Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Friday, December 30, 2011

Evidences for a Young Earth

Even though it is statistically for complex things to happen without design (such as a single DNA molecule forming), evolutionists maintain that if there is enough time, evolution can happen. This is absurd unless you are an orthodox fundamentalist evolutionist, desperate to maintain the faith in spite of contrary evidence. Dr. D. Russell Humphries has written an introductory article on the age of the Earth.
Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages.

Spiral galaxy
Spiral galaxy NGC 1232 in constellation Eridanus (photo courtesy of European Southern Observatory).  
Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the Biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the Biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation. 
 Read the rest of Evidence for a Young World here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Ascent of Love

One of my contentions with evolutionists is that to accept the alleged "fact" of evolution, I have to suspend too much disbelief. It makes sense to me that laws and facts tend to work in the same manner on a regular, predictable basis. Yet, when examining the diversity of nature, I see everything "evolving" differently. This sounds like intricate design rather than utilitarian adaptation and mutation. Another example is this scent of love scenario:
Love is calling in the temperate forests of Australasia. An exotic perfume (called a pheromone) floats in the air, sending an irresistible message to the males of just one species of insect—the Fungus Gnat—that a female Fungus Gnat is nearby and desires a mate. A male gnat answering the call finds that the amorous female appears to be located within the flower of a Greenhood Orchid.
When a male gnat lands on a protruding part of the flower called the irritable lip or labellum, the lip, which is hinged, suddenly snaps shut, imprisoning the gnat within the flower. Is the gnat about to become the orchid’s breakfast? No, the Greenhood Orchid has a much more sophisticated use for the gnat.
Read more about "The Love Trap" here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, December 26, 2011

Still More Doubts about the "Big Bang"


It keeps amazing me that fundamentalist evolutionists and Big Bang adherents cling to their faith in the theories despite scientific evidence against their validity. It takes creationists and Intelligent Design proponents to take news in the physics and astronomy journals to thoroughly discuss these flaws, but scientists should be discussing them instead of giving a "by the way" mention to the latest observation.

A gamma-ray burst passed through two far-distant galaxies on its way to earth, illuminating them like a cosmic backlight and shedding new light on models of the origin and structure of the universe. Images from the event stunned some astronomers, because they show that the chemical makeup of these apparently young galaxies is far too mature to fit with the Big Bang theory.

"These galaxies have more heavy elements than have ever been seen in a galaxy so early in the evolution of the Universe. We didn't expect the Universe to be so mature, so chemically evolved, so early on," said German researcher Sandra Savaglio, lead author of a related paper slated to appear in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.
Read the rest of "Distant Galaxies Look Too Mature for Big Bang", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, December 23, 2011

The Rebellion Continues

It infuriates atheists when other atheists become Christians. (Watch for the "no true atheist" fallacy, where the person was not really an atheist because of conversion.) Similarly, evolutionists become angry when someone is going to be intellectually honest and realize that the evidence points to Something Higher. Perhaps they do not come to faith in Jesus Christ right away, or at all, but they do abandon the ranks of "Evolution did it!" Then, they are attacked, ostracized, ignored, bad-mouthed or whatever it takes to neutralize the effect of losing a qualified scientist to the Intelligent Design (or, gasp, creationist) community. Especially since evolutionists have to protect their interests against the fact that the numbers of defectors is increasing.
Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini are arrving late to the Darwin doubting party, but are welcome attendees none the less. Below are some welcoming remarks from leading scientific voices in the intelligent design community.
We just received a review copy of "What Darwin Got Wrong", the new book attacking Darwinian evolution by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, two thorougly materalistic scientists. Why does that matter? Because typically materialists have been the most ardent defenders of Darwin's theory of natural selection. With the publication of this book, that is likely to change.
Read more about these members of the Darwin-doubting party in "What Darwin Got Wrong: Intelligent Design Proponents Welcome Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini to the Growing Ranks of Darwin's Critics", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Whale of a Good Story

It is difficult for me to decide what puzzles me most: The gullibility of the people who accept pronouncements of  evolutionary scientists as if they were ex cathedra, or scientists who make up ridiculous excuses to explain away flaws in their theories. Perhaps the worse problem is that people are unable to think things through for themselves, while the rest of us will look at their "explanations" and say, "What?"

To sing the praises of evolutionary cosmology astronomers are looking for planets outside the solar system. After all, since life supposedly evolved on Earth, it must have evolved elsewhere, yes? Mind you, we have speculations, guesswork, "scientists think", "maybe", "perhaps" and other deep technological terms that you and I cannot hope to understand from the wisdom of evolutionists.

For instance, "We've crossed a threshold: For the first time, we've been able to detect planets smaller than the Earth around another star," lead researcher Fran├žois Fressin of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass., told SPACE.com. "We proved that Earth-size planets exist around other stars like the sun, and most importantly, we proved that humanity is able to detect them. It's the beginning of an era." Get excited much?

But keep going. How do they know about the planets?

"To discover the new planets, Fressin and his colleagues used NASA's Kepler space telescope, which noticed the tiny dips in the parent star's brightness when the planets passed in front of it, blocking some of its light (this is called the transit method). The researchers then used ground-based observatories to confirm that the planets actually exist by measuring minute wobbles in the star's position caused by gravitational tugs from its planets." [1]

OK, so nobody has actually seen other planets, they simply infer. And yet, we get "artists conceptions" of the planets in question. All this excitement over tendentious evidence about the existence of other planets, and especially since evolutionists are encouraged that someday, life will be found elsewhere in the universe; life that evolved there as it did here. If I had known that wishful thinking was a prerequisite for being a scientist, I would have followed through and become one long ago.

