Welcome to the home of "The Question Evolution Project". There is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution. Evidence refuting evolution is suppressed by the scientific establishment, which is against the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Using an unregistered assault keyboard, articles and links to creation science resources are presented so people can obtain evidence that is not materialistic propaganda. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Friday, September 28, 2012

Gorilla Genome Drives Evolutionists Bananas

Using the presuppositions of which creature evolved in whatever order from certain ancestors, proponents of evolutionism have decreed that humans are closely related to chimpanzees.But according to their own studies, the human genome is more closely related to the gorilla instead of the chimp.

According to evolutionists' own studies, the human genome is more closely related to the gorilla instead of the chimp. But we supposedly have different ancestors and our DNA should have further dissimilarities.
Image credit: morgueFile / Sgarton

That does not fit their plan, since we supposedly have different ancestors and our DNA should have further dissimilarities.
Evolutionists have long maintained that modern primate species (including, in their view, humans) are branches on an evolutionary tree that lead back to a common ancestor. But the recent news of the published genome sequence for the gorilla in the journal Nature adds more solid data to the growing problem facing the current model of primate evolution.
This problem is related to a biological paradigm called independent lineage sorting. To illustrate this concept among humans and primates, some segments of human DNA seem more related to gorilla DNA than chimpanzee DNA, and vice versa. This well-established fact produces different evolutionary trees for humans with various primates, depending on the DNA sequence being analyzed.
You can swing on over here to finish reading "Gorilla Genome is Bad News for Evolution".

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Human-Chimp DNA Similarity: Not So Similar

morgueFile/hotblack (modified)
Adherents of evolutionism take great pride in announcing the alleged similarities between human and chimpanzee DNA. Such boasting is arrogant, as if scientists had full knowledge of DNA. But it is also misleading, because of selective citing from less than four percent of the genome. Also, once again, the conclusion that "Humans and chimps have similar DNA, so we must have evolved from a common ancestor" is simply an illustration of using bad scientific techniques to force-fit data into evolutionary presuppositions. Further examination reveals that such claims are the opposite of the truth.
Evolutionary biologists argue that since human and chimp DNA are nearly identical, both species must have evolved from a common ancestor. However, creation scientists have pointed out that their DNA is, in fact, very dissimilar. The vast majority of each species' DNA sequence is not genes, but instead regulated gene expression. A new report unmistakably confirmed that the regulatory DNA of humans is totally different from that of chimps, revealing no hint of common ancestry.
Read the rest of "DNA Study Contradicts Human/Chimp Common Ancestry", here.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Hierarchy, Genetics and Evolutionary Metaphysics

The more scientists learn about genetics and DNA, the more evolutionists must spin metaphysical, non-scientific tales to explain their findings. But God forbid that the majority of them admit that their discoveries point to a Creator instead of supporting time, chance, mutations and other fantasies.
Ever since Mendelian genetics was incorporated into Darwinism, evolutionists have believed that the gene is king. Genes, they thought, determine an organism’s design or, in technical jargon, the genotype specifies the phenotype. This fit their view that the species originated from the natural selection of biological change which did not arise initially as a consequence of need but rather as a consequence of random, spontaneous events. Those random, spontaneous, events were, for example, mutations in the genes. And later when the genetic code, which translates the information in those genes into proteins, was found to be essentially universal throughout biology, the story seemed complete. For if the species were designed why would their genetic codes be identical? But today, so many problems with this story have emerged it is difficult to keep track. And new research continues to add yet more problems.

Aside from the non scientific claims underlying evolution’s metaphysics (what scientific experiment informed evolutionists that independently created species would necessarily have different genetic codes?), the empirical science has contradicted evolution’s story at every turn. Genes are not king, mutations show no sign of creating biology’s marvels in spite of evolutionist’s many attempts to coax them to show off their power, the genetic code has special properties and shows no sign of having been a “frozen accident,” and all kinds of new codes have been discovered that are not universal but instead are lineage-specific.
You can read the rest of "Here’s That New Paper Showing the Genetic Regulation Hierarchy", here.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

DNA, Junk and ENCODE

With the recent revelation that the evolutionists in the scientific community caught up to the non-evolutionists regarding "junk" DNA, scientific journals and scientists are writing and talking science stuff, scientifically. Dr. Georgia Purdom (Ph.D. in molecular genetics, specialty of cellular and molecular biology) has some comments regarding the findings.

I’m so excited to be writing a blog on the new research published by ENCODE on “junk” DNA! In fact, as I looked over the material I decided I should devote two blogs to the topic. Part one will cover what ENCODE found and why it’s important. In part two, I’ll discuss opposition to the research findings by many evolutionists.
ENCODE is an acronym for ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements. The ENCODE project is devoted to essentially making sense of the human genome. The sequence of the human genome was completed in 2000, but all it gave us was the order of the individual components, called bases or nucleotides, in the DNA (which is an amazing feat!). We still didn’t know the function of many of those components. Of course, some genes (packets of information in the DNA for making proteins) were known, but that only accounted for about two percent of the human genome. What about the other 98 percent?
For many years even prior to 2000, that 98 percent was affectionately called “junk” DNA. It was assumed to be an evolutionary wasteland of sequences that were discarded as we climbed the “tree of life” from a single-celled organism to human. However, when it was discovered that humans, as the most complex organism on the planet, only have about 20,000 genes and they are similar to genes in many other organisms, scientists knew they had to look elsewhere for the differences.
You can finish reading "ENCODE and the Dark Matter of the Genome, Part 1", here. Also, Part 2 is linked here.

