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

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Playing the Odds in the Origin of Life

Ever hear of an oddsmaker? It's someone who predicts the outcomes of games, contests, and sets the odds for betting. "Ten dollars on Snorting Sally in the fourth at 8:5". If you go to a casino, spend some time beforehand and look up your odds of winning — usually quite poor. You may do better at poker because you have human competitors and can watch their "tells".

Before evolution, there is allegedly abiogenesis, the origin of life through materialistic means. Don't take the bet, the odds are getting far worse all the time.
Image made at Atom Smasher
Oddsmakers need information to work with, and there's math involved, of course. Many details need to be considered. For something to evolve, there needs to be something to evolve from. When it comes to the origin of life, the information is getting bleaker all the time. It comes down to the cells, and even further, to the genome. The minimum number of cells for an organism to survive needs to be known, which involves sequencing genomes, gene expression, and several other items. It's a losing gamble to even consider that chemical evolution is possible. The smart money is on the certainty that God created life, and he made it for his purposes.
Las Vegas, the lottery, and the origin of life. What do these three things have in common? The house wins. Las Vegas casinos have the odds stacked against you. Many people buy a lottery ticket, but most never win the jackpot (and those that do usually file bankruptcy). The origin of life is so unlikely that every evolutionist ought to consider gambling at the casinos and playing the lottery on a regular basis because those odds are significantly better than a random chance process. Instead of 52 cards or 6 numbers in sequence, the origin of life requires over 100 genes to work. The odds of this happening were recently heralded with the synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome.

Evolution Is Stranger Than Fiction
When Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of the Species, no one knew what the unit of inheritance was. Ironically, genetics, the science that studies inheritance, was founded at approximately the same time that Darwin published his book. Gregor Mendel was an Austrian monk interested in how different traits were passed on from generation to generation.1 With additional scientific advancements since Darwin, our views of inheritance and cells have radically changed. Today’s view of inheritance is based on the genes of an organism, also called its genome. Genome information exploded over the past five years with next-generation sequencing technology. But information doesn’t speak for itself. All scientists are human beings, and we all have a bias that we need to admit. I’m a biblical creationist, but let’s examine what the evolutionist says.
To read the rest, click on "Las Vegas, the Lottery, and the Origin of Life — How Many Genes Are Required to Make a Single-Celled Organism?

 

Sunday, July 24, 2016

Ancient Man and Genius Artifacts

As observed many times, people argue from their presuppositions and worldviews. We keep hearing about how archaic humans showed signs of intelligence and culture, but proponents of atoms-to-anthropologist evolution are continually baffled by this. Worse for them are the many out-of-place artifacts that show great intelligence from ages long past. The reason is that they are using evolutionary presuppositions, man had not evolved intelligence yet, so those artifacts are "out of place" and mysterious. Why do y'all think Chariots of the Gods and other "ancient alien" books were so successful? Man had to be stupid way back when, right? Not hardly!


Ancient "out-of-place" artifacts, even cities, baffle evolutionists because of their presuppositions about stupid primitives. Biblical creationists know that man was created an intelligent being from the beginning.
Antikythera mechanism fragment image credit: Wikimedia Commons CC BY 2.5
I'm using the word artifact a bit loosely. Not only are there ancient computing devices, airplane-like gliders, batteries — and even cities. Biblical creationists should not be astonished that such things exist (aside from marveling at ingenuity), because we know that God created man intelligent from the get-go, not some stupid brute that had to gradually evolve into an intelligent being. When Noah and his family left the Ark after the Flood, they didn't begin at square one. It is possible that they had records of what had been developed before on that huge Ark. Then there's the dispersal of humanity at Babel that motivated these intelligent people to develop civilizations around the world.

Are any of the artifacts pre-Flood? Probably not, since the Genesis Flood was a violent, catastrophic event. I won't say it's impossible that some remarkable antediluvian objects have been found, but I will rule out the ancient cities. For more details, click on "Ancient civilizations and modern man — Were ancient cultures more advanced than many evolutionists believe?" You may also want to see "Why the electric battery was forgotten".

 

Saturday, July 23, 2016

More Deceiving for Darwin — "It's Just a Theory"

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Returning fire with my unregistered assault keyboard. 

The militant atheists that hole up with the hands at the Darwin Ranch (down yonder at Deception Pass) don't quite live up to the "reason" that they claim to support. Logical fallacies abound, and some of their favorites are the ever-present ad hominem, the frequent circular reasoning,  the pernicious red herring (such as "the Ark Encounter money could have been used to feed the poor"), and the ubiquitous straw man argument such as this foolishness from L. Aron "AronRa" Nelson.(Ironically, the guy next to him in this picture advocates the teaching of critical thinking, which creationists have done for years, since critical thinking refutes both atheism and evolution). We'll focus on the straw man, but don't let the horses eat him, the straw is moldy.

