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

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

More Evidence of Noah's Flood in Australia

Despite efforts of evolutionary geologists to explain away a recent fossil find in Australia, the evidence supports the Noachian Flood.
stock.xchng/liqfx

Fossil graveyards have been discovered for many years, and more are being found. The fossils recently discovered in Geebung (near Brisbane) fit the biblical creationist Flood geology model quite well, despite the attempts of uniformitarian evolutionists to say otherwise.
Overpass construction at Geebung, a northern Brisbane suburb, has dug up fossils of crocodiles, frogs, fish, shells and plants, buried in the last stages of Noah’s Flood, about 4,500 years ago.
A piling rig recovered the fossils from a layer of oil shale some 15 m underground and dumped them in a spoil heap, where they were noticed.
The fossils were within an area of sedimentary deposits that geologists have called the Petrie Formation. These cover an area of some 50 km north of the mouth of the Brisbane River.
The Petrie Formation is one of a number of Tertiary basins in the Brisbane area, which include the Booval and Oxley Groups south of the Brisbane River. These basins consist of a mixture of different types of rock, including mudstone, shale, and sandstone, as well as limestone and brown coal. The basins also contain basalt flows that were deposited from volcanoes.
Read the rest of "Fossils found at Geebung, Australia, were buried by Noah’s Flood", here, and a follow-up, here.

 

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

West Nile Virus and Evolution

As I write this, it is not yet August in 2013. Summer in North America is well under way. Many areas in the United States have had saturating rainfall. That leads to standing water. Which, in turn, become breeding grounds for mosquitoes. And mosquitoes are the deadliest creature on Earth, since they carry so many diseases.

The key word in "West Nile Virus" is virus. That means there is no cure. Fortunately, the conditions needed to infect a person are comparatively small, and most people do not exhibit symptoms.


stock.xchng/biborg
However, the West Nile Virus can be fatal in humans. Take precautions against being bitten, willya?

Evolutionists offer explanations that do not make sense about the actions of the virus, and about natural selection; humans and other animals are "dead ends", because the virus cannot be passed along. Also, although the virus has mutated, it has not mutated into a non-virus.
Because West Nile virus does not multiply as successfully in humans or horses as in birds, mosquitoes do not ordinarily ingest a sufficient quantity of virus to get infected when they bite infected people or horses. Many birds are “amplifying reservoirs” during their infectious period, however, and Culex mosquitoes biting them get infected and become infectious.

West Nile virus, first diagnosed in Uganda in 1937, only arrived in North America in 1999. Like many immigrants, it started its American adventure in New York City and rapidly progressed across the continent. With outbreaks in California and the western Plains and Rocky Mountain States in 2002, it has since spread to the 48 contiguous United States. The massive outbreak in 2012, which killed 286 in the United States alone, showed the disease is here to stay. Will this summer’s heavy rainfall lead to an encore performance? Does this virus constitute an evolving predator of some sort? What should we expect, and how can we protect ourselves?
You can read the rest in context, see the images, click the supporting links, by clicking "Special Report: West Nile Virus—Will It Strike the States Hard Again?"