A mind-boggling excuse from evolutionists comes from more wishful thinking. In this case, wishing for valid explanations. Fossil graveyards have been found at the tops of mountains, and marine creatures were found there as well. The "explanation"? They call it "uplift", where the mountains rise over millions of years. And yet, it cannot be replicated, repeated or even documented. Just inferred into preconceptions. If they bothered to examine a worldwide flood and the implications, scientists would realize that this is a far better explanation. Go ahead, do the research. Follow where the evidence leads.

Here is an article about one such mysterious fossil bed:
Researchers from the USA and Chile reported, in November 2011, a remarkable bone bed on the west coast of northern Chile near the port city of Caldera, about 700 kilometres (440 miles) north of the capital, Santiago. Excavations uncovered the remains of some 80 baleen whales of which more than 20 specimens were complete (figure 1). They also found other kinds of marine mammals including an extinct dolphin with tusks and a sperm whale.

The previous year, construction workers upgrading the Pan-American Highway discovered the fossil site in a road cut just north of Caldera. Since then, teams of scientists led by palaeontologist Nick Pyenson from the Smithsonian Institute and Mario Suarez from the nearby Museo Paleontologico de Caldera have been working to excavate the fossils while the road works were temporarily suspended.
Read the rest of "80 whales buried mysteriously in Chilean desert", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, December 17, 2011

I Found Your Car, Cowboy Bob!

Great! How did you know it was my car?

Click for larger image


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, December 16, 2011

The Human Eye - More Evidence for Design


Two molecules in the retina—vitamin A and a protein named "opsin" that together make "rhodopsin"—capture single light photons. When light strikes the vitamin, it changes shape and becomes the molecule "11-cis-retinal." This in turn changes the rhodopsin's shape. When light activates enough of these molecular switches within the light-sensitive cell, they cause downstream biochemical systems to amplify and send the signal from the retina, through the optic nerve, and to the brain. This complex photochemical reaction is at the heart of what allows eyes to detect light and send signals that the brain can form into meaningful images.
When light strikes vitamin A, the molecule bends at the 11th carbon bond. In other versions, or "isomers," of this chemical, the bend could occur at the 9th, 10th, or 13th carbon atoms. Curious to find out why vertebrate and squid eyes use 11-cis-retinal instead of another isomer, researchers tested the various isomers for light receptivity. They constructed digital molecular models and "analyzed the structure, stability, energetics, and spectroscopy to try to find out what makes 11-cis-retinal nature's preferred isomer," according to a report by PhysOrg.
But did nature really "prefer" this particular vitamin, and did it integrate the vitamin with opsin in order to generate an electrical impulse from light?
Read "Perfect Molecule for Vision Shows Eyes Were Designed" in its entirely here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Uniformitarianism and Confusion - Part 2

The following article is the second part of "Untangling Uniformitarianism", by Dr. John K. Reed (Ph.D., geology). He is the principal engineer at the Westinghouse Savannah River Company. Part 1 is linked here.
Uniformitarian geology has opposed biblical history for over two centuries. Most creationist critiques focus on contrary empirical evidence, but this series pursues a logical and axiomatic critique of the “four-definition” formulation of uniformitarianism. Three of these facets—stasis, gradualism, and generic uniformity—fail to support the concept. The remaining “uniformity of process,” also called actualism, seems on the surface to work well, but can be addressed by seeking justification of its use as an axiom of natural history. Actualism rests on uniformity, and uniformity in turn on causal continuity. These concepts can be evaluated relative to the worldviews of Christianity and Naturalism by the truth test of coherence. Naturalism fails that test, but Christianity passes because causal continuity is coherent with—and only with—Christianity’s God. As a theological issue, uniformity and actualism are best understood as physical expressions of divine providence. Since providence is distinct from God’s acts of creation, actualism is irrelevant to that part of the rock record and its relevance to the Flood depends on the nature of divine action during that event.
Read the rest of "Untangling Uniformitarianism, Level II: Actualism in Crisis" here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, December 9, 2011

Origin of the Universe - Scientists Do Not Know

Hubble deep field/NASA
Evolutionists are in disagreement about when, where, how and especially why evolution allegedly happened. (God forbid that they discuss "who".) Taking the problems further back in time, cosmologists are pretty well clueless about the origin and evolution of the universe as well. The deeper we see into space, the more galaxies that we find. And that throws off the presumed age of the universe. Let's face it, we have piles of "theories" based on other theories, wishful thinking and guesswork.
Perhaps no realm of inquiry is as fraught with fantastic speculation as the origin of the universe. Theories of how it could have come about naturally have regularly been proposed and discarded as new evidence surfaces. Ongoing studies seem to have merely widened the gap in understanding how it began—or even how it currently works. 
For example, astronomers have observed that the earth has hundreds of parameters fine-tuned for life. This "anthropic principle" most reasonably implies that a wise Creator deliberately created them for this purpose. In order to avoid this inference, so-called string theorists invoked the idea of a "multiverse." They speculated that an infinite number of universes exists, one of which contains the life-friendly earth. However, real science shows only this one universe. 
Some researchers have attempted to explain that life—the evolution of which would directly oppose the laws of nature—came about through various scenarios that would be right at home in the realm of science fiction. One researcher, in true comic book fashion, entertained the idea that heavy radiation bombardment on a distant planet jumpstarted life. But science clearly shows that radiation kills!
You can read the rest of "Scientists Don't Know How Universe Works, Started" here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Creationist Scientists and Journal Publication

Many anti-creatonists claim that creationists do not have peer review, do not publish in journals, and are not even scientists. Those lies are put down.Many anti-creatonists embarrass themselves by making statements that show not only their ignorance, but their extreme biases and lack of honesty. One claim is that "creationists are not scientists", which is easily eliminated [1, 2]. Another false claim is that creationists are not "peer reviewed" [3]. It makes absolutely no sense to submit evidence disproving evolution to a group of biased evolutionists! Would an evolutionist submit a paper attempting to disprove creation to creationist scientists? What an amusing concept. The fact is, however, that creationists do have peer review [4].