A look at a brief anti-creationist article that uses logical fallacies to complain about our alleged logical fallacies. This is followed by comments about a theistic evolutionist's attack. If they want to shut us up, they should at least try to honestly present their disagreements.

Anti-creationists sometimes claim that our best argument against evolution is, "It's just a theory". I'll allow that some underinformed creationists have used that remark, but organizations advise that it is to be avoided by creationists. It's far better to say that evolution has not been proved. 

There's another problem, however, and that's the use of the word theory. Scientists use the word different from us reg'lar folk, they mean that a theory is an explanation of data is well-substantiated. (How many times do you hear someone say, or even do it yourself, "I have a theory about that..."? Not a whole passel of scientific investigation happening on the street.) Evolution does not qualify as a theory, but is at best a conjecture or hypothesis.

A short and unimportant post caught my attention. It was written by someone using the moniker "Logic vs Gods", and the post is useful to those of us who like to study logic. It is called "Creationists’ invalid excuse for rejecting evolution: ‘It’s just a theory’". He asserted using logic, then proceeded to fire off a volley of fallacies. The biggest problem is that he tried to dry gulch creationists by accusing them of straw man fallacies while building his main premise on one of them his own self. I'll give you a few examples, but to see his embedded links, you'll need to visit the article itself.
It’s very easy to understand the reason monotheistic religions reject the theory of evolution. If evolution is accurate, the religions are inaccurate. . . And if evolution is accurate, our worst fears are realized — we are indeed mere mortals. 
The straw man begins with a hasty generalization ("monotheistic religions") and cherry picking. "And if evolution is accurate, our worst fears are realized — we are indeed mere mortals." Does the author know that atheists are way ahead of him on this? That subject should have been left out since it's not developed.
The problem creationists face is that there is a lot of evidence supporting evolution and less than none supporting Noah’s ark/flood. In my experience,creationists do not argue against the evidence specifically and facts individually (or they would lose and have lost historically), rather they straw-man it. . . they almost always revert to what they believe to be their best argument — evolution is ‘just a theory.’
The remark, "...they would lose and have lost historically" included a link to the ridiculous Dover case, which he uses to generalize against all creationists. Yet, creationary scientists have a difficult time getting evolutionary scientists to debate!

He asserts, "...there is a lot of evidence supporting evolution and less than none supporting Noah’s ark/flood". Creation science ministries have tens of thousands of articles on science refuting evolution, science about the global Genesis Flood, the veracity of Noah's Ark, and theology. The claim is fallacious because he makes an unsustainable assertion (but links to a couple of sites in the original to supposedly back up his points, but he clearly did not do his homework). "In my experience"? Well, his alleged experience should not be used to generalize a "fact" about creationists. 

"...they almost always revert to what they believe to be their best argument — evolution is ‘just a theory.’" Well, if my years of experience and been doing intensive creation science for quite a spell count for anything, I've seen few professing creationists use "it's just a theory" as an argument. Has this writer ever encountered any knowledgeable creationists, or investigated any biblical creationist sites?
But what if evolutionary theory did have as much weight as creationists apparently give ‘laws’ in science? Would they accept it?
Absolutely not! And I can prove it easily in one belief — miracles. Here we are in a universe acting perfectly in accordance with the laws of physics. We have no documented example ever in reproducible experiment of these laws being thwarted. But at will and on thousands of occasions, according to the holy texts, God has thwarted these laws of physics (and continues to do so every day). Every miracle, by definition, is a refutation of the laws of physics. 
Oh, please! He appeals to motives, makes another straw man (miracles, similar to another anti-creationist claim that we rely on "GodDidIt"), begs the question, and also commits the category mistake of subjecting the supernatural to materialistic methods. "Every miracle, by definition, is a refutation of the laws of physics." Another unsubstantiated assertion, and a gross disunderstanding of the way God operates. By the way, the fact that the universe follows certain laws is an argument for the existence of the Creator.
So if evolutionary theory did grow up to be a law — which of course it won’t by definition, that would that convince any creationist of it’s validity? No, again it’s just a straw man argument meant to denigrate the mountains of evidence science has discovered about the world.
There he goes again, making a straw man to protest the use of the straw man fallacy (I think this is the author getting a delivery). Plus, a question-begging epithet that creationists won't be convinced if evolution became a law. So what good is his hypothetical remark, other than to used biased language to sway his readers? Then he adds argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) and implies the ad populum (appeal to popularity) fallacy with another bland assertion about "mountains of evidence".

Let's take a gander at something similar.