Monday, July 29, 2013

Wonders of the Sun

NASA/Jenny Mottar
Let's look at the sun. No, not directly! When we explore what we know about the purpose, location, layers, immensity, complexity and more, it brings a sense of wonder. It should also bring a sense of thankfulness, as it is perfectly placed to make life on Earth possible. Here is a perspective from a creationist astrophysicist. Don't worry, most of it is written for us regular people.
It may appear small in our sky at a distance of 93 million miles, but the sun is actually 109 times the diameter of Earth and over a million times the volume of Earth. The sun is the largest single object in our solar system and comprises 99.86 percent of all its mass. If a ten-pound bowling ball represented the mass of the sun, then all the planets, moons, comets, and everything else in our solar system could be represented by the combined mass of one nickel and one penny. Jupiter would be the nickel.
The sun is comprised almost entirely of hydrogen and helium gas. But how do we know this? We measure it by analyzing sunlight using a spectroscope, which breaks white light into a rainbow of colors called a “spectrum.” Careful analysis of the solar spectrum reveals narrow dark bands that indicate certain wavelengths of light are missing. The position of these bands corresponds to the substance that produced the light. It’s like an atomic fingerprint. In fact, helium was actually discovered on the sun through spectroscopy before it was found on Earth. This is why it has the name “helium” from “Helios,” the ancient Greek deity of the sun. Similar analysis of starlight reveals that stars are also spheres of hydrogen and helium gas like the sun—but at much greater distances. The sun is so hot that for most of its interior, the atoms are completely ionized—their electrons have been stripped away from their nuclei.
You can read the rest of "The Solar System: The Sun", in context, here.

Friday, July 26, 2013

False Predictions and Accommodation in Evolutionary Theory

Baker's Yeast / stock.xchng/chrni13
When scientists make predictions based on their theories, it should be good for science. Even false predictions. When the prediction does not work, the theory can be further examined, modified or discarded. On the other hand, our knowledge can be increased if it is correct. Evolution is loaded with false theories and errors. There are too many to honestly call evolution a valid scientific theory. Instead, excuses and accommodations are made.
Recently we reported on a false prediction of evolution and gave some of the details. Evolution predicts that different kinds of genes, each found within a group of species, should tell the same story about evolution. They should produce similar evolutionary trees. Evolutionists have touted this fact of nature, and how it confirms a key prediction of evolution, for years. They call it a consilience of independent evidences. But increasingly, as we look under the hood and examine the details, we find there is more contradiction than consilience. The new study provided yet another, systematic and more in-depth, confirmation of these contradictions, or what are called incongruence. Evolutionists were a bit shocked.
What is interesting is how this false prediction was accommodated. The evolutionists tried to fix the problem with all kinds of strategies. They removed parts of genes from the analysis, they removed a few genes that might have been outliers, they removed a few of the yeast species, they restricted the analysis to certain genes that agreed on parts of the evolutionary tree, they restricted the analysis to only those genes thought to be slowly evolving, and they tried restricting the gene comparisons to only certain parts of the gene.
You can read the rest of "That Yeast Study is a Good Example of How Evolutionary Theory Works", in its full context, here.

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Evolution and the Nature of Reality

Old, old questions: What is reality? Where does it come from? Is it a product of our minds and perceptions, or something more? Why haven't the Cubs won the World Series since 1908?


PD/Govard Bidloo (modified)
In a random chance universe, science is not possible. This is especially clear in astronomy, which relies on extremely complicated mathematics. Yet, numbers themselves are not material things, so when someone insists on pure naturalism, he is tacitly denying his own worldview when he uses numbers, since mathematics itself could not exist through evolution!

Some people neurotically attempt to create their own realities through bad logic: God is not real and if you believe he exists, you are a reality denier. People like this, and other evolutionists, attempt to explore the nature of reality. They fail miserably because they leave out the Source. Also, something does not become reality simply because one wishes it to be so.
Philosophical questions about “reality” are fun if not practical.  But we need a concept of reality in order to function practically.
Get real!” we challenge one another.  Most of us believe in external reality.  The “correspondence theory” of truth posits that our sensations, however flawed, correspond with what’s really out there in the external world, even if the signals go through multiple layers of processing and translation from source to brain.
I really think you would learn something from "Does the Mind Create Reality or Discover It?"


Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Fraud in Science Marches On


Scientists are not the dispassionate, objective paragons of virtue on pedestals that people imagine. They are human, and subject to the same selfish desires that other people have. (They may even appreciate it if they were not expected to live up to unrealistic ideals. Just a thought.) Some are greedy, some are noble.