Monday, September 24, 2012

"Junk" DNA and Bad Science

You would think that evolutionists would learn from their mistakes regarding "vestigial organs" (claiming that if they could not see a use for them, well, they must be leftovers from our evolutionary past), then finding out that things considered "useless" and "leftover" are not so useless after all. Similarly, Intelligent Design proponents and creationists have been saying for years that the claim that "junk DNA" exists is absurd.

Can you imagine the scientific and medical advances that would have been possible if people had a proper view of DNA instead of assuming that evolutionism is true?

Both the "vestigial organs" and the "junk DNA" beliefs are base based on arrogance and assumptions. First, that scientists know enough about the extreme complexity of life to be able to declare something "useless". Second, they are interpreting the data through their fundamentally flawed evolutionary worldviews. When more evidence is found, evolutionists are embarrassed. Scientists have learned quite a bit, and one of the things they learned (which they should have been humble enough to admit before) is that there is much more to learn.
At least 80% of the human genome is functional, scientists now say, based on a genetic survey called ENCODE that may force reassessment of what a gene is.
The big news in human genetics this week is the publication of results by the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) consortium, “the most ambitious human genetics project to date,” and what it reveals about function in the human genome.  When the human genome was first published, scientists were surprised that only about 3% of it coded for proteins.  That was before they knew about all the coded information in the “epigenome,” which includes RNA transcripts that regulate the code.  The new results show that at least 80% of the human genome is, in fact, functional, rendering the evolutionary notion of “junk DNA” (leftovers from our evolutionary past) incorrect.  Evolutionists themselves are writing the “eulogy for junk DNA.”
There is so much buzz about this story that came out in Nature this week, all we can do is list some of the more prominent headlines.  References to Nature are from the 26 September 2012 issue, volume 489, no. 54.  Popular reports in the news media are too numerous to list.
You can read the rest of "ENCODE Study Forces Evolutionists to Retract 'Junk DNA” Myth', here.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Resource: Evolution Impossible

From the outset, I am denying you the sweet suspense and telling you that I strongly recommend Evolution Impossible, and why. Unlike atheist trolls who give one-star ratings on Amazon for things they do not read but hate anyway, I actually read the book.

My introduction to Dr. John F. Ashton was on a podcast of the radio show Crosstalk. You can read the introduction and listen to the MP3 here.

Dr. Ashton has some impressive credentials. According to Creation Conversations:

Dr. John F. Ashton PhD CChem FRACI is Adjunct Professor of Biomedical Sciences at Victoria University, Melbourne, and Adjunct Professor of Applied Sciences at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University, the largest Australian tertiary institution. He holds a BSc (Honors) with prize in chemistry and PhD in epistemology (a branch of philosophy dealing with the limits of knowledge), also with prize, from the University of Newcastle and an MSc in chemistry from the University of Tasmania. Dr. Ashton is a Chartered Chemist and a Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute. His career includes 14 years in tertiary science education and 25 years in industry mainly involved with food chemistry and related biomedical science research. Dr Ashton has served as the industry partner investigator for Australian Government co-funded research at seven Australian universities. He also served as editor of three books related to science and faith issues, including the much-cited In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation.[1]
This book makes the claim that evolution is indeed impossible, and presents its argument through a number of scientific disciplines. After the introduction and the short chapter about how many people consider evolution to be a "fact" even though their "evidence" is comprised of assertions, or their claims are not supported by evidence.

Chapter 2 gives a discussion on Darwin's version of evolution. Ashton goes on to discuss the circumstances leading up to the theory as well as its promoters. Of course, this was before the incredible complexity of DNA was discovered.

Chapters 3 and 4 delve into biology, discussing why a living cell cannot arise by chance, and why random mutations cannot produce new organisms. Dr. Ashton wrote, "So what we actually observe in organisms are mechanisms to minimize mutations. These are mechanisms that minimize diversity outside of that which has been already coded for in the DNA. When mutations do occur, they often lead to disease or death of the organism. So where Darwin assumed that mutations would be nature’s way to maximize diversity for survival, which would in turn constitute the platform for evolution, we observe that, in fact, the very opposite is true." (Chapter 4).

Chapters 5 and 6 explore the geological evidences for evolution. Specifically, there are none. The fossil record is a record of extinction, and there are no transitional forms. People can run to pooling of ignorance sites such as Talk Origins and so on to try to refute these claims, but if they want to do serious research, they will need to actually read the book and then tackle the 72 supporting links in these two chapters alone.

Chapter 7 is an irritant to adherents of uniformitarianism. Instead of rock layers being laid down gradually over millions or billions of years, the evidence better supports rapid deposition during a catastrophic global flood at the time of Noah. Indeed, Ashton supports his claims by using Chapter 8 to explore the historical evidence for a worldwide flood.

