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, September 30, 2011

Distant Starlight and the Age of the Universe

NASA Photo

Critics of biblical creation sometimes use distant starlight as an argument against a young universe. The argument goes something like this: (1) there are galaxies that are so far away, it would take light from their stars billions of years to get from there to here; (2) we can see these galaxies, so their starlight has already arrived here; and (3) the universe must be at least billions of years old—much older than the 6,000 or so years indicated in the Bible.
Many big bang supporters consider this to be an excellent argument against the biblical timescale. But when we examine this argument carefully, we will see that it does not work. The universe is very big and contains galaxies that are very far away, but that does not mean that the universe must be billions of years old.

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

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Oops, That Star Should Not Exist!

NASA Photo

Astronomers have found a mysterious star that is made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium gas. According to naturalistic star formation theories, the star shouldn't exist, since it is missing massive quantities of heavier elements like oxygen, carbon, and iron, as well as lightweight lithium. According to the Bible's account of star formation, however, the existence of such a star is no puzzle at all.
In their study published in Nature, researchers determined the makeup of the star, named SDSS J102915+ 172927, by analyzing the light it emitted. Lead author Elisabetta Caffau said in a European Southern Observatory press release, "A widely accepted theory predicts that stars like this, with low mass and extremely low quantities of metals, shouldn't exist because the clouds of material from which they formed could never have condensed."
Read the rest of "Lightweight Star Should Not Exist" here.

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

Monday, September 26, 2011

Double Standards of Evolutionary Discussion

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Edited 12-06-2015


I was quite pleased to see an article that was discussing some of the same things that I have been combating in my discussions with anti-creationists. More specifically, their double standards. It amazes me that any unqualified shmoe off the street is "qualified" to rail against remarks and articles by creationists, and is joined by a dozen "Me, too!" interlopers. Yet, if someone dares breathe a word of disagreement about evolution, he or she is expected to have impeccable credentials in every area under discussion. That is, I point out a flaw in evolutionary theory, and get asked if I am trained as a scientist. Qualifications or not, we can still speak the truth and can identify bad logic that people are using when attempting to liberate us from our knowledge and faith.

Atheist popes like Richard Dawkins are cited as experts on religion and philosophy, but guess what? They are do not satisfy the qualification "standards" imposed on Christians, creationists and ID proponents.

Further, I have noticed distinctly disingenuous attempts to manipulate conversations coming from owlhoots attempting to redefine "scientist" for their own convenience. Since the remark that "Creationists are not scientists" is not only disproved, but clearly a lie attempting to Poison the Well (with a touch of genetic fallacy), the word "scientist" becomes redefined. For some people, their personal definition becomes evolutionary biologist; sure, there are no "scientists" on the list of Darwin dissenters because the real word has been redefined! This dishonest tactic brings to mind the child who says, "Let's play ball. We can only use my ball, my equipment, my playing area and my rules which say I win anyway." Some people say that they want to "engage in debate", but have made it clear that creationists are wrong from the get-go.

When anti-creationists want to have discussions, they often redefine words for their own convenience. Watch out for their chicanery.
photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov (modified)

To add to this insulting and devious manipulation, if someone can be considered a qualified scientist, he or she must be the right kind of scientist (that is, not a physicist or something) to discuss evolution. Hey, I guess that disqualifies Charles Darwin, since he failed in medicine and his only degree was an ordinary one in theology. And the "great" geologist Charles Lyell was a lawyer by trade.

I guess nobody can discuss anything, then. Except the experts. So, don't let me catch you discussing the Big Game if you are not a veteran of the League. Avoid discussing theology unless you are trained in it. Refuse to speculate on that sound under the hood unless you are a certified mechanic. Ad nauseum.

No, I firmly believe that the "creationists are not scientists", and, "you are not a scientist" whimperings are simply attempts to dodge the issues at hand. Especially when they are made by people who are "unqualified" themselves! To be intellectually honest, you cannot avoid the truth about the unpleasant facts surrounding evolutionism simply by attempting to dismiss the speaker out of hand and say that he or she is irrelevant.