When it comes to origins science, however, I am convinced that the most important goal for many is to get people to believe in evolutionism. (But avarice is not limited to evolutionists by any means.) There is fraud in scientific papers, peer review is becoming pointless, fraud in evolutionary education, data manipulation, retractions and more. And it is growing. It would be bad enough if the epidemic was confined to evolutionism, but it also affects health care and life sciences. It's not all fraud. There is a generous amount of carelessness and incompetence, but never mind about that now.
The Piltdown hoax is one of the most famous cases of fraud in science. Many Darwinists, though, claim that this case is an anomaly, and that fraud is no longer a problem today. However, the cases of fraud or deception in the field of evolution include not only the Piltdown Man, but Archaeoraptor, the peppered moth, the Midwife Toad, Haeckel’s embryos, Ancon sheep, the Tasaday Indians, Bathybius haeckelii and Hesperopithecus (Nebraska Man)—the missing link that turned out to be a pig. Actually, fraud as a whole is now ‘a serious, deeply rooted problem’ that affects no small number of contemporary scientific research studies, especially in the field of evolution. Scientists have recently been forced by several events to recognize this problem and try to deal with it.
Most of the known cases of modern-day fraud are in the life sciences. In the biomedical field alone, fully 127 new misconduct cases were lodged with the Office of Research Integrity (US Department of Heatlh & Human Services) in the year 2001. This was the third consecutive rise in the number of cases since 1998. This concern is not of mere academic interest, but also profoundly affects human health and life. Much more than money and prestige are at stake—the fact is, fraud is ‘potentially deadly’, and in the area of medicine, researchers are ‘playing with lives’. The problem is worldwide. In Australia misconduct allegations have created such a problem that the issue has even been raised in the Australian Parliament, and researchers have called for an ‘office of research integrity’.
All human observers, however well trained, have a strong tendency to see what they expect to see.
You can finish reading "Why the epidemic of fraud exists in science today", here.

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Wonders of the Solar System


Few of us can look up into the night sky and not feel awe at the magnificence in the universe that we can see. It becomes even more amazing when we know a bit about astronomy.


NASA/JPL-Caltech/T. Pyle (SSC)
The order and complexity of the universe testifies to the wisdom and power of the Creator. If chance and random processes ruled, astronomy would be impossible. It did not happen by itself.
One of the wonderful things about astronomy is that it is so different from our everyday experience. Things are not what they might seem at first glance. Who could have guessed that those tiny little specks of light in our night sky are actually “suns” hundreds of times larger than Earth? Who would have suspected that the “evening star” is actually a rocky planet about the same size as our own? How unexpected to find that the solid earth beneath our feet is actually moving at 67,000 miles per hour around the sun, all the while spinning like a top! God has constructed the universe in a truly marvelous way. As we study it, the universe continually surprises and delights us by challenging our understanding of how things work.
Our solar system is a great example of this. We can actually see much of the solar system on a cloudless night. Most of the planets are visible to the unaided eye—appearing as tiny points of light. In reality, they are enormous spheres, some comparable in size to the earth, while others are much larger. The sun and moon are visible as small circles in our sky. Yet, in reality the moon is as large in diameter as the continental United States, and the sun is 400 times wider than the moon. The stars, sun, moon, and planets rise and set with clockwork precision. They seem to pay tribute to the earth as they respectfully circle around their master. But the truth of the matter is that Earth rotates as it moves around the sun. Every new discovery in astronomy is a surprising and delightful revelation that God is even more amazing, creative, and powerful than we previously supposed.
You can read the rest of "The Solar System", here.