Radiometric dating problems, sedimentation rates and other information in conflict with purported old Earth assertions are brought forth in Chapters 9 and 10. (It is interesting that the average evolution proponent will deny evidence against commonly accepted radiometric dating results, but most are unaware that such information even exists.) 

The "Big Bang" is shown to be a big fizzle in Chapter 11. While evolution's proponents believe that there is agreement among cosmogonists that the Big Bang caused the origin of the universe, this is not true. Not only does the Big Bang have many difficulties in itself, but there are many scientists who do not believe that it is correct.

Chapter 12 discusses scientists who reject evolution. Dr. Ashton refers to his more extensive documentation in his book In Six Days where scientists point out serious problems with evolution. This is risky, since evolutionism is the accepted orthodoxy, and they can be risking their careers by denying Darwin. For that matter, when he wrote "A Creationist's View of the Intelligent Design Debate" in the peer-reviewed journal Chemistry in Australia, some scientists were very hostile [2]. Fortunately, the truth is not a matter of popularity, nor is it changed by bullying, stalking, bigotry or trolling.

A departure occurs in Chapter 13. Here, Ashton points out that there are some things that are true but beyond the realm of science. He discusses the fulfillment of some biblical prophesies, as well as certain knowledge that is given to individuals on certain occasions. While I see what he was trying to do here, I thought that this chapter was rather weak. (Sorry, Doc, but my readers expect me to be straightforward.) Still, it was not uninteresting.

Chapter 14 is a summary of twelve evidence-based reasons to reject evolution. The best explanation for the existence of life? "When we look carefully at the geological and fossil evidence, it is very consistent with a catastrophic worldwide flood not so long ago. As to explaining how we came to be — science really has no explanation. But we do see overwhelming evidence of amazing design in every part of nature that more realistically can only have come from a super-intelligence. The creation scenario fits this evidence very well."

The Appendix gives calculations for the Flood based on the biblical record of genealogies.

Evolution Impossible is an excellent resource for honest seekers of scientific truth. It will shock some people ("I didn't know that!"). Evolutionary presuppostions are show to be unsupported, and the book reaches the logical conclusion is that life was created.

Friday, September 21, 2012

Human-Chimp Genome Similarities Investigated

EDIT: The link at the end of this post is now out of date and in dispute. See "A Fresh Look at Human-Chimp DNA Similarity" and "New Study Indicates Chimp DNA is 88% Similar to Human DNA". Further research is planned.

Some of us have believed for a long time that these are exciting times for creationists. The evidence supports creation, despite screeching to the contrary.

Evidence refuting evolution is accumulating, and sloppy science (as well as unethical practices) of Darwin's Cheerleaders is coming to light. For example, that alleged huge simian similarity between humans and chimpanzees? The biases of evolutionary scientists caused selective citing and extremely misleading results. (By the way, even if the similarities were indeed very high, that is not proof of evolution. Instead, it shows a Designer using efficient methods.) This paper was released at the end of December, 2011. Here, take a good, hard look:
To provide a fresh and less-biased global set of analyses, large-scale comparative DNA sequence alignments between the chimpanzee and human genomes were performed with the BLASTN algorithm. One group of experiments was conducted with query and subject low-complexity sequence masking enabled while the second set had masking parameters disabled. Each group of sub-experiments tested fifteen combinations of three different word sizes (7, 11, and 15) and five different e-values (1000, 10, 0.1, 0.001, and 0.00001) for a total of 1.2 million attempted genome-wide alignments. Individual BLASTN query jobs each involved a data set of 40,000 chimpanzee whole genome shotgun sequences (WGSS) obtained from the National Center for Biotechnology (NCBI) and queried against four different human genome assemblies (GRCH37, GRCH36, Alternate SNP Assembly, and the Celera Assembly).

The use of low complexity sequence masking had the effect of decreasing computational time about 5–6 fold, lengthening the alignments slightly, lowering the number of database hits, and lowering the percent nucleotide identity slightly. Depending on the BLASTN parameter combination, average sequence identity for the 30 separate experiments between human and chimp varied between 86 and 89%. The average chimp query sequence length was 740 bases and depending on the BLASTN parameter combination, average alignment length varied between 121 and 191 bases.

You can read the rest of the article by geneticist Jeffrey Tomkins, entitled "Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86–89 Percent", here.


Thursday, September 20, 2012

Profound Plant Partnership


Most plants need sunlight in order to live. Red and blue are preferable. Bacteria on plant leaves need sunlight as well. Green light. They use use the green light that plants do not want. And bacteria absorb the most light at the same point that plants absorb no light; a win-win situation, not a "struggle for survival". Sorry, Papa Darwin, this is evidence for a Designer, not for evolution.
Plant leaves convert light into chemical energy for use in cells. Their biochemistry specifically absorbs the blue and red areas of the visible light spectrum. Now researchers have discovered that light-harvesting bacteria living on the surfaces of leaves gather energy from the green part of the spectrum, meaning that they cooperate rather than compete with plants. How did this perfectly balanced energy-sharing system come about?