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

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Evolution Based on Faith, Not Science


Several times a week, I am hit with faith-based comments where the users believe they are speaking "science" in defense of evolutionism (links to sources are given, until they get embarrassed and delete their comments):
  • Evolution is as much science as quantum theory is. To claim otherwise is totally absurd.Note the equivocation between evolution and quantum theory, followed by a form of ad hominem attack. Edit: My charge of ad hominem was challenged. I verified it with two experts, one said it was abusive ad hominem, the other narrowed it further to Appeal to Ridicule, which can fall under the "umbrella" of ad hominem.
  • Proof has been steadily accumulating over 150 years, as science advances more appears. that's how science works. Wrong. True science is willing to discard a theory if the facts do not fit instead of making excuses, wishing that an answer will come along someday, or faking the data. Also, true science does not resort to fraud or make many utterly stupid mistakes in its desperate pursuit of advancing a "theory".
  • No, this is undeniably your doctrine that you will burn in hell if you accept evolution. Nothing fallacious about that. Wanna bet? Not only is this a straw man argument, but an outright lie.
  • The transition is from basic to more complex over a long period of time. The over-simplified "old school" version of one of the competing theories of evolution. Yet, it is a statement of faith because there is no evidence. Further evidence of the faith nature of  his (?) comment is that it was a rebuttal to my comment that the fossil record does not show transitional forms!
  • We're evolutionists ... We strike for the head by tweeting the truth. Truth? Which "truth"? I like truth that is real and can be substantiated from a reliable source like the Bible, not stuff that is made up, fraudulent, constantly adjusted like the philosophies of evolution. 
I have to deal with railings, accusations, lies, fantasy, unsubstantiated assertions (like this ridiculous gem), wishful thinking, utterly bad (and outdated science) and more. These support my assertions that evolutionism is a faith-based religion, a philosophy based on beliefs about the past. That's right, I said it! Beliefs! Evolution is not testable, repeatable, falsifiable, observable or anything else, but it is pushed forward with jihad-like enthusiasm by fundamentalist evolutionists.

By the way, the "fact" of evolution, with all of its abundant "proof" should be a settled matter because the proof would be indisputable by even the most die-hard, narrow-minded Fundamentalist. Instead, not only do regular people have doubts, but creationists scientists deny evolution and even scientists themselves have doubts (one simple evidence is that there are competing theories). So, shut me up. Give me real evidence, not guesswork, inference, equivocation, stupid mistakes and outright fraud.

But enough of my rant. My purpose today is to introduce you to an article by Dr. Roy Spencer. 
Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. 
In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college.

You might wonder how scientists who are taught to apply disciplined observation and experimentation and to search for natural explanations for what is observed in nature can come to such a conclusion? For those of you who consider themselves open-minded, I will try to explain.
If you are not afraid, you can read the rest of "Faith-Based Evolution" here.


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

Saturday, September 24, 2011

That Pesky Polymerization and the Origin of Life Problem


A well-publicised paper by Claudia Huber and Günter Wächtershäuser in Science proposed a scenario for a materialistic origin of life from non-living matter. They correctly state:
The activation of amino acids and the formation of peptides under primordial conditions is one of the great riddles of the origin of life.
Indeed it is. The reaction to form a peptide bond between two amino acids to form a dipeptide is:
Amino acid 1 + amino acid 2 → dipeptide + water
H2NCHRCOOH +H2NCHR′COOH → H2NCHRCONHCHR′COOH + H2O (1)
The free energy change(ΔG1) is about 20–33 kJ/mol, depending on the amino acids. The equilibrium constant for any reaction (K) is the equilibrium ratio of the concentration of products to reactants. The relationship between these quantities at any Kelvin temperature (T) is given by the standard equation:
K = exp (–ΔG/RT)
where R is the universal gas constant (= Avogadro’s number x Boltzmann’s constant k) = 8.314 J/K.mol
For reaction (1),
K1 = [H2NCHRCONHCHR′COOH][H2O]/[H2NCHRCOOH][H2NCHR′COOH]
= 0.007 at 298 K
where a compound in square brackets symbolises the concentration of that compound.
This means that if we start with a concentrated solution of 1 M (mol/l) of each amino acid, the equilibrium dipeptide concentration would be only 0.007 M. Since tripeptides have two peptide bonds, the equilibrium tripeptide concentration would be 0.0072 M or 5x10–5 M. For a non-specific polypeptide with 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids), the equilibrium concentration would be 3.2 x 10–216 M. NB: the problem for evolutionists is even worse, because life requires not just any polymers, but highly specified ones.
I hope you're taking notes, there's going to be a test on this material. It would be best if you read the rest of "Origin of life: the polymerization problem" here.