Friday, July 19, 2013

Cosmic Lunacy Continues

The moon and other celestial objects are still causing considerable consternation to cosmologists. Conundrums like the origin and magnetic fields of the moon, chondrules in meteorites and the formation of stars (lots of assertions for this, but no actual evidence) are causing evolutionary cosmologists to cast their hands upward in expressions of confusion. Yet, many still cling to their faith in "science of the gaps", that "maybe someday" an answer that fits their preconditions will be found. Biblical creationists do not have these problems, since the science fits creationist models.
One would think astronomers would not be stumped in 2013 by common objects like the moon, meteors and stars.  But they are.  It’s driving them mad.
Moon madness:  The  lunacy begins with Earth’s moon.  Here is a body man has walked on, and he still doesn’t understand it.  National Geographic discussed “The moon’s mystery,” dispensing with all three of the most popular origin theories that were demolished by the Apollo program.  It also dispensed with the currently-leading theory of a glancing blow collision, showing that Apollo samples discredit the idea of another mass with different composition leaving no trace.  Variations of the model all have their weaknesses, so the answer must be in the futureware:
The barn door is wide open, and now we have lots of ideas,” Asphaug said. “There probably will be another ‘aha’ moment in five years or so.”
You can read the rest of the confounding "Mystery Moon (and Meteorites, and Stars)".

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Uniformitarian Desperation at Green River

When a variety of plant and animal fossils are jumbled together in one place, uniformitarian geologists and paleontologists insist on defying sensibility by insisting that it's "slow and gradual". (And there is more than one "fossil graveyard".)

Although the fossil evidence clearly reveals rapid burial from flooding, some geologists cling to "slow and gradual" fossilization.
Image credit: NPS.gov 
Many scientists have conceded that the old explanation does not work, but to go as far as admitting that the geological evidence supports the global Flood is apparently unthinkable to them.
Not just horses and fish, but—like a whole ancient zoo buried together—lizards, alligators, stingrays, snakes, squirrel varieties, bats, long-tailed turtles, lemur-like primates, birds, frogs, insects, and sycamore, palm, and fern leaves were all fossilized in Wyoming's Green River Formation. A new book showcasing some of the more spectacular fossils provides secularists another opportunity to reinforce their ideas about how these diverse creatures were encased in what became a giant rock formation. Commonsense observations refute their slow-and-gradual scenario, however, and point to a more violent explanation.
Lance Grande collected the stunning fossil images for the book, The Lost World of Fossil Lake: Snapshots from Deep Time. He works as one of the curators at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History. One of his images shows a now-extinct variety of horse—one with a tiny stature and long hind legs for its size—surrounded by fossil fish. Horses and fish don't usually hang out together, but apparently they died together. How did they end up in the same fossilized bed?
You can read the rest of "New Fossil Book Won't Showcase Obvious Catastrophe", here.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Evolution and the Zimmerman Trial

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Now, don't get ahead of me and anticipate I'm going to say. And I'm going to assume that many people have heard enough about the Zimmerman trial, so I'm only planning one article. This is not an analysis of the night of the shooting, nor is it going to place blame on evolution for the events of that night. In-depth political ramifications of the trial will be left to others to discuss.

Instead, I'm going to make comparisons and contrasts about the way people analyze evidence.

In the George Zimmerman trial, like any other, evidence was obtained and examined. Witnesses were interrogated and then they testified. The jury deliberated and, in Zimmerman's case, returned a "not guilty" verdict. In American trials, a guilty verdict is supposed to be rendered "beyond a reasonable doubt"; people do not have to be proved innocent.
stock.xchng/creationc
I heard and read about George Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin. The police did not believe there was probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. Because of social, racial and political pressures, Zimmerman was arrested and the trial was convened. The media helped stir up tensions, including when NBC edited the recording of the 9-1-1 call that Zimmerman made.

People called radio talk shows. Many would express regret that Martin had been killed, but others, acting on emotion, lack of knowledge of the facts, presumptions and so on would only accept "justice" of a harsh sentence or even the execution of Zimmerman. There were vacuous cries that he was "executed for being black and wearing a hoodie". They had their minds made up despite the available evidence. Even after he was found not guilty, Zimmerman is the target of death threats from people who were not there, did not examine the evidence and are only acting on hate. To be Captain Obvious for a moment, I'll say that killing George Zimmerman and having riots will not bring back Trayvon Martin.