Knowing that light-harvesting microbes live in aquatic environments, the researchers tested the hypothesis that similar bacteria live on leaves. They were right. And the light that the microbes gather was "compatible with the plant's photosynthesis," resulting in "a significant ecological advantage to microbes inhabiting this environment." In other words, bacteria take full advantage of all the green light that plants don't use.

In a study published online in Environmental Microbiology, the research team screened genetic material from the surfaces of different leaves harvested from an oasis near the Dead Sea. They found genetic codes for specific types of rhodopsins, which are molecules that capture light. Some enable sight in vertebrate eyes, but many of the rhodopsins found on leaf surfaces were part of light-gathering apparatuses used by bacteria as tiny energy generators called "light-driven proton pumps."
You can read the rest of "Bacteria Share Light Spectrum with Plant Leaves", here.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Perplexing Plant Proteins

It has been stated here before that evolution defies common sense — a suspension of disbelief similar to that employed when watching things like Doctor Who. We are told by scientists (and especially by under-educated popularizers of evolution) the just-so stories that something evolved, and to simply accept the assertion as fact. When some of us dare to actually stop and think about it, we consider the mechanisms of evolution, the intricacy of organisms, how many things must be in place at the same time &c., then we realize that evolution really does not add up.
For example, most plants need sunlight to survive, yes? But they cannot have all of it. They have a UV protection system in their cells. Every aspect of it had to be in place from the beginning. If it was not, then the plants would have died off. Take a look:
A team of scientists led by researchers at the Scripps Research Institute and the University of Glasgow investigated the marvelous mechanism by which plant cells detect harmful UV-B radiation and then send signals that activate cellular UV-B protection regimes. Without UV detection and prevention, and without all the biochemicals for photosynthesis, plants would have long ago died.
A protein in plants called UVR8 responds to light in just the UV-B range. The protein consists of two identical halves that automatically link to one another just before light hits them. Investigators learned that when UV-B light hits a particular amino acid near the center of the dual complex to change its electrical charges, the halves separate and activate the protein.
You can read the rest of "Plant UV Detectors Could Not Have Evolved", in context, here.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Paleontological Palm Problem

morgueFile/Thea Olsen

Sago palms, like the Wollemi pine, are irritants to evolutionists. They are found in fossil layers that are presumed to be 250 million years old. And yet, their descendants are found virtually unchanged today. Another story is that they only began diversifying 10 million years ago. Wait, what? Which is it?

Evolutionary biologists, paleontologists and botanists who deal with these palms (as well as fundamentalist evolutionists) presuppose that evolution is a "fact" — some even erroneously call evolution a "law". There should be signs of evolution, yes? No. Creationists do not have these conundrums to negate their theories.
Cycads, also called "sago palms," are cone-bearing plants with long leathery shoots that often adorn dinosaur dioramas. Though there are about 11 living cycad genera, which further divide into about 300 species, many more once existed but are now known only from fossils.
The oldest rock layers that contain cycads are supposedly about 250 million years old. However, in a study published in Science, a group of scientists compared the similarities between cycad DNA sequences and did not find the many DNA differences that should have resulted from a quarter-billion years' worth of mutations and evolution.
Even after applying evolutionary assumptions to make their molecular clock work, most likely including a very slow mutation rate, the researchers' results showed that almost all of today's cycads "only began diversifying 10 million years ago," the study's lead author, Nathalie Nagalingum, told LiveScience.
You can read the rest of "'Dinosaur Plant' Evolution Stories Conflict", here.

Monday, September 17, 2012

Paleontological Pine Puzzler

Wollamia Nobilis image credit: Fritz Geller-Grimm / Wikimedia Commons

The Wollemi pine is a mystery to paleontologists. For one thing, it was unknown until 1994 despite being discovered on 125 miles from downtown Sydney, Australia in Wollemi National Park. These secluded trees require specific growing conditions. Another baffling thing about them is that they are not in the fossil record. Pollen from their genus is in the fossil record, however, in strata allegedly 200 million years old. Then, nothing. The Wollemi pine has been called a "living fossil". Because it does not fit with the evolutionary scheme but does fit well with creationist models, it has probably been called other things that are best left unrepeated.
The foliage of the Wollemi pine is virtually identical to that of one of its supposed fossil ancestors, the late Jurassic (150 million year old) Agathis jurassica (figure 3). This obvious relationship explains the designation of the Wollemi pine as a "tree from the Dinosaur Age," a "living fossil" that has been "missing for 150 million years." To evolutionary botanists the origin of the Wollemi pine remains an evolutionary enigma. How could this tree go missing for 150 million years when its relative sits fossilized less than 100 kilometers (62 miles) away from the living survivors?
You can read the rest of "Wollemia nobilis: A Living Fossil and Evolutionary Enigma", in context, here.