Unfortunately, there are some professing Christians that elevate current trends in science philosophies above the Word of God. Theistic evolutionists proclaim the glories of Darwinism and put God's name with evolution as if it was a sanctifying bumper sticker. (I believe that TEs are actually Deists because of their disdain for the word of God and the way they treat Bible-believing Christians.) Recently, a TE visited The Question Evolution Project on Facebook and attacked a post about the Ark Encounter. Ironically, it linked to an article I wrote about Ark Encounter and Darwin's Deceivers. For more about Theistic Evolution, see my article beginning with "Waterless Clouds, Wandering Stars".

He used the name "True Creation", and the diatribe was so biased and fallacy-riddled, I didn't see fit to spend my time on it. (Here's a screenshot for those who want to play "Spot the Fallacy". Click to make it larger.) However, I want to address a couple of things. First, it was specifically an attack on Ken Ham. (Ken and I are not best buddies even though he inspired me years ago, and I suspicion that he or a staff member took a dislike to me for some reason, but never mind about that now. I still support his work, along with that of several other biblical creation science ministries.) Like Bill Nye, the writer acted like Ken Ham is the only one promoting biblical creation, the Genesis Flood, and the reality of Noah's Ark.

He also used a straw man argument (as well as prejudicial conjecture) about the number of species in the world today, the number of species on the Ark, and erroneously concluded that evolution is the only answer. In addition, he brought up another falsehood, that "...they want this rubbish taught as a science in science class". Since he specifically maligns Answers In Genesis, I suggest that he round these AiG articles up for his corral: "Should Creation Be Taught in Public Schools?", and about species, a series entitled, "The Origin of Species After the Flood". For some heavy science, "On the Origin of Eukaryotic Species’ Genotypic and Phenotypic Diversity". At least he didn't use the "creationists argue that it's just a theory" stuff.

People have a great deal of faith in evolution, and hate creationists. But it would be helpful if they actually bothered to tell the truth about us, and to learn some critical thinking skills. We have both the truth of Scripture and the facts of science on our side.


Friday, July 22, 2016

Diamonds from the Basement

Most of us have ideas about diamonds, how they're valuable, look mighty fine, the hardest substance on Earth, made of highly-organized carbon, have industrial uses, and are even useful in superconductors. (Maybe the lethal satellite in Diamonds Are Forever isn't so far-fetched?) The ones you see in jewellery stores or up for auction are specially cut and polished, rough (or "raw) diamonds look quite a bit different, and don't fetch quite a high price. Secular geologists assign dates of somewhere around a billion years old, but since radiocarbon exists in them, they are actually thousands of years old. They're also a bit of a mystery.

So where do they come from?

Diamonds formed with Earth's basement rocks, and somehow made the long journey upward without breaking down. The Genesis Flood provides the right conditions and scenario.
Image credit: Pixabay / Aenigmatis-3D
Diamond deposits (and, naturally, diamond mines) are not everywhere on the planet. Also, they're unstable. They had to form way down yonder with Earth's basement rocks, and made the journey to the surface without breaking down into graphite. Creationary scientists have models involving the Genesis Flood that can bring diamonds from way down there up to where they can be reached without breaking down.
The clue to the origin of diamonds is their location. Diamond deposits are found in only a few isolated locations around the world. Historically, diamonds have been found and mined in southern and central Africa, where some 49% of diamonds originate. However, today large deposits are found in specific regions of Siberia, Canada, Australia, and Brazil.

The common denominator is unique areas of particular rock types known geologically as the “cratons.”1 Cratons consist of the foundational basement rocks of the continents, before they broke apart during the Flood and were covered by fossil-bearing sedimentary layers. These basement rocks were likely formed back in the Creation Week.

Diamonds apparently formed at the roots of these cratons. Why do we think this?

One clue is the radioisotope markers in the diamonds that match those of the basement rocks. (Based on occasional minute inclusions within them, diamonds are claimed to be 1–3.2 billion years old.2 While these secular dates are wrong, the relative radioisotope dating is helpful, indicating that diamonds were formed earlier than the Flood deposits.)

Another clue is that these craton roots are in the diamond stability zone.
You can read the article in its entirety by clicking on "Dazzling Diamonds by Special Delivery". 

 

Thursday, July 21, 2016

The Origin of Inspiration

Where does inspiration come from? Secular scientists have tried to deal with metaphysical questions based on their materialistic philosophies (such as free will, ethics, and so on) as if such things were a physical part of the brain. Not much success. Searching for naturalistic origins of imagination, inspiration, and so on are not exactly in their areas of expertise.


Materialistic evolutionary philosophies cannot account for imagination, creativity, and inspiration. Those are gifts of God.
Image credit: Freeimages / Keith Syvinski
There are different kinds of inspiration that people get, such as music, poetry, prose, the desire to get something accomplished, communicating a message, architecture, and so on. People have different motives, too, whether it's to impress others, problem solving, to give glory to God, and other possibilities. But getting an inspiration and using imagination involves knowledge as well. The design of life, the universe, and everything testifies to the brilliance of our Creator. So, how do we come into this? Ain't no way such things could have evolved, they are gifts from God.
The implications of the non-material inspiration and imagination of a design process are, arguably, a neglected area for theoretical science, though experimental scientists themselves exercise a similar process. This paper will by necessity examine only some aspects of inspirational and imaginative design, the sources for it and possible implications, due to the complex and subjective nature of human thought. Also to be explored is why designers’ thought processes are hard to quantify due to the irreducibly complex role of creativity-intelligence in design outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to explore the design process: creativity and in particular inspiration ‘leaps’ compared to imagination ‘steps’ in design. The existence of inspirational capacity poses a challenge to explanations regarding the origins of life that do not include a Creator. In the present observable world mere analogy does not explain why it is that designers who take inspiration from nature are seen as inventive and why, conversely, acts of inventive creation open new ways to understand the natural world.
I hope this inspires you to read the rest, just click on "The role of inspiration and imagination in design". You may also want to read about the "Golden Ratio".

 

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Science is a Beastly Business

It's one thing to learn about someone else by walking a mile in his moccasins, it's quite another to work at becoming an animal. A couple of scientists decided to get tax dollar grant money, live and eat like animals, and then writing books based on their "research". (Seems a bit nuts to me.) But they, or anyone else, cannot deny what they are created to be with mere assertion.


Scientists get wild by living like animals, then writing books. What do you expect from people who believe that we are just another animal? Your tax dollars at work!
Nebuchadnezzar by William Blake, 1795
Nebuchadnezzar, a king of the Babylonian Empire, lived the beast life in a much more impressive way — but not by choice, and not in a pretentious attempt at doing scientific research. Ultimately, he gave glory to God. These book-writing owlhoots had no intent at glorifying God. Such "research" is just plain silly, but fitting because secularists believe that humans are just another animal in common-ancestor evolutionism.
The AAAS endorses two books where researchers act like animals.

Thomas Nagel famously pondered what it would be like to be a bat, but he never jumped out of a belfry. In Science Magazine, published by the AAAS, Carolyn A. Ristau gave good reviews to two books by men who seem to have bats in their belfry. They took out into the wild to act like animals. Ristau begins by pointing to Darwin. His book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals began a tradition of turning people into beasts.
To read about these two wild books, click on "Scientists Become Beasts". 

 

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Modern Genetics Supporting Bible History

As we know, or should know by now, scientists do not go around collecting data and then seek to organize it. Instead, they have ideas and presuppositions; a "let's see what this does" approach can be helpful. Would a particles-to-pathologist evolutionist see if information supports the Bible? Not too often these days, old son.

Creation scientists have to do the work that secular scientists will ignore. In this case, DNA evidence supports what the Bible says, humanity is descended from the wives of Noah's sons.
Schematic representation of the human mitochondrial genome
Image credit: openi.nlm.nih.gov CC BY-NC 3.0 (use does not imply endorsement of site contents
A creation scientist saddled up and rode the Genetic Trail and had some very interesting findings. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) data were downloaded from all major people groups, ran software, did other calculations — and demonstrated that ancestry can be traced back to the wives of Noah's sons! This supports the young Earth view of biblical creationists, and causes some consternation for evolutionists.
When research biologist Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson plotted hundreds of human mitchondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences onto a tree diagram, the project revealed an obvious pattern: The mtDNA stemmed from three central “trunks” or nodes instead of just one. Three trends in Jeanson’s data suggest that the wives of Noah’s sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth best explain this finding.

Mothers pass mtDNA to every new generation. It comes from the mother’s egg cell and contains 16,569 chemical base pairs—either adenine-thymine or guanine-cytosine—organized to encode vital information, like words in an instruction manual. Sometimes a DNA copying error, known as a mutation, leaves a different base in place of the original. Several empirical studies reveal that about one human mtDNA mutation occurs every six generations. When a mother’s egg cell mtDNA mutates in one place, the child conceived from that egg cell—plus, if the child is female, later descendants—inherits that difference. This leaves a genetic trail that can lead back to mtDNA ancestry.
You can read the rest of this short article by clicking on "DNA Trends Confirm Noah's Family". For people who want more technical material (it sure is beyond my ken), you can visit "On the Origin of Human Mitochondrial DNA Differences, New Generation Time Data Both Suggest a Unified Young-Earth Creation Model and Challenge the Evolutionary Out-of-Africa Model"

 

Labels