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

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Darwin's Failures Support Intelligent Design


Responding to “How far has ID come in the last five years?”, locally famous commenter markf responds,
Every single one of those headlines is about “Darwinism” and “Darwinists” (whoever they are – their most important common characteristic appears to be they are government funded which rules me out).
Looking at the detail on the posts the only positive achievement I can see for ID is the controversial Dembski and Marks paper. All the rest is about perceived failures of this Darwinism.
Which is an excellent demonstration of missing the point. Failures of Darwinism are not merely a negative. They are a positive. The growing number of stress points at which Darwinism fails can, taken together, form a picture, one that points to general laws that govern how high levels of information are produced in life forms.
Obviously, as with dpi, the more such points, the clearer the picture. We can’t have too many of them, though eventually, there will be enough to work productively with.
Michael Behe’s Edge of Evolution is an instance of this approach. The upper limit on the change toward greater functional complexity that can be produced by Darwinism is telling us something.
Read the rest of "The last five years: Darwin’s failures are positive sources of information for ID" here.

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

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Viruses Did Not Evolve, Either


Viruses have a bad reputation. They are ultra-tiny, well-designed machines that copy themselves in a process that sometimes causes disease in the organisms in which they reside. One class called retroviruses is equipped with machinery that splices its own viral code into the DNA of a host cell.
Retroviruses have been portrayed as genetic "leftovers" from an evolutionary past, but how did they really originate?
A report published in Science showed how one retrovirus was "born." Researchers discovered that a retrovirus named XMRV was formed when two DNA sequences called "proviruses" were brought together through "recombination." This occurs during gamete development when genetic material from the parent cells is rearranged into new combinations of genes in the offspring, resulting in more genetic variations.
You can catch the rest of "Were Viruses Created or Evolved?" here.

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

Friday, September 16, 2011

Simplified Explanation: Evolution is NOT a "Proven Fact"!


We’re sure you’ve heard this claim before, probably hundreds of times: “Science has proven evolution is fact.” It’s like a strange Darwinian chant that emanates from atheist blogs and secular universities. Too bad (for them) it’s not true. 
In fact, refuting evolution doesn’t require complicated equations or lab experiments—though those do the job, too. Just remember the two fundamental flaws we can use to show evolution to be, well, not even scientifically viable. 
Where’d You Get Your Information, Bub?
Everything that makes up your body requires genetic information. You’ve got hands and feet because your genes code for it. The same is true for any creature—dogs, camels, you name it.
Read the rest of "Evolution: Impossible!" here.


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

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Circular Reasoning Defines Evolution As Science


Evolutionary teachers often use equivocation to indoctrinate
unsuspecting students with the general theory of evolution (GTE).
Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a ‘good scientific theory’. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of ‘prediction’ of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of ‘science’, it is therefore ‘religion’, and (by implication) it can simply be ignored. 
Response
Many attempts to define ‘science’ are circular. The point that a theory must be acceptable to contemporary scientists to be acceptable, basically defines science as ‘what scientists do’! In fact, under this definition, economic theories would be acceptable scientific theories, if ‘contemporary scientists’ accepted them as such. 
In many cases, these so-called definitions of science are blatantly self-serving and contradictory. A number of evolutionary propagandists have claimed that creation is not scientific because it is supposedly untestable. But in the same paragraph they claim, ‘scientists have carefully examined the claims of creation science, and found that ideas such as the young Earth and global Flood are incompatible with the evidence.’ But obviously creation cannot have been examined (tested!) and found to be false if it’s ‘untestable’.
You can learn a great deal by finishing "It's Not Science" here.

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

Monday, September 12, 2011

Not Only Christians Oppose Darwinism


The claim that all, or most all, Darwin-doubters are fundamentalist Christians is commonly found in both in the popular and professional scholarly literature. Ohio State University Professor Tim Berra averred, “Creationists, for the most part, are fundamentalist Christians whose central premise is a literal interpretation of the Bible and a belief in its inerrancy” (Berra 1990, p. viii). Professor Douglas Futuyma, in his classic work attacking all Darwin-doubters, mentioned Christian fundamentalists or the term fundamentalists in connection with those who have problems with Darwinism over 14 times on pages 5 to 7 alone. He concluded that the Christian “fundamentalists assault” on science involves the challenge to evolution that was “mounted by religious fundamentalists [adversely] touches us all” (Futuyma 1983, p. 5). 
Futuyma then adds, “according to the fundamentalists, physicists are wrong” and all “geology is under siege” by Christian “fundamentalists” and “in the United States, fundamentalists religion, holding a literal interpretation of the Bible, has proved a more tenacious and powerful opponent” to Darwinism than anywhere else in the world (Futuyma 1983 pp. 5–6). 
This claim is simply false.
Find out why this evolutionist claim is false by reading "Jewish Scientists Who Oppose Darwinism" here.