The main item that I wish to present to you today discusses the insulting, libelous  claim of some owlhoots that "creationists do not contribute to science, nor do they publish". Although it is not a recent publication, the following article still manages to put down the lie.
In his book The Monkey Business (1982) paleontologist Niles Eldredge wrote that no author who published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly ‘has contributed a single article to any reputable scientific journal’ (p.83). Apparently Eldredge couldn't be bothered to glance at the Science Citation Index or any other major science bibliographic source. 
Developmental biologist Willem J. Ouweneel, a Dutch creationist and CRSQ contributor, published a classic and widely cited paper on developmental anomalies in fruit flies (‘Developmental genetics of homoeosis’, Advances in Genetics, 16:179–248, 1976). Herpetologist Wayne Frair, a frequent CRSQ contributor, publishes his work on turtle systematics and serology in such journals as Journal of Herpetology, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Science, and Herpetologica
In their study of creationist publishing practices (‘The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation “Science”’, Quarterly Review of Biology 60:21–30, 1985), Eugenie Scott and Henry Cole surveyed the editors of 68 journals for the period from 1980–1983, looking for creationist submissions. Out of an estimated 135,000 submitted papers, Scott and Cole found only 18 that could be described ‘as advocating scientific creationism’ (p.26).
You can continue to learn the truth by reading the rest of "Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals?" here. Also, see Dr. D. Russell Humpreys' response to a question. You can search further yourselves, but these make the point quite well.
 

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Book Review: What Is Truth?




"Despite the fact that our modern mass media makes it appear that atheism and secularism are on the rise in the world, in fact the opposite is true. Despite the fact that our media constantly insists that Darwinian Evolution has been proven to be true, in fact the scientific evidence against it is growing by the day. Despite the fact that our media continually highlights the idea that the Bible is an outmoded book full of myths and fairy tales, in fact historical and archaeological research is revealing that the Biblical manuscripts are exactingly accurate in every detail."
Title: What Is Truth?

Subtitle: "A Handbook for Separating Fact from Fiction in a Propaganda-Filled World"
Author: Kirk Hastings


This is not a typical book review situation. In fact, I am unaccustomed to writing book reviews at all. In an e-mail discussion with Kirk Hastings, he informed me that he had a book that was pertinent to our discussions. (It turns out that Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict had been important to each of us in our understanding of the reliability of the Bible.) When I told him I would read his book, he asked me to review it as well. Sure, why not? So, I placed my order at Amazon and got started. (That should tell you I did not get paid for doing this.)

The first thing I noticed is that this book is an easy read. It is 172 pages, followed by end notes, a glossary and a section of recommended reading. Also, the text size was large enough to please me. Another reason it is an easy read is that the author does not act like certain authors by attempting to impress you with sesquipedalian erudition; he talks to you. Yes, he has quite a bit of "book learning", and he refers to his source material, but without pomposity or making your brain hurt.


Like many people, Kirk Hastings did not have a working knowledge of Christian truth in his younger years. His mother was a believer and his father was not, and church-going was not allowed. He had no significant spiritual influence in his life, and "religion" was a foreign concept to him that did not merit much thought. When his mother contracted terminal cancer when she was only forty six, he prayed to God to heal her, but to no avail. He was emotionally devastated, and assumed that God must not exist. "After all, if he existed he would have heard my prayer and at least made some attempt to help me. But he didn't. So, he must not be real" (p.7).


Several years later when he was twenty four, a waitress started asking him questions about his view of the Bible and Jesus Christ. This led to her inviting him to a Bible study. His preconceptions of the way "religious" people looked and acted were shattered. Kirk was invited to lunch the next day with the study leader. After lunch, he started with the usual "How do you know?" questions. And he received answers. Real ones, not the "you just have to believe" nonsense that he was expecting to be told.


Shortly after this, he became a Christian. "Since that day (during the early summer of 1976), I have continued to diligently study the world's religions and the Bible, and to seek solid, rational answers to the hard questions of life" (p.11). What Is Truth? is the result.

There are some things in this book that I would have changed. But, he didn't ask me! (Why should he?) I would have been a nuisance, interrupting his work and saying, "What about this? You can add that! Here's the other thing!" and made the book excessively long. Readers should be thankful that he did not know me yet.


The book begins with a very basic lesson in the nature of logic. From there, he discusses the two main theories on the origin of life. This goes through cosmology, the two basic kinds of evolution, what is found in the fossil record, problems with Darwinian evolution, indications from microbiology, discussing if concept of Intelligent Design is scientific, and then the philosophical nature of evolution.

From there, the book evolved (heh!) into evidences for the reliability of the Bible, the historical facts about Jesus Christ and about non-Biblical religions.