Now we can move to the evolution discussion.

When it comes to origins science, there are no human witnesses to interrogate. The evidence is examined and tested. Conjectures, hypotheses and theories are made. Supposedly, a theory is discarded if the evidence does not fit the facts.

Proponents of molecules-to-man evolution cling to their belief system despite evidence refuting evolution and affirming creation. Media bias adds to the passion of Darwin defenders. People will often make comments that are based on emotion and not on reason, having tried and sentenced creation science (and even judged God himself) in their minds. Like angry supporters of Trayvon Martin, some evolutionists want to shout us down, or even silence us even though we are proved right time and again. They do not want to accept what the evidence reveals because of their preconceptions.

As I have said many times, this is about worldviews and presuppositions. We can offer all the evidence in the world, but there is no getting through to someone who does not want to receive it. Someone else controls their minds.

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Monday, July 15, 2013

Genetic Fallacy AGAIN, Plus a Cascade of Carping

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Edited 11-11-2015
The Genetic Fallacy is, in simplest terms, rejecting something because someone does not like the source. For example:
Deny Darwin, and invite ridicule. Just ask Virginia Heffernan.

The text in the image shows not only that the commenter does not like ICR, but includes other fallacies as well, including the ever-popular ad hominem. And he wonders why he was banned from the Facebook Page? Seriously?

Virginia Heffernan formerly wrote technology and culture for the New York Times. She admitted recently that she is a creationist. Well, what kind of creationist, I'm not certain. (If she wants to discuss these things, biblical creationists will be glad to assist her.) What matters to her detractors is that she rejects evolution.

This led to a slew of ridicule. Hamilton Nolan of "Gawker" said:
"We are not saying you're a bad person, Virginia, but you should probably expect that, from now on, when people read your musings on, say, the future of internet communications, they might stop, in a moment of gathering doubt, and recall that you are a science-phobic angel-believing climate change skeptic, and that therefore your dedication to facts is somewhat in question."
Let's see... Genetic Fallacy, Poisoning the Well, ad hominems, unargued philosophical bias, Straw Man and simple bigotry for starters. Nolan is demonstrating that he is uninformed about the nature of science, since Heffernan's views of origins have nothing to do with observational science and technology. (Did I detect some appeal to authority there as well? Not sure.) Ironically, Nolan calls Heffernan "science-phobic" for denying evolution, but evolution itself is not scientific.

By the way, the genetic fallacy can work in the affirmative, approving of something because of the source. People listen to Bill Nye the Anti-Science Guy, so when he speaks with his "authority" on a topic, it must be so, right? Check out this article on Nye's pro-abortion Check out this article on Nye's pro-abortion "science" stuff.

Later, Nolan snarked, "This could, and should, erode your credibility, in the eyes of those elitist readers who value things that are based on 'evidence.' So kudos to you for being brave enough to admit to your own hilarious prejudices again common sense". What, she's supposed to cater to "elitist readers instead of all of them?

Evolution flies in the face of common sense from the get-go. Too bad we're not supposed to think for ourselves. When people start with their evolutionary worldview, they defend it with logical fallacies and ridicule. Like certain snack foods, you can't have just one.

Hamilton Nolan, I'm not saying you're a bad person. But when you demonstrate your bigotry, resort to insults, show a lack of knowledge of the nature of science, use multiple logical fallacies in one paragraph — well, people may be reading your material and realize that your dedication to facts (and civility) is somewhat in question.



Sunday, July 14, 2013

More Growth

"The Question Evolution Project" began on Facebook late January of 2012. We've climbed up to 1,500 "Likes" in that time, and only 1,000 of those are my spare accounts. (That's a joke. No refunds on the jokes.) The future looks bright, creation science is growing, the truth about the folly of evolution is being proclaimed and the Creator is glorified. We have haters, defamers, libelers — it happens when you go against evolutionary dogmatism, as the big name creation science organizations know full well. This kind of evil never sleeps. On we go!