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

Friday, September 9, 2011

The Press, Viewpoint Discrimination and Free Speech

A free and independent press? Not quite. Our national media do not always operate at arms-length from state-backed science, as the California Science Center (CSC) affair has demonstrated. 
As you probably know by now, in 2009 the state-run CSC cancelled a contract with the American Freedom Alliance (AFA) to screen a pro-ID documentary, Darwin's Dilemma, triggering a lawsuit over unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. That lawsuit was recently settled. By the terms of the settlement agreement, the Science Center paid $110,000 and again opened its doors to the film, an invitation that was acknowledged by AFA as an apology and then respectfully declined for pragmatic reasons. 

True, the Science Center did not explicitly admit in the agreement that it engaged in viewpoint discrimination, but the large payout and invitation may be taken as an implicit admission that its defense regarding the viewpoint discrimination claim was weak, and that a public trial should therefore be avoided. Indeed, the Science Center was wise to settle. Otherwise the world and a jury would have seen emails that pointed plainly to viewpoint as the basis for cancelling the event. On that, as one Science Center vice president aptly summarized, "[AFA's] topic of Darwinism and the nature of their controversial approach is likely not a good fit with a science center," for "the main problem is that [AFA] is an anti-Darwin/Creationist group."
Read the rest of "Darwingate: What You Get When the Los Angeles Times 'Covers' a Cover-Up" here.

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

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Lawsuit Reveals Bias In Scientific Culture

You've heard a lot in this space the past few days about the viewpoint-discrimination lawsuit settled by the California Science Center for $110,000. That's money the CSC found it advisable to pay out to the American Freedom Alliance in order to avoid having to go to court and argue the case in public, with all that would have entailed by way of exposing a trail of incriminating emails by CSC staffers and scientists around the Los Angeles area.
Lead by Casey Luskin, ENV writers have already very clearly spelled out the evidence of duplicity and intolerance on the part of the California Science Center, the panicky attempt to squelch the airing of a viewpoint favorable to intelligent design and the subsequent cover-up. Now that there's a little bit of a breather following the widespread reporting of the settlement, I'd like to suggest why the whole thing matters so much.
Read the rest of "Stampede! What the California Science Center Scandal Reveals about Our Scientific Culture" here.

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

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Tell Me Again that Darwinists are not Bullies


The state-run California Science Center (CSC) has paid $110,000 to settle a lawsuit by American Freedom Alliance (AFA) against CSC for violating AFA's First Amendment free speech rights to advocate intelligent design (ID). As part of the settlement, the CSC also has invited AFA to present the ID event it previously cancelled. 
CSC rented its IMAX theater to AFA to show Darwin's Dilemma, a science documentary advocating ID. However, when CSC learned the film would portray ID favorably, CSC cancelled AFA's event. AFA filed suit in California Superior Court alleging viewpoint discrimination and breach of contract.
Read the rest of "California Science Center Pays $110,000 to Settle Intelligent Design Discrimination Lawsuit" here.


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

Monday, September 5, 2011

Evolution — The Eyes Don't Have It

The vertebrate eye is very well-constructed. Its many critical parts work together so that individual light photons are captured and converted into data that the brain then translates into a coherent visual image. Considering the obvious genius and purpose in eye design, claims that mindless natural processes formed the eye can only be made by ignoring the laws of logic.
Recently, Australian neuroscientist Trevor Lamb wrote a Scientific American article titled "Evolution of the Eye." He included a narrated history, as if he had witnessed an actual eyeball evolve. But instead of providing scientific evidence, his presentation relied on logical fallacies. 
First, Lamb granted god-like intelligence to an inanimate force he termed "selective pressures." He wrote, "As body size increased, so, too, did the selective pressures favoring the evolution of another type of eye: the camera [vertebrate] variety." But only an intelligent agent—not passive, unthinking environmental factors—could fashion the massive collection of interdependent parts that form vertebrate eyes. Lamb also wrote that "natural selection…tinkers with the material available to it," when in reality only persons can "tinker."