At this point, Mr. Hastings begins to bring up some strong points about propaganda in modern society. (I have a small quibble with him that he only referenced Nazi propaganda techniques, and thought it would have been even stronger if he had included some information on Soviet-era propaganda, and the propaganda techniques of certain American political parties.) Movie makers were less inclined to offer entertainment, and were increasingly interested in using their medium as a means of presenting their messages. One notable example of this was the horrendous rewrite of the events of the Scopes "Monkey" Trial; "Inherit the Wind" had almost no truth in it, but the movie (and play) colored the perceptions of the public about people who believe the Bible over "science" that linger today. The final chapter contains further discussion about propaganda today.


There are a few minor flaws in the book, some wording and typographical errors, but I suspect that Publish America did not use editors very well.  

I recommend What Is Truth? as an introduction to the issues and questions mentioned above. Kirk Hastings recommends many other books for people who want to do further research. Also, Kirk does not preach at you. He simply tells you about his questions, the answers he found and the reasons he has for his beliefs. Most importantly, to me, is that he encourages the readers to think for themselves. It is not all that difficult to think objectively and examine the facts if people are willing to follow where the evidence leads.

What Is Truth? would be a good gift for someone (including to yourself) that wants a springboard for examining the deeper issues of life. Kirk can be heard on the radio show and podcasts from Evidence4Faith with Keith Kendrix.


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, December 2, 2011

Evolution, Chromosomes and Telling Stories

Image from Wikipedia

Evolutionists can be excellent storytellers. For example, Dr. Ken Miller, a biology professor from Brown University who testified against Intelligent Design (ID) at the Dover trial, tells an engaging story that he claims is compelling evidence for evolution. The problem is that because of his naturalistic assumptions, he himself is unable to distinguish fact from fiction, science from conjecture.

Background

Humans normally have 46 chromosomes. However, sometimes two chromosomes will fuse together to form one big chromosome. Centric fusions are where two acrocentric chromosomes (chromosomes with the centromere very close to one end) fuse to make a large metacentric chromosome (one with the centromere near the middle). It is estimated that around 1/1000 people carry this type of chromosomal rearrangement. While they are sometimes associated with problems such as infertility or serious chromosomal aberrations in the offspring, often they are asymptomatic. This is because all of the necessary information is there in the proper amount; it is just packaged differently.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Evolution and the Creation of Tyrants


Over and over, atheists and evolutionists claim that most of the greatest mass murderers in history, who happened to be atheists, were not motivated by their atheistic worldviews. This is clearly false. Evolution has been embraced by tyrants; Hitler used eugenics to accelerate the natural process of evolution. Communist leaders were anti-Christian, anti-Jew, anti-religion. Darwinism is a dangerous philosophy.
Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) endorsed a program in Germany to breed a superior race. The scheme was based on a horrific evolutionary theory called “eugenics” that was founded by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. The idea of eugenics was to improve the human race using principles promoted in the theory of evolution.
The idea was simple: partition the human race into two groups, the “fit” and the “unfit.” Eugenics seemed to be a way to make sure the “fit” had children and the “unfit” did not. In Germany, the leaders of the eugenics movement got monstrous laws enacted that allowed sterilization of people regarded as “unfit,” and restriction of immigrants who were supposedly “biologically inferior.” (The United States and other countries enacted similar laws, but the Nazis took it to the extreme when Jews, blacks, and others were ruthlessly murdered to prop up the theory.)

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, November 28, 2011

Misrepresentation of Creation by Evolutionists

Answers in Genesis
It happens all the time: Evolutionists hit creationists with complete nonsense about what we believe. I think it is for two reasons: They do not bother to check their facts and actually get information about creationists from the creationists themselves, and also because they are being misled by bad propaganda. Here is a hint to evolutionists: If you want to discuss creationism, do not tell us what we believe. You can ask, and you can learn our side of the story from us, not from evolutionary disinformation tanks that are more interested in appealing to emotion than in the true scientific attitude of learning the truth.

Appealing to public emotions is a tool employed by politicians, media, and anyone trying to win supporters for a specific agenda. Naturally, such efforts can skew or omit facts, as is often the case in mainstream presentations of the ongoing battle between evolution and creation science. A recent Discovery News feature provides a telling example of this particular ploy.
Published online July 11, the feature is titled "Evolution Controversies: A History in Photos" and includes photographs from the Scopes "Monkey" trial of 1925, a cartoon of British naturalist Charles Darwin with the body of an ape, and a photograph of an exhibit in the Institute for Creation Research's former Museum of Creation and Earth History in Santee, California. Of the ten photographs, two portray what the author says are claims used by creationists as "scientific proof of young Earth creationism": the dinosaur footprints in Glen Rose, Texas, and a petroglyph in Utah that resembles a dinosaur.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, November 25, 2011

Noah's Ark Discovery Controversy


Many evolutionists do not do their homework when it comes to creationism and Intelligent Design. I have had several people presuming to tell me what I believe, as well as proclaiming what creation science and Intelligent Design advocates teach. However, they embarrass themselves with their uninformed presuppositions. One of the presuppositions is that "believers" are extremely credulous and unscientific in our views. Here is an example to demonstrate that the opposite is true.