Friday, September 14, 2012

Evolution Does Not Make the Cut

morgueFile/wax115 (modified)
A problem with evolution is simple: It defies common sense. To paraphrase William of Occam, the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. When evolutionary explanations become more complex, theory upon theory, more fantastic — they are. The more complex something is, the more it is an indication of a designer. With increasing science and technology, the wonders of life are revealed in greater and greater detail.
Dallas' Baylor University Medical Center surgeon Joseph Kuhn recently described three serious problems with Darwinian evolution in a paper titled "Dissecting Darwinism" for the school's medical proceedings.1 He wrote that all three points were argued in 2010 in front of the Texas State Board of Education, which after days of deliberation decided that textbooks must teach both the strengths and weakness of evolution.

The first weakness that Kuhn described is actually more than just a weakness—it is a deal-breaker for the proposal that purely natural processes could have brought forth living cells from mere chemicals. What keeps cells alive, Kuhn argued, is the very non-natural information that resides within the molecules of life. These molecules have almost none of the randomness that natural processes always produce. In fact, when nature does overtake these molecules, they lose their vital information and the organism dies.
You can read the rest of "Baylor Surgeon 'Dissects' Darwinsim", here. And, you can read "Surgeon Says Human Body Did Not Evolve", here.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Given Enough Time, NOTHING Will Happen

Emile Borel stated that highly improbable events will never occur. Eugenie Scott and the propaganda mill at the NCSE released an attack on creationists for "misinterpreting" Borel's claim. To use a common idiom, do the math.
morgueFile/cohdra (modified)

Remember the old canard about giving a roomful of monkeys some typewriters and an infinite amount of time and they'll eventually produce the complete works of William Shakespeare? Silly idea. The purpose was to say that given enough time, anything will eventually happen. Well, given an infinite amount of time, some things are so improbable, they will never happen. For evolution to occur, many steps have to be taken. This is apparently not understood by the average believer in evolutionism who simply accepts what he or she has been told to think.

Emile Borel stated that highly improbable events will never occur. Eugenie Scott and the propaganda mill at the NCSE released an attack on creationists for "misinterpreting" Borel's claim. To use a common idiom, do the math.
Evolutionary biologists of today are confronted with the problem of explaining how such an enormous amount of information contained in the most basic cell could have been organized into a life form using only chance, material, and time. The historical explanation has been to claim that time on the order of billions of years will result in these complex structures. This article will mathematically model one simple aspect of cell formation and, using mathematical statistics, compute the expected waiting time for this structure to occur. I will also look at the ideas of Emile Borel, Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Emmett Williams as they relate to the effect time has on highly improbable events.

The motivation for this paper came from two conflicting statements that I carried around over several years and finally decided to attempt a resolution. The first is from the evolutionist George Wald claiming time is a great miracle worker in the molecules-to-man evolution process; the second is from the celebrated French probabilist Emile Borel stating that highly improbable events never occur. Since molecules-to-man evolution requires a huge sequence of highly improbable random events, these two statements are in direct conflict. I suspected that time has an approximate linear effect on highly improbable events while the requirement for the structures of life grows exponentially with complexity, thus time cannot be the miracle worker as claimed.
To see how everything adds up, you'll want to give your undivided attention to "Applying Probabilities to Evolution" and click here.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Darwinist Punished for Living Like a Darwinist

There are a couple of things that stand out regarding disgraced evolutionary scientist Marc Hauser.

First, his unethical approaches to science were not caught for several years. When he was caught, it turns out that he had numerous infractions — and then he complained that the stuff he did that was "right" would also be called into question. Well, that happens when a boy falsely cries, "Wolf!", he is no longer believed, even if he is right.

Second, so what? Isn't evolution about the "survival of the fittest"? Cheating to get ahead is a natural result of Darwinist philosophies (as are eugenics, abortion, communism and more). In this philosophy, Hauser was only living the evolutionary philosophy. What's the big deal?
Marc Hauser, Harvard evolutionary psychologist who resigned under a cloud, was found guilty of scientific misconduct and admitted to some of it.

Nature News reported: “Former Harvard University psychologist Marc Hauser has admitted to making ‘mistakes’ in his research that led to findings of research misconduct announced today by the US Office of Research Integrity, which polices research funded by the National Institutes of Health.”

Hauser’s confession is reported by the Boston Globe. He admitted some mistakes, but stood by most of his work: “I am saddened that this investigation has caused some to question all of my work, rather than the few papers and unpublished studies in question.”

The Harvard Magazine, though, printed a substantial list of misconduct investigators found, including fabricating data and falsely describing results. Hauser resigned last year when the investigation began. The magazine says, “he had planned to return to Harvard after his leave, but resigned following a psychology department faculty vote against having him resume teaching duties.” An update states that Harvard instigated the investigation and agrees with the US Office findings.
You can finish reading "Evolutionist Disgraced", here.

Monday, September 10, 2012

Where Do Articles Come From?

Click for larger
Everyone knows where stuff came from, yes? Everything had to have a source — didn't it? Where do articles like the ones you read here (or follow links to read) come from? The answer may surprise you.
You might think that someone wrote this article. But of course, you would be mistaken. Articles are not written by people. They are the result of chance. Every intelligent person knows it. There might be some people who want you to think that articles are written by people. But this view is totally unscientific. After all, we cannot see the person who allegedly wrote the article. We cannot detect him or her in any way. The claim that this article has an author cannot be empirically verified, and therefore it must be rejected. All we have is the article itself, and we must find a scientific explanation for its origin.

Since no intelligent source can be empirically detected within this article, empirical science must look to the chance processes of nature for its formation. In other words, we must not allow ourselves to think that this article came about from a mind; for this would be unscientific. Since it is not the result of a mind, it follows logically that this article is the result of chance. The article has not been designed – it is not the result of some unseen conscious forethought.
To finish reading "On the Origin of Articles", click here.

Sunday, September 9, 2012

Bill Nye Fallout and Debate Challenge Part 2 — Evolution's Junior Stormtroopers

Edited 10-29-2012

I've experienced this evolutionist dogmatic attitude many times.

Part 1 is here.

To reiterate:

There is now a public challenge to a debate between Dr. Purdom and propagandist Bill Nye. Is Bill Nye going to accept the challenge? Oh, sweet suspense! (Fundamentalist evolutionists are already making excuses for Nye, of course. Reminds me of the fiasco of Richard Dawkins' excuses to avoid debating Christian philosopher William Lane Craig.) It appears that the debate is not about hardcore science per se, but more along philosophical lines. If Nye wants to attempt to do science, I am certain that Dr. Purdom will accommodate him.

Now for a couple of my own experiences.

Because I expressed support on Facebook by commenting on posts by Dr. Purdom as "The Question Evolution Project", an angry anti-creationist went wild. Normally, I detest naming small-time trolls because they crave attention, but when they become so aggressive and petulant that they begin Internet stalking, spamming and other harassment, I will make an exception today.

The above material was a recap from Part 1. Now, regarding harassment...

There are many kinds. Getting blasted in forums and on Weblogs is common, and to be expected. They are exercising their freedom of speech, even though they seldom have anything interesting to say.

But sometimes they kick it up a few notches, even to the point of stalking.

A fellow claiming to be a physicist at a junior college was rather annoying, wanting my attention on his highly forgettable blog-o-fallacies, which included an oft-repeated lie about the Catholic Church and Galileo, which is easily refuted (Galileo was criticized by the scientific community of his time, not "religion"). It is "a given" that people like this with poor reasoning abilities use ridicule and logical fallacies to attack people rather than concepts all the time.

He became aggressive on Facebook. I reported and blocked him. Then he sent me annoying e-mails, which I reported and blocked. Then he used another of my e-mail addresses to continue to harass me, so I reported and blocked him again. Other measures are in the works that I will not divulge. But I do wonder about the standards of a junior college that will tolerate such unprofessional antics of someone who claims to be on their faculty; I certainly would not want someone bringing down the name of my establishment. So, this priest of peevishness got what he wanted, which is a few lines of attention from me.

Moving on...

"Mr. A. Haworth-Roberts" (I named him "Haywire the Stalker") spammed my e-mail with personal attacks (and sent CCs to dozens of other people). When I blocked and reported him for spamming and harassment, he promptly used another of my e-mail accounts, just like the alleged physics professor mentioned earlier. (This kind of behavior indicates that they have little regard for the rights and sensibilities of others.) He gave a self-promoting link to his diatribes at a board called "British Centre for Science Education", which I will not bore you with. I have records of his stalking as well as his IP address.

But I will show you some of what Haywire sent to me. He began by quoting a comment that I made on Dr. Purdom's Facebook post. Since he did not confront me there, I think it is likely that he was banned from that Page as well. His comments are in black, and in a font called "Georgia".
"Perhaps Cowboy Bob Sorensen aka The Question Evolution Project...would like to deny that anybody asking a question he cannot answer is to be deemed 'arrogannt' or manipulative?'"
Although I do not like to "typo pounce", if someone wants to be taken seriously, certain basic words like "arrogant" should be spelled correctly.

There are several assumptions here. First, he assumes that I cannot answer the question. Second, that there is only one Admin on that Facebook Page. Third, that whatever question he was asking was perfectly innocent and not breaking our rules as listed in the "About" section. (As to what the alleged question was, I have no recollection.) Fourth, he is assuming it was worth answering in the first place (we get people who want us to be their servants instead of doing any research themselves). Finally, he is making a straw man argument.
Please see my posts in this open discussion thread during the last 22 hours or so:"
No, I'm not helping you in your relentless drive for self-promotion except for exposing your emotive and illogical remarks. No link for you.
You will see how these particular creationist Christians are apparently rattled by Mr Nye - and by way of 'response' resort to lying about science, undermining science in the name of Christianity, bad logic and personal attacks, accusations about secularists (who like me read blatant lies), claims that evolutionists "don't have evidence to support their view", half-baked arguments and pure propaganda (backed up with handy scriptures), and deliberate CENSORSHIP of all challenges made on Facebook - see the example which I saw and quoted at the BCSE Community Forum, JUST BEFORE it was removed. The message I quoted in full included the challenge to Dr Purdom: "A molecular geneticist knows this, so the only conclusion I can come to is that Dr. Purdom is using her credibility in the field of biology to deliberately mislead people; and even worse, she does not allow for open dialogue of her own statements. She censors debate about ideas she claims to uphold as truth instead of subjecting them to scrutiny. Is this the way a scientist should act? I dare you to let this comment stand."

But don't just take all this from me! Check what I claim - and judge for yourselves.

Mr A Haworth-Roberts
That rant is not worth a lengthy examination, I just wanted you to see that it is saturated with logical fallacies (including emotive language, straw man, assumptions with incomplete information, abusive ad hominem attacks, and so on) and a great deal of whining. Many people like this seem to think they have the "right" to ridicule creationists or others who do not accept evolutionary orthodoxy — an entitlement mentality. And yet, he is using a forum for his personal soapbox, so he still is able to freely express his malignant opinions.

After being blocked, reported and informed, he e-mailed me at another account (which was blocked and reported as well). This article is long enough already, so I will just show some highlights:
You seemed proud of your refusal to accept any comments under your blog posts/weblog. I was asking why you have such a policy and whether it was because you receive questions that you cannot successfully answer. I did not resort to any Ad hominem.
He resorted to ad hominem attacks, as shown above.

By the way, there is nobody under a name resembling "A. Haworth-Roberts" on my block list. It seems reasonable to assume that he was using a different name on Facebook that was blocked, or that this one is fake. Or both. Edit: His e-mail address shows an account on Facebook that was created under his name on the same day that this article appeared. Adds to my theory that is he using multiple accounts, and that he is deranged. Later, he took out another account and began harassing me from that one, which I also blocked. He claims dissatisfaction with his original account, but when I get forwarded messages from him, the original e-mail account is still there.

"You seemed proud of your refusal to accept any comments under your blog posts/weblog." Nope. "I was asking why you have such a policy and whether it was because you receive questions that you cannot successfully answer." Appeal to motive fallacy, and he changed his wording. Originally, it was an accusation, as shown above.
I HAVE called Georgia Purdom a liar at the BCSE Community Forum, which I linked to in my PREVIOUS email (not the one first copied to you). I have also pointed out how she deleted more than 200 posts to her Facebook page - I cannot believe that all of them were 'vile'. 
Dr. Purdom was subjected to many vile comments that had to be deleted and commenters were blocked. My fanboi was helpful in documenting and even bragging about his remarks. (Amusingly, I was caught up in the ban-sweep myself, and was later reinstated. It happens.)

He is showing an attitude that people of this nature have the "right" to say whatever they want on other people's Weblogs and such. Calling Dr. Purdom a liar is a despicable, libelous and absurd attempt at emotional manipulation. That is, unless he can offer sufficient evidence that she is intending to deceive people. This ploy is frequently used by Darwin's Cheerleaders in their efforts to protect fundamentalist evolutionism. It is also contrary to the attitudes of true scientists! People can say that someone is wrong, that they disagree on the interpretations of the facts, show errors in their reasoning, find flaws in their models — that is a part of doing science. To call someone a "liar" in an effort to shut them up is anti-science and beneath contempt.
This one, which I saw before it was deleted, wasn't [vile]:
"The lack of faith which Dr. Purdom has in these principles is evident by the fact that she deletes polite and thoughtful responses instead of simply repudiating them. Well, what about 'new information'? Say I have a list of sequences: (1,2) and (3,4). Then I add the new sequence (1,4) to the list -- is this new information? Well, sure! It's new with respect to the previous sequences -- but it's not new, because it's just a simple combination of the old sequences. A molecular geneticist knows this, so the only conclusion I can come to is that Dr. Purdom is using her credibility in the field of biology to deliberately mislead people; and even worse, she does not allow for open dialogue of her own statements. She censors debate about ideas she claims to uphold as truth instead of subjecting them to scrutiny. Is this the way a scientist should act? I dare you to let this comment stand."
On my Page, I would have deleted that nonsense as well. Not only is the reasoning faulty, he resorts to more logical fallacies. In addition, he is attacking Dr. Purdom's character. (Remember, this is the same Dr. Purdom who would like to debate Bill Nye, a hero of "Mr. A. Haworth-Roberts" who wrote this stuff.) As far as "censoring debate" — well, again, he does not have the "rights" that he is assuming. People have Pages, Weblogs, whatever, and do not have to bow to the wishes of evolutionists who want to "set them straight" or fire off ridicule; we are under no obligation to give them a platform. Again, I am amazed that someone like this presents himself as a brilliant but innocent victim when all he does is rail at people. Do not want.

This is one of my favorites:
I will draw my own conclusions if you fail to respond to my question.
That stuff is hilarious! I have lost "debates" on Twitter because I was not even there to answer. In this case, and in Junior's, here, it is an argument from silence fallacy. He can draw all the conclusions he wants, but the fact is that I do not want to waste my time on someone as fallacious, manipulative and juvenile as him. He may appear to be a hero to his equally obtuse friends, but will not gain respect from people who actually think.

Time to wrap this up. It's enough of a typical example of the kind of thing that creationists deal with all the time. I expect that the full-time creation science ministries have it a thousand times worse than I have, but I still accepted advice to give these vacuous stalkers some attention this time.

Hope my students in "Logic Lessons" as well as other readers were able to get something out of this. It was not difficult for me to refute, so I doubt that others had problems with it.

Bill Nye Fallout and Debate Challenge — Part 1

Because Nye has engaged AiG in a public way, and after some extreme hostility by secularists directed at Drs. Purdom and Menton that showed up on websites and Facebook pages, I decided to do two things: 1. post my second Nye video on YouTube, viewable on a recent blog; and 2. extend an invitation to Mr. Nye to a public debate on evolution vs. creation.
— Ken Ham
This week, we are going to take a break from the scientific evidence refuting evolution and affirming creation so we can look at some more philosophical ideas. There is an announcement to be made and some points to prove about bad attitudes.

I am going to be blunt. But this is no surprise to my regular readers.

Any skilled totalitarian knows that long-term success involved capturing the minds of children. (One Facebook comment contained the Stalinesque remark, "Evolution is a fact, and participation is mandatory".) Proponents of evolution are willing to lie to children to accomplish their ends. Bill Nye is a darling of evolutionists, since he is loudly advocating for their belief system to children and attacking creationists, including with a recent video. Creationist organizations (and others) responded to his propagandistic falsehoods.

One of the respondents was creationist molecular biologist Dr. Georgia Purdom of "Answers in Genesis". She received vituperative attacks, especially on Facebook. She was called a "coward" for deleting their childish nonsense.

>> Fast forward a bit. Ken Ham of "Answers in Genesis" responded with another short video:

In addition, that bastion of accurate and unbiased reporting, the "Huffington Post", made blatantly inaccurate statements about her that could be considered dishonest.

There is now a public challenge to a debate between Dr. Purdom and propagandist Bill Nye. Is Bill Nye going to accept the challenge? Oh, sweet suspense! (Fundamentalist evolutionists are already making excuses for Nye, of course. Reminds me of the fiasco of Richard Dawkins' excuses to avoid debating Christian philosopher William Lane Craig.) It appears that the debate is not about hardcore science per se, but more along philosophical lines. If Nye wants to attempt to do science, I am certain that Dr. Purdom will accommodate him.

On a personal level, because I expressed support on Facebook by commenting on posts by Dr. Purdom as "The Question Evolution Project", an angry anti-creationist went wild. Normally, I detest naming small-time trolls because they crave attention, but when they become so aggressive and petulant that they begin Internet stalking, spamming and other harassment, I will make an exception today.

Actually, this became rather long, I do not want to detract from the challenge to Bill Nye. Part 2 is here.

Friday, September 7, 2012

Texas Evidence Supports Global Flood Hypothesis

People who are locked into a uniformitarian, old-Earth, evolutionist viewpoint constantly have to deal with (or attempt to simply dismiss) evidence that does not support their presuppositions. Case in point: An Arlington fossil site has a mix of land and sea creatures that support creationist scientist Michael Oard's hypothesis regarding the Noachian flood.
A new cache of fossils found in Arlington, Texas, contains plenty of clues that are best explained by Noah's Flood.

More specifically, the circumstances surrounding these remains match a hypothesis proposed by creation scientist Michael Oard that describes how swamp plants and land creatures could have mixed with sea creatures several months into the year-long Flood.

According to Scripture, five months passed after the Flood began before its waters had completely covered the earth (Genesis 7:24). By then, all air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures not on board the Ark were dead or dying. According to Oard, the interiors of continents may have been the last land areas to be submerged after being repeatedly washed by successive wave-like surges. Water and land levels fluctuated, and desperate, starving creatures made their last stands on temporary barren mud flats.
Grave news for evolutionists. You can read the rest of "Chewed Dinosaur Bones Fit Flood", here.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Flood Waters - View from Afar

According to a Catastrophic Plate Tectonics model, the mantle and crust of the Earth shifted violently during the year of the Noachian Flood.

Where did the water go after the Genesis Flood? Catastrophic plate tectonics is part of the explanation.
Apollo 17 "Blue Marble" — NASA
If the planet was indeed covered with water, where did the water go? If the Earth was smoothed out, it would be covered with water for a depth (depending on the estimates) of 1.6 to 2 miles, so there is rather a lot of it. The continents and mountains rose, the water ran off into the newly-formed ocean basins according to this model.
NASA's Image of the Day for January 25, "Blue Marble," is a composite of images taken by the Suomi NPP satellite that provides an exquisite view of the earth from space. This is the latest in a series that began with the famous "Blue Marble" photo taken in 1972 by the Apollo 17 crew.
This image can help answer a question that creationists often hear: If the entire earth really was covered during the Flood of Noah's day, then where did all that water go?
According to the Bible, the water retreated from the surface of the earth, apparently running off the continents into newly created ocean basins. Geophysicist John Baumgardner developed a detailed, feasible model called Catastrophic Plate Tectonics of how the earth's mantle and crust might have shifted and interacted during the Flood year. According to this model, the configuration of today's ocean floors formed during the latter months of the Flood year.
You can paddle your way over to "NASA Earth Image Helps Answer Flood Question", here, to finish the article.