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

Saturday, September 3, 2011

The ATP Shows Design, Not Chance



Life depends on an incredible enzyme called ATP synthase, the world’s tiniest rotary motor. This tiny protein complex makes an energy-rich compound, ATP (adenosine triphosphate). Each of the human body’s 14 trillion cells performs this reaction about a million times per minute. Over half a body weight of ATP is made and consumed every day! 
All living things need to make ATP, often called the “energy currency of life”. ATP is a small molecule with a big job: to provide immediately usable energy for cellular machines. ATP-driven protein machines power almost everything that goes on inside living cells, including manufacturing DNA, RNA, and proteins, clean-up of debris, and transporting chemicals into, out of, and within cells. Other fuel sources will not power these cellular protein machines for the same reasons that oil, wind, or sunlight will not power a gasoline engine.
Read the rest of "ATP synthase: majestic molecular machine made by a mastermind" here.

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

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Being Skeptical Part 2 — Conditions, Evidence and Excuses

Here is the second of two articles that originally appeared elsewhere (Part 1 is here). I have edited this one a bit as well.



The sceptic-tank-ical approach. That is, the constant denial of evidence.

Absolutes
If you insist on irrefutable, absolute proof before you will accept or believe something, you will have pitifully little to believe at all. What would happen in the court systems if they took that approach? Witnesses are expected to differ on details because of their knowledge, observations, personalities and whatever else; everyone has their own perspective. They use reasonable evidence, and not just iron-clad positive proof. Otherwise, there would be few convictions indeed.

Edit: Demanding physical proof of a transcendent God is a category mistake, a logical fallacy.

It's funny in a way that "everyone knew" that Casey Anthony was guilty, and were outraged that she was found not guilty. But "everyone" was not in the courtroom to have the evidence presented. But boy, did "everyone" have an opinion on the case, without actually examining the evidence. Their reactions were based mostly on emotion.

Accumulation

It is one thing to reject a piece of evidence, especially if it involves something of great importance. To continually reject each piece of evidence shows a bias on the reviewer's part. There have been times where I thought the evidence that I offered someone was icing on the cake, so to speak. They were not convinced. Well, that wasn't the point. I was adding to the mountain of existing evidence, it was not my intention to have it be a knock-down in and of itself.

Excuses
On a recent broadcast of "Faith and Reason", I heard an atheist caller make a statement similar to what I have encountered several times before. He said he would believe that God exists if God telepathically beamed that knowledge into his head. Some have said God could write, "I am here" in flaming letters in the sky. One atheist in a debate said that if the podium lifted up and did aerial acrobatics, then that would convince him.

In the first case, the guy backed off and showed his bias by saying that it could also be his imagination or a mental illness. Flaming letters? I have no doubt that an excuse could be found to explain that away. In the last example of the atheist at the debate, he was not convincing; the Christian debating him said that he would excuse it away. And the atheist did not argue the point.

I have a vague memory of a collection of novellas in a book called The Day the Sun Stood Still. I only read it once, about thirtysomething years ago. Something stood out to me in one story that a worldwide request was made to God to show that he exists; the "long day of Joshua" (Joshua 10.12-14) was reenacted. People promptly looked for every excuse under the sun (heh!) to deny that it was God; everything from UFOs to group telepathy. If someone is predisposed against the evidence, well, any excuse in a storm, huh, Cupcake? People make up some outrageous things that they pretend to believe, rather than to seriously consider the evidence.


Conditions
This is almost an extension of the point above. In addition to making excuses for disbelieving evidence for the existence of God and the validity of the Bible, people make demands on God. Just think of how outrageous this is: "God, if you are there, make this chair spin around", or, "Beam it into my head", or some other unnamed condition that has never been voiced so it cannot be met (self-fulfilling prophesy). He is the Creator of the universe. And you think that you are so special that you can make him meet your demands? That's pretty arrogant.

No, he's the Creator, and he makes the rules. You don't have to like it, but that's how it is. There is plenty of evidence available for the honest seeker. But his revelation, his existence, salvation itself — sorry, but you have to humble yourself and receive him on his terms, not yours.


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

Labels