It seems that every few years, someone claims to have discovered Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat. The location is obscure and very difficult to find, and verification has been pretty well nonexistent. Another expedition excitedly claimed that they had found Noah's Ark, and wanted creationist support.
On April 25, 2010, a press conference was held in Hong Kong to announce to the world the potential discovery of the remains of Noah’s Ark on Mt. Ararat in Turkey by a joint Chinese–Turkish team of explorers. Both before and after this press conference, representatives of the discovery team had cautiously been seeking to make contact with sympathetic scientists whose positive support they hoped to enlist.

A Skype Conference Call

Consequently, on April 20, 2010, I participated in a Skype conference call (early morning in northern Kentucky, USA) with several Chinese members of the discovery team (late evening for them in Hong Kong). During that conference call I was shown video footage of the team’s exploration on Mt. Ararat, footage that was subsequently released at the press conference. Photos of a wooden structure purportedly buried on Mt. Ararat, and of the inside of it, were also provided.

As a scientist I am always cautious and somewhat skeptical of bold and spectacular claims, especially when made in defense of the Bible, yet as a Bible-believing Christian the thought of this wooden structure being the remains of the Ark was tantalizing. Friends in Hong Kong who helped arrange this confidential conference call were equally cautious but excited. We were all looking for the unequivocal evidence that would convince us that this was indeed the remains of the long-sought-after Ark. Such a discovery would be another powerful witness to the truth and authority of God’s Word.
Read this scientist's conclusion about the samples of wood, C-14 dating and whether or not he would support the claims of the expedition in "Is the Wood Recently Found on Mt. Ararat from the Ark?", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Cut Down the Fake "Tree of Life"

CreationWiki (modified)
You know that "tree of life" thing that is in all the school textbooks? You know, it shows everything branching out, tracing back to the alleged "common ancestor"? Darwin's tree of life was wrong. Well, some of us knew it all along, but evolutionists are finally admitting it. Oh, but getting the word to the textbook publishers? We'll see. It will probably be misleading information in textbooks for decades yet.
Charles Darwin drew his first "evolutionary tree" in his "B" notebook in 1837, with the words "I think" scrawled above it, to illustrate his idea that all of today's species arose from a single common ancestor. This concept lies at the heart of evolutionary thinking, and the tree-like images that often accompany its instruction have been effective indoctrination tools. 
However, if today's creatures evolved from some other creature millions or billions of years ago, then the Bible's history must be abandoned. This is because Scripture does not leave any room for eons of time. Where and why would one add "millions of years" to an account that consists of tight chronologies that lead back to a creation week in which "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth" (Exodus 20:11)? Second, Scripture consistently refers to living creatures as belonging to basic "kinds" or forms (Genesis 1:21, 24-25), not as having descended from totally different kinds. Either evolutionary history is correct, or biblical history is. There is no middle ground.
Read the rest of "Darwin's Withering Tree of Life" here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, November 21, 2011

Putting that Miller-Urey Experiment to Rest

The more we learn about the complexities of genetics, amino acids, the cell itself, mutations and so many other things, the more we can see that evolution is an empty, unscientific philosophy that should have been discarded years ago. For example, people still insist that the long-discredited Miller-Urey experiment regarding the "primordial Earth" is proof of chemical evolution. What did they really get from this experiment?

Image modified from Yassine Mrabet  /Wikimedia Commons
First, cheating pays off in "science", because they started with amino acids, broke them down, and then got amino acids again. Second, it shows that intelligence, not chance, made things happen (such as the "cold trap" trick). Third, that a bad experiment (a spark does not equal a lightning bolt, get real) can yield "results" if they fit preconceptions.


Even worse for evolutionists, this faulty experiment manages to argue against abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is the theory that under the proper conditions life can arise spontaneously from non-living molecules. One of the most widely cited studies used to support this conclusion is the famous Miller–Urey experiment. Surveys of textbooks find that the Miller–Urey study is the major (or only) research cited to prove abiogenesis. Although widely heralded for decades by the popular press as ‘proving’ that life originated on the early earth entirely under natural conditions, we now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for the opposite conclusion. It is now recognized that this set of experiments has done more to show that abiogenesis on Earth is not possible than to indicate how it could be possible. This paper reviews some of the many problems with this research, which attempted to demonstrate a feasible method of abiogenesis on the early earth.
You can read the rest of "Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis" here.
 

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, November 18, 2011

Evolutionary Biology: Exercise in Futility

The old "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" mantra is not only worn out, but absurd from the beginning. Using evolution as a prerequisite for understanding biology (and all of science, for that matter) is actually detrimental. Here, I'll let Dr. Sarfati explain in his reply to a letter.
I read with some interest the text and annotation of your debate with Dr Mark Farmer. While I could raise many points, I will confine myself to the passage quoted below:
‘Has the evolutionary paradigm been the great benefit to mankind that is claimed? MF quoted Dobzhansky as saying how important it is to biology. However, Dr Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School states: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” (quoted in the Boston Globe 23 October 2005). For the Philip Skell quote cited by CW, see Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology.’
Here you have lifted a quote (I suspect to engage in a little bit of ‘arguing from authority’)
You can read the rest of the letter and replies here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Redshifts, Big Bang, Quasar and Evolution

