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

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Being Skeptical Part 1

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Here is a revision of an article that I did as a guest post back in April of 2011.
It may come as a shock to some people, but the propaganda is untrue: Christians are not gullible by default. We can be as gullible as the next person — including you. Oh, don't give me that! You've been "had" before, we all know it.

I've been tricked by certain e-mails, especially when they say something that I want to hear, or if it's presented very well. Most of the time (I want to believe), I'm careful. Healthy skepticism is a good thing.

Occasionally, I have been sent the "atheist professor and the chalk that wouldn't break" gag. I would look it up on urban legends sites and reply to the sender, "Hey, Horatio, you've been had". Or how about the bit where young Einstein told off an atheist teacher when he was a child? (There's even a video dramatization of this hoax. It contains some good discussion points in there, but the thing itself did not happen.) I was fooled by a series of quotes by Thomas Jefferson that I posted. In my defense, most of the thing was true, and I was taken in by the fake bit at the end. It's gone now.

I was raised in a Christian home. My father was a United Methodist pastor. That means it was liberal theology. He wasn't as far gone as UMC are now, but I didn't get solid spiritual instruction. Just pretty good raising (when he was not busy with pastor stuff). When I was fifteen, I went to a Christian school for the last three years for graduation. But this school was run by Fundamentalists. To say that I was challenged is an understatement. And I was rebellious. Not only because I was mid-teens, but from the spiritual culture shock.

I was skeptical.

They would say things, and I would want to know, "Where did you get that? Where does it say that in the Bible?" At that time, I started checking things out for myself. My father let me use his prized Bible (which I regret not being able to keep, especially now that he's dead), which had notes and a concordance. Oh, and the cross-references were helpful, too.

Although I was learning, I was still suspicious and skeptical. Not about God, but of what they were teaching me. For the record, I did not seriously investigate evolution and learn that it is full of misinformation, disinformation, outdated science, bad science and outright fraud until much later.

Somewhere around this time, I started to wonder, "This stuff has its basis in the Bible. How do I know I can trust the Bible itself? Somehow (sorry, it's been about thirty five years, my memory of the time is fuzzy, gimme a break), I went to a presentation by Josh McDowell over a few evenings. One of the talks was called "The Seven Point Whammy" as to why Christianity is intellectually feasible (I wonder if this is the same version, here). It was my first exposure to apologetics. I got the cassette and went back for more talks and tapes.

Also, I purchased books during my high school years. Things like More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell, and other things. One was his Evidence That Demands a Verdict. It was not so much a reading book as a compilation of references and resources. You see, McDowell was tired of those annoying Christians on his college campus, and set out to disprove Christianity point by point. Now he's a leading apologist for the faith, as is his son.

Anyway, it came to a point that I confessed Jesus as Lord, and the Bible is his Word. I realized that I could not save myself, this was no time for pride and ego.

Being skeptical is useful and healthy. It is irrational and obsessive when someone will claim to be seeking answers, and then reject, reject, reject, rationalize, rationalize, rationalize, excuse, excuse, excuse. To constantly reject all evidence is not healthy skepticism. Instead, it is foolishness and pride. Neurotic, even. 

Are you afraid of being another McDowell? He's not the only one that seriously examined the validity of the Bible and the Christian faith and became converted. Not by a long shot.

God has indeed made himself known to us (Romans 1.18-22) if we will honestly examine the evidence. He's waiting to talk to you (Isaiah 1.18).

At any rate, I did not come to faith blindly. God gave us our minds to use. Faith in the God, the Bible, the Creation, the resurrection of Jesus are rational.
This article is continued here.

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

Monday, August 29, 2011

Evolution is Not Science

Some evolutionists have argued that science isn’t possible without evolution. They teach that science and technology actually require the principles of molecules-to-man evolution in order to work. They claim that those who hold to a biblical creation worldview are in danger of not being able to understand science! 
Critical thinkers will realize that these kinds of arguments are quite ironic because evolution is actually contrary to the principles of science. That is, if evolution were true, the concept of science would not make sense. Science actually requires a biblical creation framework in order to be possible. Here’s why:
To find out why, read the rest of  "Evolution: The Anti-Science" here.

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

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Students Should Question Evolutionary Dogma

Students have a right to question “evolutionary pseudo-science” and “evolutionary dogma,” according to the “Question Evolution” campaign and should be encouraged to do so, says Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition.
The coalition is offering  brochures, caps and t-shirts announcing kids’ opposition to Charles Darwin and the theories of evolution.
Read the rest of "Students encouraged to challenge 'evolutionary dogma'" here. Also, see the related video here

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

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Listening to Excuses

Evolutionist: "Blah, blah, excuse, same old, same old, ad hominem, blah, blah, Straw Man, same old, same old, blah, blah, excuse, Fallacy of Declaration, blah, blah, fraud as proof, blah, blah, blah..."


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

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Follow Where the Evidence Leads: Human/Ape "Ancestry"

Human/ape common ancestry has been a subject much discussed recently. A friend wrote me asking for links dealing with human/ape common ancestry. While there are numerous good articles that have talked about this issue from an intelligent design (ID) friendly perspective, I tried to provide him with some helpful links and information.

