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

Saturday, July 4, 2015

Faking the Fossil Whales — Revisited

Back on May 6, 2014, I posted about "Faking the Fossil Whales". The subject was that Dr. Carl Werner documented altered whale fossils that were sold to museums, and the admission was made in a video. Naturally, this generated heat from some owlhoots who were protecting their religion of evolutionism. After all, whale evolution is supposedly well documented — if you call storytelling from bits and pieces "documentation". I was attacked, Dr. Werner and radio show host Bob Enyart were impugned as well; it's a mite irritating to be called a liar by liars in the course of their lying.

Whale evolution stories are in further trouble. Not only is the evidence against them, but faking fossils only hurts the cause of evolutionism.
Rodhocetus skull at University of Michigan Museum of Natural History / Wikimedia Commons / ellenm1
Some tinhorn came out of the gate with libelous accusations, and claimed that he had corresponded with Phil Gingerich, one of the people Dr. Werner interviewed on his video. Gingerich allegedly wrote in part, "I have been criticized for speculating that Rodhocetus may have had a fluked tail when I didn't have the whole tail, but this was clearly identified as speculation or expectation and not known fact. Subsequent discovery of Maiacetus shows definitively that Maiacetus lacked a tail fluke and contemporary whales like Rodhocetus at this early stage probably lacked a tail fluke too." So it's all a misunderstanding? I reckon not! If Gingerich was misrepresented in a video, he's had over a year to take action and set the record straight. More interesting to me is that this jasper used an image of photographer Jonathan Daniel Pryce for his profile photo. We're defamed by someone using a fake profile picture, and hearsay "evidence". Ain't buyin' it, Benjie. Dr. Werner wrote to me and said that the videos are so straightforward, it's hard to misrepresent those guys. Interesting how some sidewinders will go haywire, taking the word of some stranger because what he says fit their presuppositions, instead of dealing with the documented evidence in front of them. But Darwin's Drones do that kind of stuff.

Now for the best part: the saga continues! Same show, four parts to the interview. Whale evolution speculation is in serious trouble with increasing evidence against it and with tampering. You can listen to or download each episode free (listed below, under the graphic), but don't forget to check the abundance of whale-evolution-refuting material as well. Yippie ky yay, secularists! Declare your independence today from the tyranny of evolutionism, get your freedom by accepting the truth that the Creator has given in his Word!

Dr. Carl Werner, Bob Enyart, Whale Fossils, evolution, Real Science Radio


Friday, July 3, 2015

Building Blocks of Life by Design

Differences between organisms are assumed to be a product of evolution, Common building blocks of life do not provide enough information to account for the differences. The big picture is *between* the genes.

Arguing from their worldviews, Darwinists see similarities between organisms and believe that it indicates particles-to-pathologist evolution. Biblical creationists take a more reasonable approach from their own worldview, seeing similarities indicates common design by the Creator. Changes in the building blocks of life through mutations are supposed to add information. This does not work, since it has not been observed, and cannot be observed because it takes allegedly millions of years to happen. Also, regulatory DNA is a small part of the big picture, a fact that is hostile to evolution. No, the big picture is in a rather surprising place.
The work of our wise common Designer is evident even between our genes.

Every time a baby is conceived, his or her genetic blueprint is put to work orchestrating construction of his or her human body. Yet geneticists have found that primate animals share many of the twenty to thirty thousand protein-coding genes in the human genome. From almost the same genetic building blocks, very different results are achieved! But is that the result of evolution, or God’s design?

Believing these shared genes are the result of shared evolutionary ancestry, Adam Siepel and his team of computational biologists at Cornell University report they can analyze how natural selection reworked the genome of the ancestral ape-like animal that humans and chimps supposedly shared 4–6 million years ago to produce us.
To read the rest, click on "Looking Between Genes Reveals Differences by Design, Not Evolutionary Descent".

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). 

Addendum: Four podcasts that are worth your attention. First, Chris Rosebrough at "Fighting for the Faith" discusses the ruling, persecution, and what he calls "coercive legislation". The segment begins at the 7-1/2 mark, click on "Decide to Make Today a Landmark Day?". Two full podcasts from "Stand Up for the Truth": "Same sex marriage: where do Christians go from here?" and "Losing relationships over biblical truth". Finally, at "Noise of Thunder Radio", Chris Pinto has the podcast, "SCOTUS Decision on Gay 'Marriage'"

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.