On 8 April 2010, Marcus Chown writes in an article entitled “Time waits for no quasar—even though it should” for New Scientist online “Why do distant galaxies seem to age at the same rate as those closer to us when big bang theory predicts that time should appear to slow down at greater distances from Earth? No one can yet answer this new question [emphasis added] … .”
Background photo by NASA
Quasar
Halton Arp cites many examples of quasars found aligned within ± 20 degrees of the minor axis of the active nucleus of a galaxy. The minor axis is perpendicular to the plane of rotation of the galaxy. They are often seen within a few arcminutes of a parent galaxy, in pairs, on opposite sides as though they were ejected from the active nucleus. Their redshifts are large compared to the parent but they have a higher probability than the background average of being near the putative parent. This suggests physical association and that their redshifts are intrinsic, of an unknown orgin, but not cosmological nor due to Doppler motion.
He says no one can answer this question. But this question has already been answered before it was even asked. To understand this we need some background. Quasars are assumed to be supermassive black holes with the mass of a galaxy that are the early progenitors of the mature galaxies we see around us today. They nearly all have extremely large redshifts and the big bang community believes that these redshifts are nearly entirely due to cosmological expansion. Therefore it follows that these massive objects are extremely bright and are being observed at some stage only several billion years after the big bang. Hence it also follows from Einstein’s general theory that the greater the redshift the greater the effect of the distortion of time on the quasar. That is, local clocks on quasars at the greatest redshifts should run slower than local clocks on quasars closer to us.
Read the rest of "Quasars again defy a big bang explanation" here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, November 14, 2011

Mutations are Bad News for Evolution

In the same way that species are not static, neither are genomes. They change over time; sometimes randomly, sometimes in preplanned pathways, and sometimes according to instruction from pre-existing algorithms. Irrespective of the source, we tend to call these changes ‘mutations’. Many evolutionists use the existence of mutation as evidence for long-term evolution, but the examples they cite fall far short of the requirements of their theory. Many creationists claim that mutations are not able to produce new information. Confusion about definitions abounds, including arguments about what constitutes a mutation and the definition of ‘biological information’. Evolution requires the existence of a process for the invention of new information from scratch. Yet, in a genome operating in at least four dimensions and packed with meta-information, potential changes are strongly proscribed. Can mutations produce new information? Yes, depending on what you mean by ‘new’ and ‘information’. Can they account for the evolution of all life on Earth? No!
Read the rest of "Can mutations create new information?" here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, November 11, 2011

In Defense of Science

Science is one of my favorite subjects. I really looked forward to it in school. Technology is something I like as well. It's really great finding out about the intricacies of how things are made, how they function and so on.

I am baffled by some things. One is that evolution is considered "science", as if it is foundational for an astrophysicist, physician, molecular biologist or whatever to be thoroughly indoctrinated in evolutionary "facts" to be able to perform their various disciplines. I thought those were all sciences in and of themselves.

Another item I find baffling is that the "science" of evolution must be protected. I thought that an essential component in science is the quest for knowledge. To attain knowledge, facts and observations must be compared and analyzed. This cannot be done if facts and evidence contrary to evolutionism are ignored, rejected out of hand and even suppressed. Brits are guarding evolutionary indoctrination with such passion that they are attempting to outlaw the teaching of creation and Intelligent Design. These arrogant people are attempting to impose their views in the United States, and helped draft a petition for the White House to do the same thing. Are they still trying to hide their deep, dark secrets? Addendum: Creation evidences are banned from UK religious education classes.

This is not in the spirit of true scientific inquiry. Rather, it is brainwashing.

Evolutionists have many assumptions and bold assertions about the importance of evolution that are motivating to the gullible and to those saturated with presuppositions. To the rest of us, such propaganda is rather startling. And we still wonder why they feel the need to protect evolutionism so vehemently.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

That Flighty Archaeopteryx


When I was giving creation science presentations, I mentioned that Archaeopteryx was not a transitional form, but rather, a true bird. I was surprised that some die-hard types refused to relinquish their claim that Archie is a "transitional form". Now he keep flying back into the news. The latest news: He's still just a bird. A strange one with odd features, but still just a bird.
The fossilized bird known as Archaeopteryx has had quite a history of identity crises. Researchers once classified it as a "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds. It was considered to be an ancient bird, then changed to a dinosaur, and now it's supposed to be a bird again. So, what is it? 
Nature News reported in July that an analysis of fossil traits "suggests that Archaeopteryx is not a bird at all," but instead more closely resembled dinosaurs. ICR News responded at the time that because "it had core features that define birds, such as flight feathers, wings, perching feet, and a wishbone… Archaeopteryx is still just an extinct bird." 
Textbooks and museums still teach that Archaeopteryx is an evolutionary transition from reptiles. But even if its classification waffles again, it is disqualified as an evolutionary ancestor for birds by the fact that scientists found a crow-size bird and extinct four-winged birds in rock layers designated to be below those containing Archaeopteryx.
You can read the rest of "Archaeopteryx Is a Bird. . . Again" here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, November 7, 2011

Sediments, Bioturbation and Uniformitarianism

Here is another example of uniformitarian presuppositions being proven wrong, this time in the deep blue sea.
The bioturbation of sediments by trace makers is often perceived by naturalists as a process requiring extensive periods of time. Little experimental work has been conducted to either support or refute such a concept. However, recent laboratory analysis indicates that the bioturbation of marine sediments can occur within short periods of time.

Bioturbation experiments

Marine worms, bivalves (clams), arthropods (shrimp and crabs), and echinoderms (sea urchins and brittle stars) are just some of the many animals that live on or in marine sediments (figures 1 and 2). The study of traces created in sediment is identified as ichnology (Gk ichnos = trace). 
Recently, an investigation was conducted to determine the rate that select bivalves, arthropods, and echinoderms could bioturbate marine sediments. The animals were collected from tidal flats and shallow subtidal sediments from the Ogeechee estuary, Georgia (U.S.A). They were placed into glass aquaria filled with alternating layers of sand and heavy minerals with each layer being approximately 5 to 10 mm thick.2 Examination of the rate of bioturbation occurred at 1, 6, 24, 72 and 144 hour intervals by collecting X-ray images of the aquaria sidewalls.2

Experiment results

The results of the study indicate that:
You can read the rest of "Sediment bioturbation experiments and the actual rock record" here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, November 4, 2011

Evolutionists Persist in Presenting Bad Information

How can anyone justify science "education" when it is based in the presupposition that evolution is a "fact", evidence contrary to evolution is ignored or even suppressed, evolutionary "science" is to be protected, and the textbooks contain outdated and outright wrong material? (Even the terribly outdated and misused Miller-Urey experiment is still being cited!) Bad textbooks are preferred over materials that require critical thinking. Evidence for evolution is cherry-picked. That is not science, Skippy, that is indoctrination.
According to a study released today by the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, bogus embryo drawings, long-debunked claims about tonsils, and outdated information from a 1950s lab experiment highlight the glaring bloopers found in proposed science instructional materials currently being considered by the Texas State Board of Education.
"Retro-science must be in, because the proposed materials are filled with outdated scientific claims," said Casey Luskin, a policy and education analyst with Discovery Institute. "It's truly amazing how much discredited information keeps getting recycled year after year."
In order to satisfy state educational standards set in 2009 (TEKS), the Board of Education asked publishers to submit supplementary instructional materials that would enable students to "analyze and evaluate" core aspects of evolutionary theory, and to "examin[e] all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking." But according to the 70-page Discovery Institute study, only one set of instructional materials out of the 10 evaluated managed to comply with the TEKS as well as avoid glaring scientific errors.
Top science bloopers in the proposed instructional materials include:
Read the rest of "Glaring Bloopers Found in Proposed Texas Science Curricular Materials" here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Legal Hypocrisy from the Darwinists

Do you ever watch "The People's Court" or similar television programs? (They are popular on American television, airing during business hours on weekdays. People have the small claims court cases settled before television judges who tend to be quirky or even abusive.) Afterward, the parties of the case talk to the interviewer. The winner says, "Yes, I am happy with the decision. The judge is intelligent and justice was served". Well, of course! "Justice was served" because things went your way. Naturally, the loser of the case tends to disagree with the decision.

There is a problem when court cases are settled and then misquoted. One fellow kept badgering me, insisting, "How many more times must the courts rule that ID isn't science before it sinks in?" (His claim was based on a ruling about a school district in Dover.) And yet, when I point out how the high courts have ruled that atheism and secular humanism are religions, I'm either called a liar or told that what the courts say do not matter. Several times I have tried to point out this double standard, of wanting it both ways, to no avail.

Although I may sound like the people that lose their cases, I must say that some truths cannot be settled by a court ruling. Even if a high court did rule that "ID is not science", that would not make it true. Such a ruling would be out of their jurisdiction, so to speak. I would be asking questions if such a ruling were handed down, such as:
  • How were "science" and "religion" defined?
  • What exactly did they rule?
  • What is the context, what are the circumstances?
  • Does anyone else think this is ridiculous?
  • What is the court's reputation for objectivity?

The US Ninth Circus Circuit Court is famous for being astonishingly leftist and for having the most cases overturned by the US Supreme Court. Conservative values, Judeo-Christian values, traditional family values, creationism, Intelligent Design — all suffer when brought before this court. Here is an example of their fair and balanced treatment of Intelligent Design:
The Ninth Circuit's recent refusal to rule on the merits of a case where a student alleged his teacher was disparaging creationist religious beliefs isn't the first time it has denied Darwin-skeptics their day in court. In the past here on ENV, we've written about how the Ninth Circuit dismissed the Caldwell v. Caldwell lawsuit for lack of standing.

In the Caldwell case, Jeanne Caldwell, a parent of public school students in Roseville, California, filed suit against the director of UC Berkeley's Museum of Paleontology, who oversaw the production of a website for teachers called "Understanding Evolution." Caldwell's complaint alleged that the website "advocat[es] that teachers use public school science classrooms to proselytize minor students to adopt the government's preferred religious beliefs and doctrines regarding evolutionary theory."
The Understanding Evolution website was funded with a $500,000+ government-sponsored National Science Foundation grant awarded to UC Berkeley staff, with various National Center for Science Education staff members helping to develop the site. The website states that it is a "misconception" to believe "[e]volution and religion are incompatible" or that "one always has to choose between [evolution] and religion." Clearly preferring religious sects that accept evolution, the site asserts that "[m]ost Christian and Jewish religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution." The Caldwell complaint also lists the example that "the 'Misconceptions' web page includes a cartoon depicting a scientist shaking hands with a religious pastor holding a Bible with a cross on it, intended to convey the message that there is no conflict between religious beliefs and the theory of evolution."

