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. בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.

Sunday, April 20, 2014

What Does the Resurrection of Jesus Have To Do With Creation?

Someone may ask why creation science ministries discuss theology and the historical fact of the bodily Resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Biblical creationists take Genesis very seriously, as it is the foundation for all major Christian doctrines. Jesus is God the Creator, the second person of the Trinity, who became a man. He suffered on the cross for our sins, reconciling those who receive him to God, rose from the dead and defeated death. Jesus is "the last Adam", not, "the latest in a chain of evolutionary processes". Jesus and the apostles referred to Genesis as literal history, not as allegorical or fictional. Biblical creationists would like to plead our case to other Christians and show them why Genesis matters.

Rembrandt, "Resurrection of Christ", 1639
Below is a short video discussing "The Resurrection and Genesis", and here is a link to the article under discussion, which has a great deal of useful information that could not be covered in this video. I wish you a blessed Easter in celebrating the Resurrection of Jesus!

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Is Easter a Pagan Holiday, and Should Christians Celebrate It?

This is written primarily for Christians, although unbelievers may be interested in the historical and cultural material. 

It is interesting that some mockers will ridicule Christians by saying, "You celebrate Easter! That's a pagan holiday!" The joke is on them because they are simply parroting bad information that conflicts with scholarly research.

Unfortunately, some Christians also believe this pagan origins stuff; there are even modern Christian sources (such as Got Question.org) that pass along erroneous information. It is sad when some Christians will use the same bad sources as misotheists in their efforts to scold other Christians for celebrating Easter. Ignorance of actual history is bad enough, but looking down on brethren in Christ out of pride and out of disdain for the Bible that they claim to believe is far worse. Even if the claims that the origin of the word "Easter" and the celebration time were of pagan origins were true, that does not excuse their trampling of Scriptures and having judgmental attitudes (see Romans 14.5-13).

As we shall see, saying "Happy Easter" is not evil, nor is it promoting a mostly-forgotten Mesopotamian goddess. Substituting the phrase "Resurrection Sunday" because you detest the word Easter is a wrong motive. However, I am not happy with the word Easter because of the connotations involving pastel eggs, Peter Cottontail and sickly-sweet marshmallow candies. I prefer using the word "Resurrection" so people can know where I stand. But I won't tell others that they must use that term or forbid them from referring to Easter.

"But we're not commanded to celebrate Easter. Or Christmas!"

So? We do a lot of things we're not commanded to do. Nor are we commanded not to celebrate. Again, see Romans 14.5-13.

Thanks for hearing me out. Now, for some articles that I think are fascinating as well as useful.
If you want support for that first excellent article and to go a bit further, here you go:
I hope you have a great celebration (or non celebration) as you choose, without judging others. And that you now know the facts.

Friday, April 18, 2014

They Say Jesus Walks the Dark Hills

Here is a song that has always resonated with me. Although the song is not specifically for Good Friday, the video that was made is appropriate for the day. The song is "The Dark Hills" by Day of Fire. God the Son, the Creator, humbled himself and became a man. He died on the cross and bodily rose from the dead on the third day out of love for my sinful self. And for you, if you will repent and receive the free gift of salvation. Sunday's coming!

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Animal Rights Extremism Is Another Symptom of an Evolutionary Worldview

In an article called "Radical Environmentalism and the War on Humans", it was pointed out that environmentalism has some good elements that are based on compassion and what should be common sense. The extremist view is dangerous; I do not say that lightly, since some people advocate exterminating millions, or billions of people because Earth is more important than humans to some of them. 

One aspect of this is "animal rights". This, too, is based on compassion and what should be common sense. Indeed, standing against animal cruelty is in line with biblical values. However, the extremists want to give animals the status of "personhood". (Hypocritically, an unborn human child is not a person to them and has the moral equivalent of lettuce.) This is based on evolutionary thinking. Creationists point out that people are made in God's image, and are special. Evolutionists degrade humans because of their evolutionary mindset. (Will this kind of bigoted, hateful thinking lead to violence at some point?) While it may be easy to laugh off some of the "Give Bonzo sorta legal rights" movement as nonsense, it is actually growing. And they use "science" as validation.
Lawsuits on behalf of captive chimpanzees in America could be a turning point in how the judiciary adjudicates on animal rights. 
A group known as the Nonhuman Rights Project filed lawsuits on behalf of the chimps claiming they were ‘nonhuman animals’ that had a right to live free from confinement and not be regarded as property but as ‘legal persons’.
You can read the rest of the article on this rather disturbing trend at "Activist challenges judges to redefine chimpanzees’ legal status".

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Eyes for Details

Human eyes are a marvel of the Designer's ingenuity, even if Richard Dawkins and other atheopaths (who know nothing about ophthalmology) claim that it is "bad design" — which has been thoroughly refuted. Darwin said that the evolution of the eye by natural selection was "absurd", but because of his worldview, he chose to believe that it evolved anyway. Not only the design of the eyes themselves, but the brain has to be able to process the images so we can function.
"Jesus had compassion and touched their eyes. And immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed Him.” Just as quickly as He made the first human eyes out of dust, Jesus the Creator fixed two men’s broken vision systems as only a Master Biotechnician could. Today, new inner-eye wonders are regularly uncovered, exposing the eye’s miraculous origin. 
One critical vitamin-like eye molecule bears the chemistry-friendly name “11-cis-retinal.” When this molecule is embedded in its partner protein, energy from an absorbed photon straightens its bend at the 11th carbon atom to complete vision’s first step. This altered shape initiates other factors that amplify the visual signal inside the eye cell. Yet, slightly different versions of the retinal molecule—those built to bend at the 9th, 10th, or any other carbon atom—demonstrate little or no optic activity. The Lord placed each atomic bond precisely where it needed to be.
You can use your wonderfully-designed eyes to finish reading "Miracle Eyes".

