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.


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!