Friday, July 12, 2013

Do Plants Use Math?

Mustard Plants - MorgueFile/citysafari
Earlier, we marveled at photosynthesis. But what happens at night? Plants still use food during the night. It involves using just the right amount of starch molecules. Still move evidence of a master Designer at work!
A new study came out showing how plants utilize an efficient form of mathematics to precisely calculate how much starch to consume as food during the night.
During the daytime, plants make carbohydrates through photosynthesis and store a portion of them as starch molecules. The cells then metabolize that starch as a food source during the night to fuel cell growth and development. One researcher said, "If the starch store is used too fast, plants will starve and stop growing during the night. If the store is used too slowly, some of it will be wasted."
However, the plant must use its food reserves judiciously and dynamically by controlling the rate of its metabolism along with the amount of starch used during the night. Researchers are now beginning to unravel how plants manage this process, and they were surprised to find that the mustard plant they studied followed principles of mathematical equations. Researcher Allison Smith said, "The capacity to perform arithmetic calculation is vital for plant growth and productivity."
Feed your mind by reading the rest of "Plants Use Math to Ration Food Use".

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Geocentrism — An Embarrassment to Creationists

Some people believe that both science and Scripture support a geocentric (Earth-centered universe). They mean well, but the movement fails. Not entirely surprisingly, a Sacred Name cult on Facebook that pretends to be a Christian group supports geocentrism.
Ptolemaic Astrology, Andres Cellarius 
A basic guideline for biblical creationists is that the Bible is foundational. Like secular scientists, creationists propose models and put forth ideas and see if they are supported by Scripture as well as observational and experimental data. One thing that evolutionists and creationists have in common is that origins science is historical in nature — nobody can reproduce creation or evolution. For example, a fossil does not exist in the past, it exists in the present. Examination of the object can be done with current testing methods and so forth, and scientists hold to their presuppositions and worldviews.

Geocentrism, the idea that the Earth is the center of the solar system (or the universe), was based on philosophies, astrology and mathematics from ancient Greece. The model proposed by Ptolemy was popular for centuries until creationist astronomers like Galileo and Copernicus (and others) demonstrated that it was not accurate, and gave us the heliocentric view. They did not see a conflict with the Bible, and the science was much more straightforward, and far less cumbersome.


A well-intentioned but erroneous desire to reinstate geocentrism has arisen among some creationists. Unfortunately, they use inaccurate science, bad eisegesis and even use support from Bible-deniers in much the same way as Old-Earth "creationists" use atheistic scientists to support their views.

Some creationists believe that the scientific assault on the Bible did not begin with biological evolution, but with the acceptance of the heliocentric (or more properly, geokinetic) theory centuries ago. These people believe that the Bible clearly states that the Earth does not move, and hence the only acceptable Biblical cosmology is a geocentric one. Modern geocentrists use both Biblical and scientific arguments for their case. We examine these arguments, and find them poorly founded. The Scriptural passages quoted do not address cosmology. Some geocentrists draw distinctions that do not exist in the original autographs or even in translations. In short, the Bible is neither geocentric nor heliocentric. While geocentrists present some interesting scientific results, their scientific arguments are often based upon improper understanding of theories and data. Much of their case is based upon a misunderstanding of general relativity and the rejection of that theory. While geocentrists are well intended, their presence among recent creationists produces an easy object of ridicule by our critics.