As a preliminary point, it's important to note that human/ape common ancestry is compatible with ID. Nonetheless, ID proponents are interested in taking a scientific approach to these questions, and the evidence suggests that even modest changes requiring two or more mutations before conferring any adaptive benefit could not arise via Darwinian evolution under any reasonable timescale involving human/ape common ancestry. As a result, questions about human/ape common ancestry should be on the table for people who really want to follow the evidence where it leads.
If you really believe in scientific inquiry and not your presuppositions, read the rest of "Human-Ape Common Ancestry: Following Where the Evidence Leads" here.

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

Monday, August 22, 2011

Wooden You Know It?

Forest Sosnowica Poland by Sylwia Mazurek/PD

Wood has long provided mankind with construction material, fuel, enjoyable scenery, and shade. One of the most abundant biological products in the world, wood consists of the thickened cell wall deposits that provide support for branches and stems in trees and woody plants. Scientists recently described the oldest known example as "a simple type of wood," but just how "simple" is this material?
The study published in Science looked at fossilized wood found in rocks that are supposedly 10 million years older than the prior record-holder. The discovery of this substance in "Early Devonian plants was unexpected," the researchers wrote, presumably because wood is such a complicated biomolecule that it should have evolved later, not earlier.
Read the rest of "Earliest Fossil Shows Wood Could Not Evolve", Elroy. 

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

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Life from Outer Space

In 28 September 1969, fragments of a meteorite landed 2 kilometres south of the small village of Murchison, Victoria, Australia. Local residents collected about 100 kg of material, and the largest fragment was about 7 kg.

Xanthine (Photo: Wikipedia)

The Murchison fragments came from a class of meteorite called carbonaceous chondrites, because they contain small nodules called chondrules. Since this class is rich in carbon and water, right from the beginning the Murchison meteorite has been analysed for organic molecules. Chemical evolutionists, who have faith that life evolved from non-living chemicals, were hoping to find evidence to support their faith. They had hoped that this meteorite would provide evidence that such processes were widespread in the universe, even if some of them were pessimistic that life could arise on earth.
One of the first discoveries was amino acids, the components of proteins. Later, there were dubious claims that some of the amino acids had a slight excess of the ‘handedness’ (chirality) required for life, as we have reported. Still later, there were claims that sugars and sugar-related compounds were discovered, which excited many because the backbones of DNA and RNA contain the sugars deoxyribose and ribose respectively. But see our report on why this offers no support for chemical evolution.
Read the rest of "Nucleic acid bases in Murchison meteorite?" here.

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

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Kuiper: Have Another Belt of Fantasy

I was having a discussion the other day about the age of the earth, the age of the solar system &c. We were amazed at how evidences for a young earth and young solar system are ignored and ridiculed by evolutionists and religious compromisers. And we had a good laugh at the Tooth Fairy mentality of resorting to the imaginary Oort Cloud as an "explanation" for the problem that comets would have been exhausted long ago in an old universe. Then we looked up the Kuiper Belt...
Evolutionary astronomers, who assume the solar system is billions of years old, must propose a ‘source’ that will supply new comets as old ones are destroyed. The Kuiper Belt is one such proposed source for short-period comets (comets that take less than 200 years to orbit the sun). The Kuiper belt is a hypothetical massive flattened disc of billions of icy planetesimals supposedly left over from the formation of the solar system...
These planetesimals are assumed to exist in (roughly) circular orbits in the outer regions of the solar system—beyond Neptune (extending from 30 AU out to around 100 AU). It is thought that these objects are occasionally disturbed by gravitational interactions and are sent hurtling into the inner solar system to become short-period comets. In this fashion, new comets supposedly are injected into the inner solar system as old ones are depleted.
You can click here to read "Kuiper Belt Objects: Solution to Short-Period Comets?" in its entirety, Evelyn.

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

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Do Comets Indicate the Age of the Solar System?

Kohoutek 1974 (NASA)

The existence of comets has long been used as an argument for a recent creation (probably the best treatment so far is that of Slusher). The case is usually made as follows. The standard model of a comet is one in which all of the material observed is released by an icy nucleus only a few kilometres across. This model strongly suggests that comets are very fragile, losing much of their material during each close pass to the Sun. Most comets follow orbits that take them vast distances from the Sun. If a comet’s orbit takes it too far from the Sun, then the comet could easily be captured by the gravitational attraction of other stars and thus would be lost to the Solar System. This places a maximum distance from the Sun that a comet may orbit. If this maximum distance can be estimated, Kepler's third law of planetary motion can be used to deduce the greatest possible orbital period that a comet may possess (about 11 million years). When combined with an estimate of how many trips around the Sun that a comet can survive, we can estimate the maximum age of comets. This figure is far less than the adopted 4.6 Ga age of the Solar System. Because no source of creation for comets has been identified, comets are assumed to be primordial. If this is true, then the age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.
Read the rest of "Comets and the Age of the Solar System" here, Howie.