Monday, April 14, 2014

For the Love of Scientism

People are enamored with science. It is understandable, because scientists have given us fascinating glimpses deep into the universe, improved lifespans, advanced our technology and much more. Unfortunately, it goes beyond appreciation for the achievements of scientists. There seems to be a cult-like following of scientists.

Source: U.S. Navy

They are put on a pedestal and made into an all-knowing elite group. (Some people recognize this and joke, "Scientists have discovered that people will believe anything when you say 'scientists have discovered that. . . '") This has been happening for a long time. In fact, "science" is spoken of as if it was a living being; watch for the reification when people say, "Science says". It is "scientism", where people are practically worshiping science and scientists. Sorry, but scientists are people and science is not an entity.

Scientists speak of historical science (using what exists in the present to try and determine what happened in the past), exceeding the limits of their knowledge and making metaphysical pronouncements with certainties. People accept this, and attack skeptics of the science used to support evolution, an ancient universe and more as indulging in "denial of reality". However, evolutionists accept such "science", rejecting evidence against evolution and a young universe from their own pride, arrogance and blind faith. One might even say that it is fantasy dressed up as science if one was so inclined.
God has given us a clear history in the biblical account.  Genesis Chapter 1, from a straightforward reading, describes the history of the planet Earth, the solar system and the whole universe starting not much more than 6000 years ago. This is based on the genealogies, the historical records of father and son, found written in chapters 5 and 11. Add these up and eventually you get to a point in history that is well-known and then you have an estimate of the time that has passed since creation. This exercise will only result in a history of about 6000 years.

Deep time

Then why is this so hard for many people to accept? The answer does not really lie with science. It is because most people believe anything they are told if it comes with the stamp of approval of science. This is actually scientism not science. It is a belief system, a worldview; a worldview that man’s knowledge through science has all the answers or that science ultimately will find all the answers.
You would do well to read and consider the rest of "Why is a 6000-year-old universe so hard to believe?".

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Mythical Critters and Scoffers

An interesting and timely question prompted this article. Earlier, I wrote again about how facts alone can be incomplete. Giving information and evidence is good, but addressing worldviews and presuppositions are very important, and can give a more complete answer to a question or challenge.

To briefly recap, everyone has a worldview based on presuppositions (things they assume to be true). When presented with evidence, we naturally use our worldviews to interpret it. When someone has an anti-Bible bias, he or she can easily reject evidence supporting the Bible (and especially biblical creation science).

Cockatrice drawing by Oliver Herford, 1912 at Reusable Art
Here is the question that I was given this morning (writing this the day before I publish it) at The Question Evolution Project on Facebook:

If you can't make out the picture, he said, "Hey again. Question for you. In Isaiah when it mentions cocktracies and satyrs what do you think it is referring too. Probably not two legged dragons and goat men."

Well, this question made me work, it wasn't a quick answer that I could look up and crank out.

When looking these things up, I saw that there are several anti-theist sites that were taking ancient words like unicorn, cockatrice and satyr and putting more modern conceptions on those words. They had the assumption that not only was the Bible worthless, but worthy of mockery. Posts with the tone of, "You gotta believe in satyrs, unicorns and cockatrices because the Bible sez so, haw haw haw!" are plentiful. If they had bothered to do some research instead of indulging in prejudicial conjecture, they would not have been making such foolish utterances.

One thing that should embarrass these people is that in 1860, Samuel Wilberforce wrote a review of Darwin's Origin of Species. In this, he quoted Henry More's remarks, "And of a truth, vile epicurism and sensuality will make the soul of man so degenerate and blind, that he will not only be content to slide into brutish immorality, but please himself in this very opinion that he is a real brute already, an ape, satyr, or baboon..." To be consistent, these Christophobes should be mocking other authors who used some of these words, yes?

Unlike the unicorn, a real animal with a drastically different meaning now (basically, it's a sort of extinct rhinoceros), the cockatrice is totally mythical. Cockatrice appears in the King James version, and the original word is translated correctly in modern Bible versions. Translators did not quite understand the word that was in the original manuscripts.

Similarly, the word "dragon" appears in the King James version more often than in other translations. It is usually rendered as "snake", "cobra", "adder" and so on, except in places like Revelation where dragon means Satan. If you want a biblical creationist view of dragons as dinosaurs (and remember, "dragon" was a known word, and "dinosaur" had not been coined until Richard Owen came up with it in 1842), you can read "Dragons — Fact or Fable?" and the additional information linked on that page.

The satyr (and this is being published on Satyrday...oh, that was bad...) is a bit more difficult to deal with. Again, this is found in older Bible versions. (The KJV copied from the Geneva Bible, and the 1611 KJV and Geneva are extremely similar because the Geneva was used by the KJV translators.) Modern translations and commentaries differ on the meaning of "satyr". Some use "hairy beast", others refer to a kind of desert demon that neighbors of the Jews believed in. Because of demonic and goat-like associations with the word, "satyr" may actually give a good representation of the demonic worship. Just like when God said not to bother with idols who are not gods, who do not walk, speak or anything but were still evil, I think this is meaning not to fear or deal with the demons that other people around them would worship. Anyway, the original word seems uncertain, and the desert demon interpretation may be the most reasonable.

Again, it is not just a matter of evidence, but of worldviews and presuppositions. If someone has an irrational worldview like materialism or evolutionism, and especially when it is dominated by negative emotions rather than reason, he or she is prone to giving ridicule and making excuses rather than accepting the evidence. The atheist worldview is incoherent, lacking the necessary preconditions of human experience. Only biblical Christianity can do this, and can make proper sense of the evidence.

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen