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, August 30, 2013

Fundamentally Flawed Carbon-14 Assumptions and the Age of the Earth

Carbon-14 dating normally has no relevance to the age of the Earth. This assumption needs reconsideration.

"Just a minute, Cowboy Bob! We all know that 14C has nothing to do with the age of the Earth!"

For the most part, that is true. Uniformitarian scientists use long-term dating methods, test meteorites and select a result that best fits their presuppositions. It would be better for all if they were more scientific and actually examined their starting points.

Using uniformitarian assumptions, Carbon-14 should not exist in many items. But it does exist. People make excuses for it, including "contamination" and testing errors. (That casts aspersions on the labs doing the testing, and should undermine their confidence in the testing methods in general.) Actually, Carbon-14 is a serious threat to the idea of an ancient Earth, and far better supports creationist Flood geology.
Evolutionists have long used the carbon-14, or radiocarbon, dating technique as a “hammer” to bludgeon Bible-believing Christians. A straightforward reading of the Bible describes a 6,000-year-old universe, and because some carbon-14 (14C) age estimates are multiple tens of thousands of years, many think that the radiocarbon method has soundly refuted the Bible’s historical accuracy.
However, these excessively long ages are easily explained within the biblical worldview, and 14C actually presents a serious problem for believers in an old earth. 14C has been detected in organic specimens (coal, wood, seashells, etc., containing carbon from formerly living organisms) that are supposedly hundreds of millions of years old—but no detectable 14C should be present in specimens that are even a little more than 100,000 years old! Nearly anyone can verify this for themselves using basic multiplication and division.
I recommend that you finish reading "Rethinking Carbon-14 Dating: What Does It Really Tell Us about the Age of the Earth?"


Thursday, August 29, 2013

Bacterial Evolution in Action?

One of the most confusing (and annoying) problems in discussing origins is the misuse of terminology. The word "evolution" itself has several different definitions. Use a word, and people often have a definition in mind — which may not be appropriate for the discussion at hand. Some people will disingenuously equivocate the proper definition for the moment into "molecules to man" evolution.

CDC.gov/Janice Haney Carr
Another confusing problem is that Darwin's Cheerleaders will point to variations and say, "See? Evolution in action!" Variations in a microbe such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa are often used to extrapolate small changes as "proof" of Darwin's general theory of evolution. That is the opposite of the truth; no new genetic information is added.
Rapidly “evolving” bacteria are in the news. A mutation toggling the bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa between two distinct forms is generating excitement among evolutionary biologists. Joao Xavier of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and colleagues report in Cell Reports that they have repeatedly observedPseudomonas evolve into “hyperswarmers.”
Later, we read:
One of the greatest Achilles heels in evolutionary dogma is the fact that the wondrous production of life from lifelessness and the rise from molecules to man supposedly occurred while shrouded unobserved by the mists of millions of years. Evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould once argued that man was an accidental product of countless unpredictable evolutionary accidents. Carl Zimmer of theNew York Times now reports that evolution need not be so slow or so random.
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, like many microbes, can exist quite nicely in our environment and even on our skin without causing us any harm. But Pseudomonascan also be a dangerous pathogen, causing, for instance, dangerous infections of immune-compromised patients, burn victims, and patients with cystic fibrosis.
You can read the entire article in context by visiting "Selective Switch Toggles Bacterial Traits while 'bacteria evolve with predictable results'".

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Stem Cell Research Can Be Done Morally

In recent years, American voters were bombarded with questions about embryonic stem cell research for medical and other purposes, and if federal funding to destroy the lives of the unborn to further this research should be allowed. All sorts of claims were made about the benefits of ESR, but they were with little merit. It was mostly emotional hype based on leftist politics and the "right" to abortion.

Meanwhile, adult stem cell research has been progressing. There are some startling benefits from the stem cells of humans — and some animals. The results are very encouraging, and human life does not need to be sacrificed.
With adult and induced pluripotent stem cells in abundance, it should not be necessary to destroy human embryos to understand stem cell science.
Research with adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) is continuing to produce amazing discoveries.
Read about some of these amazing discoveries at "Stem Cell Science Can Proceed Ethically".

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Design in the Pregnancy Process

Another example of the intricate complexities that we see all around us is in the chemistry of human pregnancy. There are seeming paradoxes in the changes that seem to be understood now.

Image courtesy of David Castillo Dominici / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Although it is obvious that such intricacy is the product of the master Designer, evolutionists blindly place their faith in time, chance and random mutations.
The onset of pregnancy presents an apparent contradiction. Ovulating and initially pregnant mothers experience an increase in progesterone. On the one hand, this hormone signals the immune system to back down and lay low. That's critical, because otherwise her body would fight and kill sperm cells as though they were unwelcome invaders, and she would never become pregnant.
But on the other hand, progesterone reduces cholesterol levels in her body. Too much progesterone would doom a developing baby, who requires cholesterol. Why would one action both promote and prevent a single outcome? Two University of California evolutionary biologists believe they have decoded the answer.
You can finish reading "Amazing Design in the Chemistry of Pregnancy", here.

Monday, August 26, 2013

Evolution, Abortion and Violence Against Women

The real "war on women" is being done through abortion: Women are killing women. And evolutionary concepts are being used to justify this violence.

It is ironic that critics of the Bible misunderstand (deliberately, I believe) that it actually affirms the value of women — sometimes contrary to cultures of the times. In contrast, the evolutionary worldview devalues human life. "Survival of the fittest", natural selection, "It's only a fish going through evolutionary stages" and other excuses contribute to this concept.

In many cultures, women are of lesser value. With the increase of abortion "rights" in the West, there is also an increase in abortions because the mothers do not want girl babies. Here is the real "war on women"! Ironically, abortion is fundamental to "feminism" today, but history shows quite the opposite. What value does society place on women, born or unborn? Biblical Christianity stands in stark contrast, placing value on humans who are created in the image of God.

Lita Cosner writes,
Abortion-rights activists, especially among the modern feminist movement, proclaim abortion to be an important right for women. They often resort to scaremongering, claiming that if it were revoked, it would send the world back to the (largely mythical) era of back-alley abortions, and would represent a huge step backwards for women’s rights.
Later, she adds,
If society cannot interfere with a mother’s choice to abort for any reason she wants (‘abortion is between a woman and her doctor’), how can it be wrong for her to abort based on the sex of the baby? If it is okay for her to abort because she doesn't want a baby, why is it wrong for her to abort because she doesn't want a girl? In fact, the ability to choose the sex of a child is a logical extension of the ‘right to choose’ if that ‘right’ exists. If abortion is not objectionable in and of itself, why should we be troubled by the growing trend of baby girls being aborted in disproportionate numbers? After all, it is the woman’s choice!
The eugenic idea of aborting babies with defects also logically contributes. This teaches that it is acceptable, or even right, to abort children for birth defects such as Down’s syndrome, blindness, deafness, sickle-cell anemia, spina bifida, although many with such conditions live worthwhile lives. If a genetic defect is a valid reason to abort a child, why is it not acceptable to abort babies for what many in these countries consider the genetic ‘defect’ of being female?
You can read, in full context, "An Indispensable Right or Violence Against Women?", here. Then I hope you come back to see the video, below.

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Audio Saturday — Soft Tissues, iDINO and CRS

I fouled up, and it is a good thing. 

Originally, I was going to post the link to this Bob Enyart interview with microscopy scientist Mark Armitage in a previous post and forgot to do it. Even though this interview is from 2012, it has some important information about the iDINO Project, dinosaur soft tissues and the laboratory at the Creation Research Society's Van Andel Creation Research Center.

To download or listen online, click here. The screen shot shows where to find the audio links.

Friday, August 23, 2013

Titan and Ad Hoc Explanations

Evolutionary cosmologists get more things wrong than they get right. Using their presuppositions, they make predictions. (Don't we all?) The problem is, whenever the space probes get close enough to celestial objects that are the subjects of scientists' predictions, the preductions are incorrect.

NASA/JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute
These scientists do great calculations and can describe the present, but when it comes to explaining planetary origins, they do poorly. In fact, they make up some nice stories that have no substantive basis. But they must have an ancient universe, because evolutionists must have huge amounts of time to plug into their conjectures. Creationists do not have these problems.
Like Enceladus, Saturn’s moon Titan shows multiple signs of being far less than 4.5 billion years old – yet the press releases are strangely silent about the implications. 
As we showed recently with Enceladus (8/7/13), planetary scientists become oddly silent about evidences that conflict with their old-age assumptions.  Another case is Titan, Saturn’s largest moon. 
Case of the disappearing methane:  Titan’s methane may dry up, a surprise announcement said on Space.com, where Megan Gannon wrote, “the compound doesn’t seem to be getting replenished fast enough on Titan’s surface to keep the methane cycle sustainable, scientists say.”  She was referring to a JPL press release (echoed on NASA Astrobiology Magazine) that asked if the methane is “going, going, soon to be gone” (cf. 4/16/13).  The articles acknowledged the ongoing photodissociation of methane by the solar wind, hinting that ethane should accumulate on the surface – but the observed lakes present far less than previously calculated (scientists had expected to find a global ocean of methane and ethane about half a kilometer deep). Icarus said that over half the surface liquid should be ethane, presumably from the solar wind breakdown.   Christophe Sotin thinks the methane disappearance may be tens of millions of years in the future, but readers should ponder that ten million years is 1/450th the assumed age of Titan.  To rescue the assumption that Titan is billions of years old, the press release posited an unobservable, ad hoc event: “The team suggests that the current load of methane at Titan may have come from some kind of gigantic outburst from the interior eons ago possibly after a huge impact.”  It’s not known, though, whether a reservoir of methane exists under Titan’s surface that could be excavated by an impact.
You can read about the other problems and evolutionary guesswork by following this link to "Scientists Dodge Youthfulness of Saturn Moon Titan".

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Little Things Are Important

The little things do matter, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. The more our science and technology develop, the more we can learn about the Creator's intricate design. For example, the Kinesin Linear Motor:

We are also learning more about the things that harm us.

Mark Armitage is a scientist who is helping to increase our knowledge. He has been fascinated by magnifying things since he was young, and even makes micrographs. After he became an evolutionary scientist (following the crowd, believing because he thought that was the way scientists think), he became a biblical creationist. Among other things, he takes pictures of the microscopic world and has many technical publications.
Meet a scientist whose work involves high-precision photographic enlargements of a microscopic world we seldom see … Mark Armitage talks with Tas Walker about ‘the things that are not’.
‘I distinctly remember when I was infected with the microscope bug’, recalls research scientist Mark Armitage. ‘I was 16 and had spent my summer vacation at a marine science station, examining tiny planktonic algae.’ After that, microscopes and the microscopic world became his life passion.
Over the years, he has worked for world-famous microscope manufacturers: Zeiss of Germany, Olympus of Japan, and Reichert of Austria. For the last 18 years, he has run his own microscope/consulting company, Micro Specialist, in Los Angeles.
You can read more of Mark's story at "The Things That Are Not".

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Evolution and the Misused Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Model

The Hardy-Weinberg Principle is taught to help give an understanding of gene frequency in a population.

It is a useful tool when used accurately. Unfortunately, there is a bit of "bait-and-switch" happening with the term "evolution". People start out using evolution correctly, and then equivocate with molecules-to-man evolution. This takes a helpful principle and turns it into an inaccurate propaganda device.
Public schools, colleges, and universities today teach the Hardy-Weinberg Principle in biological science courses, and many of them do so inaccurately. The inaccuracy of these teachings are simply due to either a misunderstanding of the application of the Hardy-Weinberg Principle and equation, or it may be due to a deliberate misinterpretation of its uses to further support and promote a “macroevolutionary” philosophy. We will discuss how instructors are using the Hardy-Weinberg Principle as evidence for molecules-to-man Darwinian evolution, why this method of application is incorrect, and what the Hardy-Weinberg Principle can be used for. We will also answer the fundamental question: does the Hardy-Weinberg Principle itself require any rejection of biblical foundations?
Follow the link to continue reading "The Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Model: Evidence for Evolution?"

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Playing the Slots with Flood Formations

A "slot canyon" is much deeper than it is wide, a narrow gorge that, by all accounts, is gorge-ous.

Uniformitarian geologists have attempted some explanations of the formation of slot canyons that fall far short of observable data. In reality, they are explained far better by catastrophic global Flood geology.
stock.xchng/Antelope Canyon/klsmith77
Uniformitarian geologists have attempted some explanations that fall far short of observable data. In reality, slot canyons are explained far better by catastrophic global Flood geology.
We’ve all seen photos of those exquisitely beautiful and mysterious canyons with swirling, multicolored sandstone layers that look almost like marble cake. Known as “slot canyons” (their depth is much greater than their narrow width), most usually have a “sometimes dry” streambed flowing through them. What formed these remarkably sculptured beauties?
These inspiring canyons are exotic and often remote. The state of Utah sports a concentration of them. Over the years, Native Americans have attached spiritual significance to these treasures. Many of the stirring photos we’ve seen were taken from helicopters or by daredevils on hang gliders, darting in and out among the rocks. Those fortunate enough to have visited these hard-to-access canyons and the contorted sandstone beds they display so valued their experience they returned with their own lasting memories on film.
You can finish reading "Slot Canyons, a Stunning Flood Formation", here.

Monday, August 19, 2013

Computers and Evolution

Use of the word "science" is often vague and nebulous. People forget the philosophies behind scientific methods, and do not differentiate between practical, applied science and historical (origins) science. Further, people approach science with expectations and preconceptions. The following article uses a computer parable and explanation to put things in perspective.
One day, two computer programs were taking a break, having a cup of tea in the hard drive of a laptop. Recently, another computer program had failed to respond and had been deleted from the laptop. The two programs, feeling philosophical about their old friend, started talking about the meaning of life, where they had come from, how they should live and what happens after deletion. They were specifically concerned with where they came from. However, after much conversation and many cups of tea they could not decide.
The past course of events can neither be directly observed nor repeated. When people work within the realm of origins science they come to it with a set of presuppositions, or a worldview.
You can read the entire article in context at "The Parable of the Two Computer Programs".

Saturday, August 17, 2013

Audio Saturday — Radiometric Dating

On "Real Science Radio", Pastor Bob Enyart interviewed former atheist Dr. Jay Wile (Ph.D. in nuclear chemistry). They discussed several topics, emphasizing radiometric dating. The write-up and the link to listen are here.

Friday, August 16, 2013

Dog with a Super Sniffer?

Uniformitarianism and "deep time" are basically the warp and woof of evolution. Essentially, "the present is the key to the past", and fossilization takes millions of years. Rock strata are dated by the fossils they contain, and fossils are dated by the rock strata in which they were located. Using this erroneous thinking, there can be no traces of organic material in fossils, because they would have all turned to stone.

Creationists tend to nose around, disputing evolutionary conjectures, asking questions and taking a bite out of the bad science of evolution. For example, dogs can be trained to find organic materials. How can a dog sniff out fossils, if fossils do not have organic material in them? We may be barking up the wrong tree, but it's a puzzler.
Gary Jackson and his dog, Migaloo, trained to sniff out buried remains, work with local Australians to uncover archaeological sites and help police locate the remains of murder victims. According to The Sydney Morning Herald, “Migaloo quickly located the 600-year-old remains of an indigenous Australian,” which researchers found a decade ago.1 But her specialized training resulted in an unforeseen crossover—Migaloo can also smell fossils.
A dog should not be able to smell fossils if the standard fossil formation story is true. This scenario assumes trickling minerals slowly replaced long-dead bones over millions of years. This process supposedly replaced all original bone material, essentially forming rocks that preserve only the bone shapes. If true, then the bones should no longer smell any different than the surrounding rock.
You can fetch the rest of "How Does a Dog Smell Fossils?"

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Adam, Eve and the Human Dating Game

People who put their faith in "science" and scientists (such as those seen in the video "Evolution vs. God") face a challenge: Things keep changing. Some pronouncement is made, scientists congratulate themselves on their genius, the media covers it and the crowds go wild.

Then things change. Different criteria are implemented, new technology is utilized, things that were rejected in the past are suddenly important. (Such changes must be an embarrassment for theistic evolutionists and other biblical compromisers!) For example, "Y-chromosome Adam" and "mitochondrial Eve" were alleged to have been many thousands of years apart. Using faulty presuppositions to avoid data that points to biblical sources, the gap between these alleged ancestors from your family tree has narrowed.
Mitochondrial Eve finally meets Y- chromosome Adam (sort of).
Announcing two studies that “re-date ‘Y-chromosome Adam’ and ‘mitochondrial Eve,’ Nature reports, “The Book of Genesis puts Adam and Eve together in the Garden of Eden, but geneticists’ version of the duo—the ancestors to whom the Y chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA of today’s humans can be traced—were thought to have lived tens of thousands of years apart. Now, two major studies of modern humans’ Y chromosomes suggest that ‘Y-chromosome Adam’ and ‘mitochondrial Eve’ may have lived around the same time after all.”
A May-December marriage?
“It has been suggested that the date of our last common maternal ancestor could have been three times older than that of our last common paternal ancestor,” ScienceMagazine reports. Mitochondrial-DNA calculations have typically estimated the last common maternal ancestor of modern humans lived 150,000 to 240,000 years ago. And until now most Y-chromosome calculations have placed the most common male ancestor only 50,000 to 115,000 years ago.
“Adam” and “Eve” reconciled
Stanford population geneticist Carlos Bustamante, using improved technology to sequence the entire Y-chromosome from 69 men scattered across the globe, discovered almost 9,000 previously unknown genetic variations. Using them his team now calculates that humanity’s most recent common male ancestor (MRCA) lived 120,000 to 156,000 years ago. Bustamante’s lab also reassessed humanity’s maternal ancestry, calculating that the female MRCA lived 99,000 to 148,000 years ago. The authors attribute the lower maternal estimate to their exclusion of the “between species”2 (i.e. chimpanzee) data used in most studies to calibrate the mitochondrial DNA-clock. The dates reconciled, they conclude, “Contrary to previous claims, male lineages do not coalesce significantly more recently than female lineages.”
You can finish reading "Circular Reasoning Surrounds Human Origins, but Even a Broken Clock Is Right Twice a Day", here.

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Another Universe Within You?

The more our medical technology advances, the more we realize that there is a great deal to be learned. Viruses and microbes (with uncertain boundaries between them at times) abound inside us. Many cannot be studied in a lab setting, either. Our bodies, and even our planet, is filled with coded information that shows the work of the Creator, and that evolution is absurd.
As scientists continue to find incredible diversity in the smallest of organisms, realizations of all we've been missing are changing conceptions of life.
Microbes: they live in and on us, and all around us – in the soil, in the air, and deep in the earth and seas.  “How many microbes are hiding among us?” Science Magazine asks.  It’s been hard to know, because most cannot be cultured in the lab.  New sequencing technologies are starting to shed light on the “dark matter” of the living world, as EurekAlert termed it in a Department of Energy press release reprinted by Astrobiology Magazine.  Eddy Rubin, leading a discovery initiative for the DOE, likens it to a new Lewis and Clark Expedition into unexplored territory.
You can read the rest at "Parallel Universe of Microbial 'Dark Matter' Revealed".

Monday, August 12, 2013

Is Theistic Evolution a Happy Medium?

When I was younger, I accepted Theistic Evolution ("TE"): Just go along with the evolutionist crowd and slap God's name on it as a kind of blessing. That way, I had everything covered. But I had no real knowledge of science nor theology. Once I started learning, it did not take me long to realize that TE meant doing violence to the teachings of the Bible.

Today, I notice compromisers getting praise and support from atheists. And why not? Atheists necessarily believe in evolution, and both agree that the Bible is not authoritative and does not mean what it says, just that TEs agree with this a bit less than atheists. I have seen positions held by biblical compromisers like Biologos, James McGrathDavid Montgomery and others applauded by atheists. Let's face it, placing current science trends and philosophies above God's Word just brings these people closer to atheism. In fact, people have left the faith because of evolution and lack of grounding in Scripture. Theistic evolution has many inherent problems.
CMI has long pointed to the connection between atheism and evolutionary teaching. By definition all thinking atheists must believe in evolution of some sort (and its co-joined concept of millions of years of earth history) to explain their existence without a creator. F. Sherwood Taylor (former Curator of the Museum of the History of Science, Oxford) summarized his belief about his country’s general apostasy this way; ‘ … I myself have little doubt that in England it was [uniformitarian, long-ages] geology and the theory of evolution that changed us from a Christian to a pagan nation.’
And as street preacher/evangelist Mark Cahill stated; “I think the real issue is if people know that evolution is true, they then know that the Bible would not be true and that then leads to the conclusion of atheism.” From their universities’ inner halls to their wide open streets, evolution’s effect on the western nations has been the same. The obvious implication is that if the Bible cannot be accepted as plainly read then why trust it at all?
You can finish "Sleeping with the enemy — Is teaching theistic evolution the solution?"

Friday, August 9, 2013

Fossil Spider Tall Tale

Evolutionists find fossils that they claim are multi-millions of years old. But they look just like their modern counterparts. That is unacceptable to evolutionists. The oft-told tale is that something dies and takes a very long time to fossilize. But this is in spite of common knowledge, but in spite of common sense. Scavengers, decay, the elements and more ruin the chances of fossilization by uniformitarian methods. No, something has to be buried quickly.

Golden Orb-Weaver Spider Nephila maculata/Wikimedia Commons/Engelen
A soft-bodied creature is even more susceptible to removal before the established fossil-making techniques are engaged. What is worse is when a fossil is alleged to be so many millions of years old, and its living counterparts show no noticeable changes.
Fossils are just one of many different pieces of evidence used to cause confusion between evolutionary theory and biblical history. Many of the fossil finds reported by the mainstream media are touted to be millions of years old but with no explanation of how the scientists reached that conclusion. The following fossil find is no exception.
LiveScience reports that scientists in Inner Mongolia, China, discovered an amazingly well-preserved fossil female golden orb-weaver spider, named Nephila jurassica, which is supposedly 165 million years old. Golden orb-weaver spiders are big enough to catch birds and bats in their web. The silk they use in their web shines like gold when sunlight catches it. This particular fossil was buried in volcanic ash and much to the scientists surprise, looks “about as large as its modern relatives, with a body one inch (2.5 centimeters) wide and legs that reach up to 2.5 inches (6.3 cm) long.”
Any operational science experiment will show that a dead creature will not last long exposed to the elements.
You can finish reading "Another Web of Evolutionary Deceit", here.

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

"Evolution vs. God" Video Available

After a great deal of anticipation (and attacks, even before it was available), Ray Comfort's video "Evolution vs. God" was released on August 7, 2013. It can be purchased on DVD, or watched for free on their site, YouTube or wherever it has been embedded (such as on this page). The entire video, intro to promos, runs just over 38 minutes.

Atheists are furious, attacking it with typical lack of logic. Which reminds me...some of the atheists that were interviewed were trying to appear intellectual, that they accepted evolution and rejected belief in God because of honestly exploring and evaluating the evidence. Their words indicate otherwise. 

Something that stood out for me is how people accepted evolution strictly on faith, without evidence. They trusted the opinions of authority figures, and would believe whatever is in the textbooks, and do not know that they are being lied to. (In fact, I believe that many atheists are engaging in what I refer to as "bandwagon convictions", adopting atheism out of rebellion or to please their friends.)

Further, even biology majors at colleges could not give observed scientific evidence of evolution. But then, even experts could not give examples of actual evolution. Some people even gave outdated evolutionary propaganda (things that creationists are frequently correcting them about). Mr. Comfort asks some direct questions, and shows them why the issue of origins is important.

"Evolution vs. God" is definitely worth watching and thought provoking. And sharing.

Mysterious Mercury

Cosmologists and cosmogonists propose hypotheses, theories and models about the universe and the solar system. Those who persist in using an evolutionary basis keep finding flaws in their models that need to be explained away. Otherwise, they may have to actually admit that the facts support the biblical creation model far better, and with much less fuss, than an evolutionary model. In fact, Mercury supports creationists' predictions.

NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of Washington
Mercury, the smallest planet and closest to the sun, presents perplexing puzzles that provoke pique among evolutionists. That is, Mercury does not act like it is supposed to act.
The smallest planet of our solar system holds some big mysteries for secular astronomers, and it continues to delight creationists. Mercury is only 38 percent the diameter of Earth, making it the smallest and least massive of the eight planets. It is the innermost planet of the solar system, orbiting the sun at a distance of only 36 million miles. That is nearly three times closer to the sun than Earth is. Mercury is a solid, rocky world, with only a trace of an atmosphere. It has mountains, valleys, plains, and craters—lots and lots of craters! In appearance, Mercury resembles a 40 percent larger (in radius) version of the moon. But when it comes to creation research of the early solar system, Mercury provides many interesting clues. The unusual characteristics of this world make for an intriguing study.
You can read the rest of "The Solar System: Mercury", here

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Sensationalistic Creationists

Instead of refuting evolution and affirming how evidence supports creation, this post will be geared toward biblical creationists.

First, I want to send you to an important article on "Ten Basics Every Creationist Should Know". 

Moving on...

In our enthusiasm to proclaim the truth, some of us get rambunctious and will grab things that irrefutably prove the existence of God, or conclusively destroy evolution. At least, that's how some things are presented. I have encountered well-meaning religious people who will pass along urban legends as fact, such as the atheist professor's chalk that did not break, or a youthful Albert Einstein putting a mouthy teacher in his place. Sometimes people are downright gullible, sometimes they act in haste, sometimes a mistake is made, sometimes a source is wrong. It happens. Anti-creationists and atheopaths in general are constantly manufacturing criticisms of us, we do not need to help them out by being blatantly careless.

Slow down, and check your sources, people! For example, I heard that Richard Dawkins said that if a 900 foot tall Jesus appeared before him, he would still not believe in God. I wanted to use that, but I could not find anything. Instead, I can use this hearsay as an example of what not to use. Creationists have a great deal of evidence to affirm creation and refute evolution, so we do not need to act in haste for some spectacular "proof" of our claims.
U.S. Geological Survey/Grand Canyon photo by Carol Wippich
And no matter what "proof" is offered, some people will still refuse to believe. It's not a matter of their evidence versus our evidence, because we all have the same data to work with. Instead, it is the interpretation of the data. Some people see the Grand Canyon as proof of evolution. Those of us who are less gullible and examine the facts see evidence of the Global Flood. We start with our presuppositions.

But why are some people apparently afraid that some evolutionist will be able to destroy their faith? How can they prepare themselves so they are not so prone to panic, and tempted to pass along rumors?
People often tell us excitedly how ‘the lights came on’ for them after being exposed to a creation message for the first time. Many become passionate ‘creation evangelists’ in their fervour to share the very same type of information that changed their own lives.
But sometimes they find it tough going. It often means answering question after question to remove the stumbling blocks that have built up in people’s minds over the years. Thus, many Christians mistakenly presume there must be a better way to reach larger numbers of people in one fell swoop.
This leads to a phenomenon I call ‘Looking for the knockout punch’. In boxing parlance, it refers to a single ‘winning blow’ that will take down the opposition in one attempt. Similarly, many Bible-believers are eager to find some startling piece of evidence as ‘ultimate proof’ of biblical creation. Of course, we’d love nothing more than to be able to reach millions with such a ‘knockout blow’. For one thing, it would certainly make our job a lot easier. But, in terms of evangelism, this is not really likely. People rarely get converted on the very first occasion they are witnessed to anyway. Moreover, I don’t recall an example where a single brilliant evidence has led to mass conversions.
I don’t recall an example where a single brilliant evidence has led to mass conversions.
Sometimes such well-meaning individuals ask why we don’t use (or why we even recommend against) a particular exciting-sounding argument or creation evidence. Some even get angry and tell us, “Stop it! At this rate, we’ll have nothing left. The evolutionists have all the evidence.” It’s an understandable reaction if someone has been using a favourite argument for many years. However, wisdom is needed, particularly if the argument is not sustainable. It might simply not be the knockout punch we expect it to be.
I strongly recommend that you read the rest of "The 'Knockout Punch' Syndrome".

Monday, August 5, 2013

Still Defending Haeckel's Fraud

Do evolutionists draw inspiration from zombie and vampire movies? I ask this because they keep bringing back some concepts that should stay properly dead. Haeckel's drawings, for example. For one thing, they have been proven to be outright fraud. But what do bad science and fraud matter when the priority is to get people to believe in evolution? So they dig up Haeckel's fake stuff again, give it a haircut, shiny shoes and new suit of clothes, and present the repackaged lies. The situation is grave.

Friday, August 2, 2013

Bees, Structure and Chance

The efficient design of the honeycomb utilizes space, uses less wax, and is strong. The Evo Sith have insisted that this structure just sort of happens. As is so often the case, evolution requires a suspension of sensibilities replaced with unfounded faith.

Hi, Honey, I'm home!"

Darwin wanted it to be true that the honeycomb happened by chance, and his cheerleaders have been promoting the idea for years. But, as usual, the evidence is against evolutionists, who contradict each other — and even themselves.
The idea that honeycombs in beehives self-assemble is as old as Darwin.  A new study claims to reinforce the idea, yet honeybees are not just bystanders in the process.
Honeycombs have long been admired as examples of functional design in nature.  The hexagonal packing is the most efficient method of maximizing storage area while minimizing building materials.  Is this an example of design in nature, or natural laws at work?  Maybe that’s a false dichotomy. 
Nature News announced the self-assembly theme in an article entitled, “How honeycombs can build themselves.”  Writer Philip Ball recounts how Darwin thought of self-assembly: “The idea that the bees might first make circular cells, which become hexagonal subsequently, was proposed by Charles Darwin,” he writes, “But he was unable to find convincing evidence of it.”  That evidence has supposedly been forthcoming in a new study by an engineer in the UK:
You can read the rest of the article by buzzing over to "Do Honeycombs Just Happen, or Do Bees Design Them?"

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Caves, Uniformitarian Geology, Evolution and Faulty Premises

When having discussions with atheists and evolutionists, never let them build on a faulty premise. Perhaps they can construct a decent argument, but if the basis is fundamentally flawed, the rest of it is no good. When an argument is riddled with fallacies, more special "give me that" pleading is required to salvage what they consider logical arguments.

Uniformitarian geologists have this problem.

Mt Septimus and Cream Lake, on Vancouver Island, BC — stock.xchng/FarmFresh
Their worldview is based on the presuppositions that the world is billions of years old and that evolution is true. (Indeed, evolutionists require an ancient earth to make their conjectures sound plausible.) Selective citing of radiometric dating results, discarding legitimate data that disagrees with their presumptions, making up absurd "explanations" that cannot be justified — when the explanations that they do not like actually explain observed data far better than their views.

Caves are considered excellent sources of geologic information, but the evidence they contain refutes "deep time".
Caves are a common feature of karst landscapes—the rugged sort formed in rocks that dissolve easily such as limestone (mainly calcium carbonate), forming underground passages and drainages. Caves have always been considered the perfect archive, preserving the past, unlike most other environments. And they offer evolutionary scientists an array of items aching to be radiometrically dated.
These include the inspiring stone decorations called speleothems—such as stalactites (on the ceiling), stalagmites (on the floor) and flowstone. These formed when water enriched by dissolved carbon dioxide (CO2)—making it acidic—dissolved the alkaline calcium carbonate (CaCO3) in one place and released the mineral in another.
Radiometric dating however often disagrees with the observed growth rates of speleothems and their complex formation processes.
You can finish reading "Caves and Age — How radioactive dating confuses the situation", here