Many critics of creationists attempt to malign by suggesting that what creationists teach is akin to belief in a flat Earth. This attack is easy to refute, because the Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat, and virtually no one in the history of the church taught this. In fact, the belief in a flat Earth is a 19th century myth that was concocted to discredit critics of Darwinism. The supposed lesson of this myth was that the Church got it wrong before, so the Church has a chance to redeem itself by getting it right on the issue of evolution. This false lesson has been indelibly impressed upon common perception.
However, the Church did support the wrong side of a scientific issue four centuries ago. That issue was the question of whether the Sun went around the Earth (geocentrism) or if the Earth went around the Sun (heliocentrism, which could be called geokineticism since the Sun is not regarded as the centre of the universe either, as discussed below). Being based upon real history, creationists in theory could be accused of repeating this mistake by rejecting evolution.
Alas, there are recent creationists in the world today who are geocentrists. They teach that the rejection of God’s Word did not begin with Darwin’s theory of biological evolution or even with Hutton and Lyell’s geological uniformitarianism. Instead, they argue that the scientific rebellion against God began much earlier with heliocentrism.
Many evolutionists claim that disbelief in evolution is like disbelief that the Earth goes round the Sun. The obvious flaw is that the latter is repeatable and observable while the former is not. But geocentrists give evolutionists a target, so then it behoves the creation community to have a ready response.
To finish reading, you can orbit over to "Geocentrism and Creation".

Monday, July 8, 2013

Evolution Crusaders Expressing Opinions Without Knowledge

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is not a science article, it is an editorial based on my observations, experiences and those of other people.

Those of us who reject evolution (whether from science, theology or both) encounter proponents of evolution who seem to have made it their personal crusade to put us in our place. They are so determined to silence us, they speak without knowledge. Some go on quests to give one-star ratings at Amazon's now-worthless reviews, even though they have not even read the books! This says a great deal about their supposed integrity.

Frequently, we have people making comments at The Question Evolution Project on Facebook who, although they have not read the material, are still certain that creationists are wrong anyway.  Many are willing to lie outright, but they only manage to humiliate themselves. The humiliation increases when someone wants to take the time to point out their tactics. Then they scream, "Libel!" and "Liar for Jesus!" Oh, please.

Sometimes, mockers will use scientific jargon and partial truths to appear like they really know what they are talking about. But in reality, they only present pseudo-intellectual fa├žades that crumble upon examination

This is to help show that people really do not want to understand our position. They would rather find a way to shout us down, which is a natural extension of the fundamentally flawed Darwinist worldview. Don't be fooled or intimidated by pretentious evolutionists who really have nothing to say.


A fool finds no satisfaction in trying to understand,
for he would rather express his own opinion (Proverbs 18.2).

Saturday, July 6, 2013

Audio Saturday — Does the Bible Describe a Sauropod?


"But the word 'dinosaur' isn't in the Bible, Cowboy Bob!"

That is because the the word had not been invented for thousands of years. However, there are some interesting descriptions in the book of Job.

I cannot embed the audio since the site I use is down, you can download the one-minute MP3 here.

Friday, July 5, 2013

New Comet Will Raise Old Questions

Just how old is the universe, anyway? How do we know? Can assertions be substantiated, or do we just get more assertions and tall tales?

NASA, ESA, J.-Y. Li (Planetary Science Institute), and the Hubble Comet ISON Imaging Science Team
Using evolutionary methods, comets are expected to only be able to last a comparatively short time. That means they should have all been used up if the universe was billions of years old. How do they get out of this? Imagination. In this case, the Oort Cloud. (Or is it the Kuiper Belt? I keep getting the stories mixed up, as they are both far-fetched.) Comets and things are waiting out in space to be stirred up by something, although a plausible mechanism has not been put forth. It would be far better if they actually accepted the scientific evidence that the universe is far younger than evolutionists want to believe. They they would not need to resort to the complicated scientific principle called "Making Stuff Up".
In September 2012, a Russian and a Belarusian astronomer using the Kislovodsk Observatory co-discovered a comet heading our way. Comet Ison should become visible to Earth viewers in December 2013 after passing perilously close to the Sun during November. It may even appear brighter than the moon, triggering discussions about when and how comets formed.
A team of astronomers presented an analysis at the 44th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in March 2013, writing that Ison "could become one of the brightest comets in this century." Sunlight reflecting off the comet's tail of trailing ice and debris promises to shine brightly. That debris tail should remind its viewers that the comet is rapidly losing mass.
It would be a bright thing for you to finish reading "Ison—The Comet of the Century".