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, October 28, 2011

Decay of Mercury's Magnetic Field Supports Creation

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys used the creation model and embarrassed evolutionists by accurately predicting the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune. His prediction for the magnetic field of Mercury was also correct.
Planets, including the earth, generate magnetic fields that encompass the space around them. Observations have shown that, like earth's, the planet Mercury's magnetic field is rapidly breaking down, and NASA's Messenger spacecraft confirmed that again earlier this year. 
If the planets in the solar system are billions of years old, why do these magnetic fields still exist? 
In 1974 and 1975, the Mariner 10 spacecraft measured Mercury's magnetic field strength with its onboard magnetometer and sent the data to earth. The astronomers analyzing the data at the time found that the average field strength was 4.8 x 1022 gauss cm3, which "is about 1% that of the Earth."
A decade later, creation physicist D. Russell Humphreys published a magnetic field model based on clues from the Bible. He reasoned that earth and the planets all shared a watery beginning, in accord with Genesis 1 and 2 Peter 3:5. He calculated what the magnetic field strength would have been at the creation by using a mass of aligned water molecules equal to the masses of each planet.
Read the rest of "Mercury's Fading Magnetic Field Fits Creation Model" here.


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Unexpected Activity on the Planet Mercury

Mercury is supposed to be a dead rock orbiting the sun. There should not be any activity there, no surface features forming, no outgassing of volatile materials, right? Well...
NASA's Messenger spacecraft mission to Mercury has given scientists the opportunity to learn more about the properties of the solar system's innermost planet. After supposedly billions of years since its formation, the planet should be dead, or geologically inactive. New data from Messenger, however, show that Mercury remains active and is still generating surface features. 
Before the Messenger data acquisition, astronomers observed that the sunny side of Mercury is hot enough to melt lead, and like other rocky objects in the solar system, many craters pockmark the planet's surface. In early 2011, Messenger carefully maneuvered into orbit and took photographs with unprecedented detail. 
Images of the planet's surface revealed unusual, irregularly shaped hollows or depressions with rounded edges that were comprised of material so bright that many showed "high reflectance halos." Researchers hadn't expected to find such highly reflective features, which "appear fresh and lack superposed impact craters, implying that they are relatively young," according to the report published in Science.
 Read the rest of "Mercury's Surface Looks Young" here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, October 24, 2011

Darwinism and the Law


Your worldview (philosophy of life) influences your perceptions, beliefs and actions. That should be a "given". Darwinism has influenced many areas of society and culture, including our perceptions of the law.
How one defines law depends greatly on what one believes. The definition of law varies from culture to culture, religion to religion, and from philosophy to philosophy. It is important therefore to consider how different worldviews affect the way people think about law. Darwin’s theory of evolution is said to have generated a materialistic worldview that has had a significant impact on Western conceptions of law. Under the direct influence of Darwinism a profound transformation of legal studies took place in the nineteenth century. It is the main purpose of this article to reveal some of the philosophical implications of Darwinism and to explore how this particular worldview affected the general perception of law in Western societies. In so doing, this article focuses on legal theory and cultural conceptions of law, rather than on specific laws and rules.
Click here for the rest of "Evolutionary legal theories—the impact of Darwinism on western conceptions of law".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, October 21, 2011

Astronomy and Conjuring

It is commonplace, and even expected, for evolutionists to hide behind their lack of knowledge with "Science of the Gaps" (where maybe someday, "science" will find the answer, but we'll just keep on believing anyway), or the explanations that contain words like "maybe", "perhaps", "scientists think", "scientists speculate", "it could be" &c.

solarsystem.nasa.gov
However, it is more difficult to accept the use of a more complex explanation known by scientists as "making stuff up". When it comes to astronomy, the sky's the limit (heh!).
It has always been impossibly difficult for astronomers to realistically explain how galaxies, stars, and planets might have formed through natural processes. To prop up their naturalistic theories, they will sometimes invent unobserved structures, such as the Oort cloud for comets.
More recently, astronomers conjured an unknown massive planet that was supposedly responsible for placing Uranus and Neptune in their unique paths around the sun. However, the fictional planet is still a woefully insufficient cause for today's planetary orbits. 
The extra planet was proposed because cosmologists have had a miserable time trying to model the evolution of the solar system's four gas giant planets from a huge, unorganized dust disc. The recent modeling effort, partly funded by the National Science Foundation, defined a "successful" attempt very loosely.
You can finish reading "Mythical Planet Doesn't Solve Orbit Origins" here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Evolution, a Pseudoscience

That's right, you heard it! Evolution is a pseudoscience.

"How can you say that, Cowboy Bob?"

Take a look-see: "Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it."[1] 


Made at Hetemeel.com
Another definition says, "Science is a way of understanding the world, not a mountain of facts. Before anyone can truly understand scientific information, they must know how science works. Science does not prove anything absolutely — all scientific ideas are open to revision in the light of new evidence. The process of science, therefore, involves making educated guesses (hypotheses) that are then rigorously and repeatedly tested."[2] Nice escape hatch to say that "science does not prove anything absolutely", huh? That can be brought into play when discussing flaws in evolution and when someone insists that evolution is a "fact"!

Evolution does not fit the real definitions of science. It cannot be tested, repeated, observed, measured or falsified. It is a belief system about the past, attempting to use science to support conclusions. Surprisingly to some Christians, creation science is the same in that regard, but with better science. Fundamentalist evolutionists sure do have a great deal of faith.
The Skeptic’s Dictionary contains an entry on ‘pseudoscience’ that includes ten characteristic fallacies of pseudoscientific theories. The list’s compiler clearly did not have evolution in mind, as the very first group the article identifies as pseudoscientific is ‘creationists’. Ironically, evolution has almost every characteristic on this list. Let’s look at how evolution exhibits the fallacies listed by these self-proclaimed skeptics, with just one example of each.
Let's find out about those ten characteristic fallacies of pseudoscientific theories, shall we? To read the rest of "Is Evolution Pseudoscience?", click here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels