. We had some fun, too. The logical fallacies are important so that Christians and creationists are not lassoed by atheists and anti-creationists, and learning about them carries over into other areas of life. I gave several examples from my own experience. Also, I mentioned my article on "Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism", which deals with some of the material.

Derek Gilbert and Cowboy Bob Sorensen discuss dinosaur soft tissues, logical fallacies, and more on "A View from the Bunker".

Many shows have a fair amount of "show prep" before recording. Not here, it just a little. I prepped myself beforehand, but didn't use my notes all that much. It was more of a free-flowing conversation. Different shows and interviewers have different styles, after all.

One fallacy example that was not used there that I'll use here. I've long said that some people want us silenced. One way is to try to negate what we have to say, and the most frequent attack is through ad hominem and outright ridicule. "You don't want to listen to that person or group because...", and proceed with mockery. In my article, "Feral Fundamentalist Anti-Creationist Antics", I referred to someone who claims to be an academic — this tinhorn sayss that he is hiding his real identity for fear of retaliation from creationists! (He gives no reason to take his statements seriously.) This "academic" mentioned my claim that they want us silenced, and added that no, he doesn't want us silenced. Instead, he wants me to keep babbling "nonsense" so the public can see how silly creation science is. Of course, he didn't deal with the substance of the article, and inadvertently proved me right. Remember, he's an "academic". Not hardly. No, I'm not linking to him and giving him the publicity he wants.

So anyway, if you have a mind to, click on "VFTB 253: Cowboy Bob Sorensen – Dinosaur Blood" to listen online or download for free. There are also several links below regarding new developments in dinosaur soft tissues and evidence for their comparative youth. Also see the video a mite below those links by Mark Armitage, the scientist who lost his job for his work on soft tissues. You can also see an interview with him on "Genesis Week", here.

Friday, June 26, 2015

Evolutionists Should Remain Low-Key About "Loki" Organisms

Advocates of Lokiarchaeota-to-locksmith evolution assume that such evolution is true and backed by observable science. However, they keep searching for missing links to support their conjectures, whether it clinging to the defunct "Lucy" knuckle-walker story, or this instance of Lokiarchaeota as an missing link way back yonder in the single-celled years.

Evoutionary biologists are making grand claims with minimal research about a single-celled organism nicknamed "Loki" as a missing link to our alleged evolutionary past. The "science" is bad, but the storytelling is big.

Lokiarchaeota (nicknamed "Loki") has them all a-twitter. The "science" is dismal, to say the least. Genomic information is seriously lacking, but that doesn't stop some evolutionary biologists from speculating, making assertions, telling comic-book-style stories, and just plain getting excited about finding another alleged missing link. Darwinists assemble! Pay homage to the god Evolution! Puny god. The evidence supports the real God, our Creator.
Single-celled organisms called Lokiarchaeota are making headlines as missing links in our supposed single-celled ancestry. A small fraction of their genes resemble those normally associated with more complex cells. Some claim this discovery clinches the case for archaeans, rather than bacteria, as our closest single-celled ancestor.

“Loki” is short for the genus Lokiarchaeum and its phylum Lokiarchaeota. The organisms were identified in frigid sediment sampled near the mid-Atlantic Ridge, 1½ miles deep in the Arctic Ocean between Greenland and Norway, about 9½ miles from the hydrothermal vent known as Loki’s Castle. Like Loki—a mercurial character from Norse mythology—Lokiarchaeota are difficult to pin down, having never been cultured. The Lokiarchaeum composite genome was pieced together from genetic components of the sparse cells found in the sediment. And like the mythological Loki, they held some surprises.
To read more, click on "Does 'Loki' Show How Humans Evolved from Single-Celled Organisms?

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Circular Reasoning and a British Jurassic Fossil

Evolutionary paleontologists are known for using circular reasoning. They deny this, of course, but take a look-see: The age of an index fossil is determined by the rock layer where it was located. The age of the rock layer is determined by the index fossil. Then they lay out the geologic column according to their long-age belief system and put it in textbooks. Looks good in books, because the geologic column you see there doesn't exist in nature.

A Jurassic sauropod fossil found in Whitby, England raises awkward questions that long-age evolutionists cannot answer. Worse for them, reasoning brings us to the Genesis Flood as the best explanation.
Whitby Lighthouses / PublicDomainPictures / Pixabay
The cliffs at Whitby, England, down by the seashore (where maybe Sally sells seashells) are eroding and giving up some fossils. Most are no big deal, but there was one big deal, a Jurassic fossil. Circular reasoning and dating according to worldviews ensues, and a great time is had by all. However, the real world is not convenient for evolutionists. Instead, erosion rates and fossil yields support not only a young world, but indicate the global catastrophe called the Genesis Flood.
Crumbling seaside cliffs at Whitby in northern England continuously reveal new fossils. Most of them are remains of small plants and animals, but researchers from the University of Manchester described a much larger fossil: a giant vertebra from a sauropod's tail. How long ago was the rare bone buried?

Researchers described the rock formation containing this rare fossil in the online journal PLoS ONE. Sedimentary rocks containing sea creature fossils sandwich the Saltwick Formation, a roughly 80-foot-thick sandstone layer. Enlightenment Era naturalists assigned these rocks to the Jurassic System based on their evolutionary age expectations for certain fossils. The PLoS ONE authors repeated this assignment, writing, "Palynomorph [plant pollen fossil] evidence indicates that the latter formation is Aalenian in age." "Aalenian" refers to an "age" within a middle Jurassic time "Period," but these ages and periods only occur in man-made diagrams. The real rocks show no time stamps.
You can dig up the rest of the article by clicking on "Britain's 'Oldest' Sauropod and a Jurassic World".