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

Monday, August 15, 2011

Wrecking the "God of the Gaps" Nonsense

A common claim of atheists and evolutionists is that Christians use a policeman's exit (cop-out) by referring to God as the Creator, and as an explanation for the unknown. What they fail to realize (and, I suspect, they do this willfully) is that when Christians, creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design refer to the Creator, they are doing so because that is where the evidence leads. This is not a first resort, it is a logical conclusion based on the evidence.

Dr. James White of
Alpha and Omega Ministries has a radio program and podcast called "The Dividing Line". He occasionally takes various calls, and is willing to discuss matters with Christians, atheists and others. I caught the podcast of July 14 (the entire podcast is here), and heard him discussing the "God of the Gaps". Dr. White shows just how absurd the accusation really is. The relevant excerpt is here:

In addition, I'll steer you to something I posted at "Stormbringer's Thunder". Greg Koukl of "Stand to Reason" had a fascinating discussion of "Science of the Gaps". That is, the appeal to science philosophy where "someday science will find the answers". The post about "Science of the Gaps" is here.

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

Friday, August 12, 2011

Some Clarifications

First clarification: Writing the word "creationist". Since the majority of creationist writings that I read do not capitalize the word, I am going to stop writing it as "Creationist".

Although I am a Christian and Biblical creationist (See? Fixed it), my goal with this site is to present as much science as I can and hold back on the theology. The reason for this is simple: Creationism makes valid scientific points as well as theological points. (I prefer to deal with the theological aspects now and then at my Weblog for and about Christians, "A Soldier for Jesus". If you are looking for me to give you  hardcore science disputing evolution and supporting creationism, don't go there, Girlfriend. This is the one you want.) Once in a while I will deviate so things do not get too stuffy.

Although many evolutionists seem to think that the Christian or creationist explanation for life, the universe and everything is a simple "Goddidit", that is a Straw Man argument. Creationist scientists examine things just like secular scientists. The question of origins has nothing to do with the practical applications and examination of science; someone's belief of origins has no relevance toward how well he designs a space probe. I can point out things until I'm blue in the nose, and people will still insist on using Straw Man, ad hominem, Poisoning the Well, Genetic and other fallacies in lieu of actual thought.

Many of my sources are Biblical creationists, and they do bring the Bible into the discussion. They will say that something appears to support such and so Bible passage, or encourage Christians to continue to believe God's Word. I can't help that, nor will I reject a science-oriented article because it dares to mention the Bible. That is because the articles are not attempting to use the Bible as the primary science textbook. I have rejected several articles for this Weblog because I thought they were written more for Christian purposes than scientific. Sometimes, I will make a bad choice. Other times, readers will accuse me of doing the opposite of what I am stating here. That will be a subjective matter, and it cannot be helped as far as I can see.

One other thing. There will be links here to sites that have creationist material. Since many of those are Biblical creationists as well, the sites will range from primarily Biblical items to mainly scientific material, with some blending of both. And, unfortunately, some of those people will have posted outdated or erroneous materials, despite the "do not use" warnings of other creationists. But if I feel there is good material at the site, I will still include it in the links list, which will have a disclaimer similar to this one. As with anything else on the Web, people will have to use their own discretion.

I have no qualms about saying that I am hoping to not only equip Christians to stand up for their beliefs (some homeschoolers come here for information, I understand), but I am also presenting material to show evolutionists that they are mischaracterizing Christians, creationists, and creation scientists. I can always have some hope that evolutionists will honestly examine the evidence.

There is already a great deal of information to pursue here.

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

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Origin of Cells? Bad Science!


Animal and plant cell DNA is so complicated that all the cellular machines that process, regulate, and manipulate it are constantly in need of cellular fuel. In fact, each animal and plant cell uses so much fuel that specialized fuel-production facilities called mitochondria are required. 
A new evolutionary study attempted to provide evidence supporting a bacterial origin for mitochondria, but all it really did was beg the question.
Evolutionary scenarios for mitochondrial origins are faced with a problem: The cell must utilize its DNA in order to live. But this in turn requires an energy factory. Without either the energy or DNA factories, the cell would die. Thus, both factories, in full form, are required for plant and animal life.
Read the rest of "Origin of Cells Study Uses Bad Science" here.

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

Monday, August 1, 2011

Another "Age of the Earth" Evidence Fail

Radioactive isotopes are commonly portrayed as providing rock-solid evidence that the earth is billions of years old. Since such isotopes are thought to decay at consistent rates over time, the assumption is that simple measurements can lead to reliable ages. But new discoveries of rate fluctuations continue to challenge the reliability of radioisotope decay rates in general—and thus, the reliability of vast ages seemingly derived from radioisotope dating.
In 2009, New Scientist summarized a discovery at Brookhaven National Laboratories that revealed a statistical correlation between the distance to the sun and fluctuations in the decay rate of a radioactive silicon isotope. The data showed that silicon-32 decayed more slowly in the winter, and then sped up during the summer. A 2010 Stanford University report reflected similar fluctuations in the decay rate of other elements. To see whether or not nearness to the sun somehow affected these radioisotope decay rates, researchers laid a solar proximity plot atop the silicon decay plot, and they showed a close match.

Read the rest of "Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable" here.

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