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Stone Tools Chipping Away Evolutionary Perceptions

Public Domain Illustration
Stone tools in the Tertiary? Rubbish! That would change too many ideas of when humans diverged from apes. Therefore, the tools must not be actual tools, but rather, acts of nature or accidents mistaken for tools.

Actually, there are strong indications that man was using stone tools much sooner than evolutionary presuppositions will allow. That is, they are in the wrong place. Sure, some things from nature and geologic conditions can resemble tools, but the trained eye can spot intelligence rather than superficial resemblances.
Approximately between 1860 and 1930, in some cases even later, there was a discussion about flint findings from Paleocene to Pliocene strata which were similar to tools. The findings show typical marks of human processing. Nevertheless they were rejected as human relicts on the grounds that they had been formed by geological processes. But after decades of research there is still not the least indication of any reasonable scientific support for this statement. The actual reason for the rejection of these findings is their occurrence, which within the scope of the evolutionary paradigm is too early in geological history. They are a contradiction to any evolutionary theory about the origin of man, and they contradict the conventional long time periods.
Introduction
According to today’s prevailing opinion the first manufacturers of stone tools were australopithecines and habilines living at the end of Tertiary about 2.5 million isotope years ago (Semaw 2000). According to the evolutionary model the first undisputed men (Homo erectus) descended from these “ape-men” living solely in Africa and made headway toward Eurasia about 1.8 million isotope years ago, during the early stage of the following younger geological period, the Quaternary. Thus, stone tools found outside of Africa cannot be of pre-Pleistocene age.
There are, however, stone tools from pre-Pleistocene epochs which were discovered not only in upper, but also in middle and lower strata of the Tertiary, and to be more precise, in different locations in Western and Central Europe, from Portugal through France to Britain, Belgium, and Germany, as well as outside of Europe. Inspired by the reading of Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson’s book Forbidden Archeology (1994, 2005) I concentrated on these findings.
You can finish reading the profusely illustrated and heavily documented "Stone Tools From the Early Tertiary in Europe—A Contradiction to any Evolutionary Theory About the Origin of Man and to Long Geological Periods of Time", here.


Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Pitching Evolutionism Through Assertion

Once again, proponents of evolution are presenting "answers" through circular reasoning. Using the assumption that evolution is true, they use circular reasoning as a means of explanation for human characteristics.

stock.xchng/justino307 
The story goes that since humans do not have fangs, claws, great speed and so forth, it was necessary to evolve the ability to throw. Words like "probably", "we can surmise", "would have" and other vague terms while still asserting that evolutionary "theory" is essential to understand the mechanics of throwing. Not only is evolution misrepresented, but it is completely irrelevant to the ability to throw. Add to this the implication that evolution is some kind of intelligent entity that confers a benefit on organisms, and you can see how much faith is involved in evolutionism.
Science news sites are talking about the evolution of human throwing, but it’s mostly speculation based on prior faith in Darwinism.  The real story is good design in the human shoulder.
Nature News, in a review entitled “Baseball players reveal how humans evolved to throw so well,” states, “A catapult-like mechanism allows energy to be stored in shoulder and torso, a video study of pitchers reveals.”
In addition:
Actually, understanding throwing biomechanics doesn’t require evolutionary theory at all.  It is the prior belief in human evolution that is propelling these scientists to “surmise” that throwing was beneficial somehow to human ancestors long ago.  Notice that the authors, by comparing contemporary hunter-gatherers (modern humans) to “earlier hominins” are saying we are all hominins.  The usefulness of the term “hominin” seems, therefore, moot.
It makes much more sense to realize that we were designed to do what we do by our Creator. You can wind up your reading of "Homo erectus were good pitchers", in full context, here.

Labels