Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Monday, September 30, 2013

The War on Christmas — Book Review

The War on Christmas: Battles in Faith, Tradition and Religious Expression edited by Bodie Hodge #waronchristmas

Disclosure: I was given an advance copy of The War on Christmas: Battles in Faith, Tradition and Religious Expression, edited by Bodie Hodge, for review purposes. There was no requirement for me to write a favorable review. It is available in paperback at Answers In Genesis, New Leaf Publishing, Barnes and Noble, Amazon and others.

What is going on, anyway? Christmas has been a part of Western culture for many years, and we did not need to worry about people getting "offended" at the use of the "C word". To be blunt, saying "Happy Holidays" is disingenuous; if there were no Christmas, there would be no "Black Friday" to get retailers back into the black, no gift exchanges, no special family gatherings. We all know what the holiday is! Now, the cashier where you buy your Christmas gifts can, in many cases, get in trouble for saying "Happy Christmas". Businesses have a "Holiday Party" in December and exchange gifts, but they are forbidden to mention Christmas because someone might be offended! (I am very close to start naming names on this at my own employer!) This political correctness stuff is a way to stifle free speech.

No, the video has nothing to do with the book. I feel strongly about this and wanted to enhance your online experience with some humor and education.

Why the change? Why is Christmas under attack?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

— John 1.1-5, NASB

Now for the book itself. To get moving on this, I used the PDF and have not yet seen a physical copy. However, the PDF was well-rendered. It has colorful illustrations and photos and the layout is not boring. The War on Christmas is 144 pages in length, divided into 23 chapters (plus introductions and a conclusion). Bodie Hodge is the "General Editor", and makes several contributions himself. This makes it very convenient for people who are doing Christmas preparations and activities, but can still get some interesting reading done.

If you are locked into your religious opinions, traditions and church customs, you may have some problems. It can also be a great source of trivia to be able to say things like, "Actually, the "Three Wise Men" are not named in the Bible, and it does not even indicate how many there were. And they probably did not arrive with the shepherds at the manger..." We learn about the origins of many customs and legends. It may distress some people to learn the truth, but people like me are fascinated by the actual history.

The reason and meaning of Christmas is presented. Misconceptions about it being a "pagan holiday" are put to rest, and we are encouraged to celebrate it. The history of Nicholas (who became Santa Claus) is presented, and we are given recommendations on how to deal with the Santa image. 

On a side note, I did not tell my kids that Santa was real. At least, not the one in popular culture. Why should they find out that their parents lied about this, and then doubt the truth of the reason for Christmas as well? My parents misled me on this, and I "found out" for certain when I was doubting Santa's existence anyway. Fortunately, I did not extend this to doubting the birth of Jesus Christ.

There are some other historical and cultural details in The War on Christmas, including the Virgin Birth, the Christmas star, the X of Xmas and more.

"But Cowboy Bob, what does a Christmas book have to do with creation?"

Glad you asked. The war on Christmas is heating up along with the war on creation and the book of Genesis. This book makes the whole reason for Christmas abundantly clear, going back to Genesis. You see, Genesis is the source of all the major Christian doctrines. What is sin? Go back to Genesis. What was the beginning of covering of sin and animal sacrifice? Go back to Genesis. Why do we need a Redeemer? Go back to Genesis. At Christmas, the Creator of the universe became a man so he could become the sacrifice for our sins.

I am not going to give you all the details of the book and spoil it for you, but I do give it high marks. One negative comment, however. The very last chapter (23) had several plugs for Answers In Genesis and the Creation Museum. While they are very important resources in the battle against the religion of pagan evolutionism, I found those references distracting. Just kind of read around them, the rest of the chapter has good information.

If you have people on your shopping list that like Christmas material, this should be an excellent gift for them. And for yourself, of course.

—Cowboy Bob Sorensen

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

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Endocrine System Evolution — Saying It Makes It So!

One of the most common explanations offered for the existence of complex systems, whether in biology, the cosmos or other areas, comes down to "Evolution Did It". No wonder people are confused about evolution, it is assumed by faith and then presented as a scientific fact!

For example, the endocrine system is an amazingly system of regulation in the bloodstream. Hormones are released, and a kind of cell-to-cell communication takes place. Cells that are not targeted are not involved. The explanation is that it evolved that way.

But how? What is the mechanism? Is there any evidence, or is it just an evolutionary worldview that is asserted? Instead of depending on time, chance, mutations and guesswork, creationists already know that such intricate marvels are evidence of the Creator's work in action.
A student of zoology would be surprised to learn that, although researchers know much about the function of our endocrine system, they know essentially nothing about its supposed evolution.
The creationist sees the incredible detail of the living world as part of God’s plan, purpose, and special design. Indeed, the various systems (e.g., digestive, muscular, circulatory, endocrine, etc.) of the human body working together is calledhomoeostasis, meaning the body is designed to maintain itself in a state of stable, healthy equilibrium.
The endocrine system is a complex arrangement of ductless glands that secrete hormones into the bloodstream. Hormones are regulatory substances (i.e., chemical messengers such as insulin and prolactin) produced by specially designed cells and are effective in low concentrations. As you read this article, dozens of hormones are flowing in your bloodstream—and these hormones are designed to impact only the cells that have special receptor molecules on their surfaces. If the matching receptor molecules are not on a given cell’s surface, the corresponding hormones do not affect that cell. Most of these receptor molecules are called G protein coupled receptors. God designed them to “sense” molecules (such as hormones or odors) outside the cell and activate special pathways inside the cell, resulting in a specific response.
You can read the rest of "Endocrine System Evolution: A Textbook Example?"

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

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Those Pesky Definitions

In a previous article, we examined how definitions of terms can greatly influence the path of a conversation and the conclusions that are reached. People will define terms based on their experiences, biases and worldviews. Sometimes they will use indistinct (and even prejudicial) words out of uninformed enthusiasm, but often, they are selected with a desire to manipulate others.

When defining scientific terms (or "science" itself), people with a naturalistic worldview will seek to keep God out of the system, even though scientific processes prospered under a biblical worldview. For that matter, science can be defined to exclude God but also render disciplines such as psychology, sociology and so on to be "unscientific", and astrology becomes scientific. (One tactic is to use the fallacy of reification to turn "science" into some kind of entity, as in, "Science says...") Some people cannot distinguish between operational and observable science.

The word "evolution" has several meanings. One vague and essentially useless definition is the simplistic "change over time". Ian Juby effectively discusses this:

Secularists have used their arbitrary presuppositions to control and stifle discussion about God, miracles, creation, Intelligent Design and so on. Many will disingenuously insist on their own philosophical biases to define terminology.
One of the means that secularists have used to achieve dominance in the culture over the last 250 years has been the manipulation of language. Key terms have been modified, and new terms coined, which slant the ‘rules of engagement’ between Christianity and secularism against Christianity. Three terms in particular: ‘natural law’, ‘miracle’, and ‘methodological naturalism’ have been affected. If we do not expose and correct this sophistry, an honest debate is not possible. At root, these issues reflect the clash between worldviews that must ultimately be accepted for reasons outside of science.
I strongly recommend that you finish reading "Defining arguments away—the distorted language of secularism".

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

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

"Deadly Disclosures" by Julie Cave — Book Review

For someone who is not all that experienced in doing book reviews — here I go again!

Deadly Disclosures is not the kind of book that I expected to read. Most of my reading these days is nonfiction. (I agree with some other people that so much of Christian fiction is poorly written and unbelievable, "preachy", with the main character becoming a Christian and then everything comes up roses. The committed Christian life is not easy.) The e-book was on sale at Answers In Genesis, and I thought I would give a Christian mystery with a creationist viewpoint a try.

I'm glad I did, and have to restrain myself from diving into the next two books of the trilogy because of time commitments.

Julie Cave shows her talent in several ways. We received plot twists, suspense, emotion and other things expected in a murder mystery. There are little extras that add color and realism to the story, including humor and quirks in the characters (I like the occasional sarcasm). Certain historical incidents are involved in the "back story" (sorry, I don't like that term), and there is some crime scene forensic science that demonstrates that Julie Cave is not opposed to doing research for her story.

As for character development, FBI agent Dinah Harris was very believable. She had a personal tragedy that gradually unfolded throughout the book, and she was suffering from despair to the point of contemplating suicide. This provoked sympathy from me. And sometimes I did not even like her. Other times, I wanted to shout at her to stop what she's doing, she'll only make things worse. When she was focused and on the job, people were wise to stay out of her way.

The main story begins with the disappearance of Thomas Whitfield, the secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, who was known for being a popular atheist promoting evolution and debating with a creationist. He was supported by an atheist group that promotes evolution as science. They support other scientists and politicians in their agenda to eradicate the vague, shadowy menace of "fundamentalist Christianity", and especially creationism:
“We stand for the complete separation of church and state, to begin with,” explained Damon. “And, not unexpectedly, the majority of our members are atheists. We are mostly scientists of one form or another, although we have a handful of members from other intellectual professions. We believe that we live in an age of reason and rationality and we want to break the shackles of religious fundamentalism that are holding this nation back.”
Further, he said:
“We have all kinds of scientific evidence for the questions that have plagued humanity for so long,” continued Damon. “And mankind is intelligent enough to rule itself without relying on some God somewhere to ratify our decisions. Religious fundamentalism seeks to plunge us all back into the Dark Ages, when superstition ruled society. We want religion taken out of schools and workplaces, and to some degree, we've succeeded. But there is always work to be done, to combat religious fanatics who insist on cloaking scientific reason with their own brand of flawed logic.”
Smithsonian secretary Whitfield pretty much echoed those sentiments until circumstances and discussions caused him to reconsider. His change of outlook cost him his life. Will militant atheists turn violent? It happens. Is it reasonable to believe that fundamentalist evolutionists will become increasingly violent? At least the creationists did not have to deal with fundamentalist evolutionists calling them "liars" because they dared to disagree with Darwinism.

If you think that the quotes from Damon (above) are a straw man argument, think again. I have personally encountered many similar straw men and question-begging epithets in my work. The creationist viewpoint is presented through dialogue, and some of the objections that Whitfield expressed are commonly heard, and can be often found on the Web. The gospel message is also clearly presented, and I didn't feel that it was "preachy". In fact, it was better than others I have encountered.

I highly recommend Deadly Disclosures by Julie Cave — I may even give some copies as Christmas gifts. It is available in several formats from various sources. You will get an adventure, the creationist message well articulated, and the gospel. I'm looking forward to reading the next two in the series.

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen

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

Monday, September 23, 2013

Jurassic No-Parking

Remember that movie about extracting DNA from amber and then engineering dinosaurs that run rampant? Suspense, people getting eaten, music by John Williams, produced by Steven Spielberg, fabulous special effects? Wasn't true to the book in several ways, but never mind about that now.

It was a propaganda tool for evolution and millions of years, but I think they were simply using what was commonly accepted as science, though it was historical science with some speculative operational science added to the story. Neat idea about extracting DNA from amber, though.

Ain't happening, Zeke. DNA deteriorates too much. It is useless after thousands of years, let alone, after millions of years. The stuff (and the Earth itself) just is not that old.
Claims of ancient DNA hundreds of thousands of years old may be false.  No DNAwas found in an insect encased in amber said to be 10,600 years old.
The article on Science Daily suggests that a study published in PLoS ONE puts the “final nail in the coffin” of Jurassic Park’s thesis that dinosaurs could be reconstructed from fossilized DNA in amber.  Researchers from the University of Manchester looked for DNA in Colombian copal, the resin precursor of amber.  Using “sensitive next-generation methods”, they obtained sequences a few hundred bases in length, but could not match them to the insects.  They concluded, therefore, that they are artifacts.  The abstract states,
Read the rest of the article, encased at "DNA in Amber Doesn't Last Long".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, September 20, 2013

Strange, the Universe Does Not LOOK That Old...

The "Big Bang" idea is constantly in trouble except in the minds of fundamentalist evolutionists. Scientists keep adjusting their conjectures about the age of the universe to fit observed data. (Of course, merely asserting something based on unprovable evolutionary presuppositions is the opposite of real science.) Sometimes, they have to adjust their speculations.

The more we look, the more we see that the universe has the appearance of maturity for far too long according to evolutionary timetables. Worse for them, there is diversity in the galaxies that does not fit the traditional "In the beginning was nothing, which exploded for no reason and then the orderly, complex universe formed" model.
Evidence continues to mount that the universe and its contents appeared mature from the beginning.
Surprising abrupt diversity near the start:  Galaxies were diverse, like those seen today, for most of the universe’s history, Space.com reported.  A new Hubble survey “found that the assorted range of galaxy types seen today were also present about 11 billion years ago, meaning that the types of galaxies seen today, which astronomers described as a ‘cosmic zoo,’ have been around for at least 80 percent of the universe’s lifespan.”  The survey pushes back the early maturity of galaxies from 8 billion years to 11.5 billion.
You can read the rest at "Cosmos Does Not Look Evolutionary".

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

Thursday, September 19, 2013

More Genetic Discoveries Refute Evolution

We had the fiasco of "junk DNA", where evolutionary scientists examined certain aspects of the genome, didn't understand some things and called them "junk". When more extensive examination of the genome was undertaken, those genes were no longer considered junk. There was also the "pseudogene" follies, where something else that was not understood was considered worthless and tagged "pseudogenes", actually very important. Now "orphan genes" are making evolutionists miserable.

Photo date 1919. PD-US (1923).
Some genes are common to living organisms, causing evolutionists to claim that commonality is proof of evolution instead of evidence of a Master Designer. But there are "orphan genes", unique to particular species, that are not only problematic to evolution, but friendly to biblical creation.
An important category of "rogue" genetic data that utterly defies evolutionary predictions is the common occurrence of taxonomically restricted genes, otherwise known as "orphan genes." These are now being discovered in the sequencing of all genomes.
Many multicellular animals share similar sets of genes that produce proteins that perform related biochemical functions. This is a common feature of purposefully engineered systems. In addition to these standard genes, all organisms thus far tested also have unique sets of genes specific to that type of creature.
The authors of a recent review paper, published in Trends in Genetics, on the subject of orphan genes stated, "Comparative genome analyses indicate that every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10–20% of genes that lack recognizable homologs [similar counterparts] in other species."
You can finish reading "Newly Discovered 'Orphan Genes' Defy Evolution, here.
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Can an Aerospace Engineer be a Creationist?

Taken behind our apartment complex. The NCSE/BCSE task force are looking for me.
Main Title Theme from the Television Series "Airwolf" by Sylvester Levay on Grooveshark

Some evolutionists cannot distinguish between historical science (origins research) and observational (practical) science. There are those who believe that if you do not have the "proper" view of origins (evolutionary), then you are not really a scientist and are likely to make space rockets crash. Such views are not only ignorant, but bigoted. The fact is that your view of origins does not affect your ability to do real science. Creationist scientists are "real" scientists. Like so:
Dr Dewey Hodges has been a professor of aerospace engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta since 1986. A native of Tennessee, he received his M.S. (1970) and Ph.D. (1973) degrees in aerospace engineering from Stanford University in California. For sixteen years, he was a research scientist focusing on rotorcraft dynamics at the U.S. Army Aviation Systems Command at the NASA Ames Research Center near Mountain View, California. An active Christian for his entire adult life, Dr Hodges has been an inspiration to many students and coworkers.
Later, we read:
I asked him how his faith interacts with his work. He replied, “There is an underlying order to the universe, and I especially see that order reflected in the equations I write.” He then related a story of how he and a colleague found some small mistakes in two foundational papers in the field of structural analysis. They eventually realized that the equations were much longer than they needed to be. “And I don’t think that it is an accident that the final analysis is simpler, and that the underlying interpretation is simpler.”
In another example, working with a professor while in graduate school, he published a paper about the equations of motion for helicopter blades. “It took pages and pages of equations,” he said, “but in 1990, I discovered a way to write better equations in just a few lines. In 2003, I discovered an even simpler way to write these equations. Now they are so simple that, not only can you write them from memory, but the computer code needed to solve them is far simpler.”
You can read, in proper context, "Aerospace Engineer Professes Creation".

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

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Trust Me — I'm an Evolutionist

Once again, it needs to be said: Scientists are human. They have the same tendencies toward avarice, nobility, bias and so on that regular people have. But regular people put them on a pedestal and make them almost super human, without emotions and totally objective. How fair is that? Also, science fields are high-pressure and can be ruthless, demanding results. When you take a person who wants to succeed in a rough environment, well, they can give in to their sinful nature a bit more readily that some people.

Scientists are human. They have the same tendencies toward avarice, nobility, bias and so on that regular people have. But regular people put them on a pedestal and make them almost super human, without emotions and totally objective. How fair is that? But some will stop at nothing to make people believe in the lie of evolution.

Evolutionists presume that evolution is true, and argue from there. Using their Darwin Spectacles, they see "evidence" of it that actually does not exist (or worse, miss data that refutes evolution and gives evidence for the Creator). Some are so religious about their evolutionary mindset, they will resort to any means necessary to get someone to believe in their imaginary gods of chance, time, mutations, natural selection and so on. Their worldview affects their conclusions.

Just because someone is a scientist does not mean that he or she does not have an agenda. Also, just because someone believes in evolution does not mean that he or she is objective, rational and knowledgeable about the subject.
When I was a Ph.D. student, one of the myriad articles I had to read and digest was aptly titled, “Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.” Although this phrase is attributed alternately to both Mark Twain and Victorian England’s most famous Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, the complete quote is, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The point of the article was to note something that is well established, that statistics can be manipulated to support anything. When deceptive tactics are applied to evolutionary dogma, and this fallacious evidence becomes part of the history of modern science, you can begin to understand the enormity of the problem. The vast majority of scholars in the scientific community are agenda driven and, therefore, incapable of avoiding researcher bias connected to their hyper-materialistic evolutionary worldview. 
When your worldview is based upon the false teaching of evolution, your conclusions become suspect. While most evolutionary scientists believe they are honest men and women that think they are being truthful; they tend to discard evidence that does not conform to their evolutionary worldview. In addition to this, there is fierce competition within scientific disciplines with no lack of animosity between competing factions. There is a history of researchers not reporting what they have found to be true, but rather what they wanted to be true. This is usually not done overtly, but their conclusions are skewed, spun to conform to Darwinian theory. When all criticism of evolutionary theory is excluded from the discussion, and only evidence supportive of evolutionary theory is allowed, the results are suspect. 
You can read the rest of "You Cannot Trust Evolutionists" in full context, here

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

Monday, September 16, 2013

Are Evolutionists Tolerant? Nope!

Those undaunted defenders of Darwinism are stepping up their attacks. Allow people to see the flaws in evolution? Present evolution honestly in textbooks?

Ranging from the fury of the "New Atheists", to the propaganda mills like NCSE, to the dishonest BCSE and the useful idiots who support them, to the wandering evolutionists who patrol the Web — academic, intellectual and religious freedoms are receiving more pressure all the time. Some people are not even allowed to have a private opinion that disagrees with evolution!
Some recent cases of intolerance against  Darwin skeptics are so extreme, they defy all logic or propriety.  Yet when Darwinists promote radical ideas, they get a pass.
The Discovery Institute is on a campaign to defend the career and reputation of a Ball State University professor, Eric Hedin, who dared to present both sides of the debate over intelligent design instead of just the pro-Darwin side (see Evolution News & Views).  Not only that, he offered the material in an elective class in philosophy – not in a science class.  At the same time, Ball State openly promoted another class called “Dangerous Ideas” that claims “Science must destroy religion” and “There is no intelligent designer” (Evolution News & Views).  This “selective academic freedom” means professors are only allowed one position on ID: to oppose it.  This “Orwellian” view of academic freedom by a university that claims to respect controversial topics was described by John West on Evolution News & Views.
Read the full article and see the supporting links at "Darwinist Intolerance is Intensifying".

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

Saturday, September 14, 2013

Audio Saturday: More about Dinosaurs and Man

A while back, I did a review of Chronicles of Dinosauria: The History & Mystery of Dinosaurs and Man. Today's link to "Real Science Radio" reviews Dire Dragons by Vance Nelson. Also, Bob and Fred discuss evidence that dragons and man lived together. You can download or listen here.

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

Friday, September 13, 2013

Mudskippers — The Evolutionists' Worst Nightmare

Just a mudskipper. No Gilligan, Mary Ann, Ginger, Professor... morgueFile/dantada
In the "Just So Stories" of Darwin's Cheerleaders, the mudskipper has been proclaimed "the creationist's worst nightmare". This is based on massive circular reasoning, arbitrary assertions, imaginative cladistics and abundant presuppositions. However, when stripping away the "Aha! Gotcha! Proof of evolution!" attitude and taking a closer look at the critters, we see something different: Evidence of intricate design by the Creator, and yet another refutation of evolutionism.
If you have ever seen a wildlife documentary on tropical mangrove swamps, you will likely have observed mudskippers at work and play. These unusual fish, about 15 cm (6 in) long, are a type of goby. Swimming in water, they seem no more remarkable than other fish. However, once the tide goes out to expose the mudflats, it’s a different matter altogether.

Comedians among fishes

Mudskipper antics on land are certainly amusing to watch. To move along, a mudskipper will slump forwards by doing ‘press-ups’ with its pectoral fins, a type of locomotion called ‘crutching’. When two male mudskippers dispute territory, they press up on their pectorals with mouths agape, making sideways head-swipes at each other. This comical sight was amusingly captured on acclaimed wildlife TV series, Life. Most dramatically of all, a mudskipper may try to attract the attention of a mate by an impressive leap into the air, followed by an ungainly landing!

A creationist’s worst nightmare?

A fish that spends more of its life on land than in the water and ‘walks’ (after a fashion) on its pectoral fins is certainly an oddity. Some evolutionists have pounced on the mudskipper as allegedly providing evidence against biblical creation. On a well known anti-creationist website, one blogger gleefully responded to a picture of two Indonesian mudskippers with the comment: “Oh no! The creationists’ worst nightmare: a walking fish!”
Contrary to these confident claims, this unique and fascinating amphibious fish is in no way troublesome to those who view Genesis 1–11 as literal history.
You can jump over and finish reading "Mudskippers — Marvels of the Mud Flats", and then watch the video below.

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

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Bill Nye Almost Debates

Bill "I Play A Scientist On TV" Nye, poster boy for evolutionism propaganda, probably came as close to meeting the debate challenge from Answers In Genesis as he ever will. 

Nye has been badmouthing creation science, showing his lack of understanding of it, displaying ignorance of science itself (ironic, because he did observational science on television), creating straw man arguments about creationists and generally making a fool of himself — to thunderous applause from the bigoted Evo Sith.

A forum was aired on Al Jazeera America discussing the inclusions of criticism of evolution in Texas textbooks. Judging from Dr. Georgia Purdom's account, Bill Nye acted like a typical evolutionary ideologue who must protect "science" from scrutiny. He expressed his opinions, but they were without actual substance. Much like so many others who attack creation science.
Bill Nye the Science Guy and Kathy Miller from the Texas Freedom Foundation represented the evolution side, and Don McLeroy, former chairman of the Texas State Board of Education, and I represented the creation side. The topic to discuss was the possible inclusion in Texas textbooks of criticisms of evolution. Since Texas is one of the largest buyers of textbooks in the nation, their decisions impact textbooks offered by publishers for many other states as well. 
The hosts of the show The Stream were very gracious and fair. It’s not easy to keep four people on topic on such a heated issue. In fact, McLeroy informed me that according to his timing of the dialog, the creationists got 30 more seconds than the evolutionists! Overall I thought the conversation went well, and I was able to get most of the points in that I wanted to make. I thought I would highlight just a few things here that I thought were especially interesting and relevant (sorry, but the show was not archived on the Internet).
You can finish reading "Bill Nye, Texas, Al Jazeera, and Me", here.

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

Chilling Effects of Bad Ice Age Models

Ice age theories and models keep coming and going. And some get brought back, even though they are defective. Evolutionary geologists presume that the Earth is billions of years old, and they presume that evolution is true. After all, in the view of evolutionists, an ancient planet is essential for evolution to happen. However, ice age models simply do not fit the observed data and have serious problems.

Ice ages cannot be properly explained by evolutionary geologists, so they dig up discarded theories and try again. Creationists have a far better idea.
U.S. Geological Survey/photo by Shad O'Neel
Secular geologists have a dreadful time attempting to explain how an ice age starts and, worse, how it stops. Compounding the problem is that they believe in several ice ages that cannot be properly explained. So, despite the problems, they dredged up a failed model from 1941 at gave a try at forcing some data into it to make it work.

Creationist do not have these problems. The Flood models fit the data and concepts with far less strain than the secular versions.
Paleoclimate modelers believe they have finally solved the mystery of the ice ages. Evolutionary climatologists currently propose that, in addition to extremely ancient ice ages, about 40 ice ages have occurred over the past 2.6 million years, the most recent starting 100,000 years ago and regressing 20,000 years ago. Many theories have been proposed in an attempt to explain how ice ages could develop, and some have even been cast aside and resurrected later. The currently popular idea—based on mathematician Milutin Milankovitch’s 1941 model—is one of those, having been favored since the 1970s despite its admittedly extreme inadequacies. Paleoclimatologists using a combination of computer models believe they’ve finally figured out a way to make Milankovitch’s model work.
To keep reading, click on "Does a Recycled Climate Model Explain Evolutionary Ice Ages?"

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

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Dark Matter Doesn't Really

The majority of evolutionary cosmologists and cosmogonists hold to the "Big Bang" theory of the origin of the universe. (Many do not believe in the Big Bang, however.) From this explosion came order and complexity. When problems occur, the theory gets adjusted and "retrofitted" to account for some of the observed data. Sort of like the imaginary "Multiverse". Of course, biblical creationist scientists do not need to resort to such contrivances.


Using circular reasoning and presuppositions, these secular true believer cosmologists made up the idea of "dark matter". (By the way, it's interesting that secularists who hate presuppositional apologetics from Christians use their own version so often.) Starting with the assumption that the Big Bang is true, and that all of the matter in the universe cannot be accounted for, the rest of the matter in the universe must be dark, unobserved, unverified — and lots of it.
Why do many cosmologists claim that only a small fraction of all the matter in the universe is the “normal” everyday matter with which we are familiar?
In particle physics, protons and neutrons are the best-known examples of a group of particles called baryons. Since protons and neutrons comprise almost all the mass of an atom, matter composed of atoms is known as baryonic matter. The everyday matter that we see, touch, and feel is baryonic matter.
Surprisingly, many astronomers have concluded that most of the matter in the universe is invisible! In other words, it is thought that the vast majority of the matter in the universe does not emit significant amounts of electromagnetic radiation. Since electromagnetic radiation includes visible light—as well as other forms of radiation—this inferred matter is invisible to us and is therefore called dark matter.
You can finish reading "Dark Matter, Sparticles and the Big Bang", here.

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

Monday, September 9, 2013

Ribose, Phosphate, Mars and the Origin of Life

Origin of life researchers are getting desperate. By saying that life may have originated in outer space and then found its way to Earth ("panspermia") and then evolved, they are only pushing back the question and making things worse. Not only do they push the problem out into space, they have to postulate a believable model of how it arrived through space, survived the trip through our atmosphere and so on.

And yet, they're saying that life may have arisen on Mars, even though there is no chance of life there. Some postulate that we are all actually Martians.

There are contradictory papers about life originating on Mars, and they are stymied by RNA, phosphates, ribose and water. All of these desperate attempts to explain away the Creator lead to serious facepalm responses.
A second article proposes life began on Mars, prompting some observers to point out the failures of naturalistic origin-of-life theories.
After Steven Benner proposed Mars for the origin of ribose last month (“You Are Not a Martian,” 8/28/13), Christopher Adcock (U of Nevada) pointed out another problem with Earth-based life: phosphate doesn’t dissolve readily in water here (see New Scientist and Space.com).  Since Martian phosphates dissolve more readily, maybe life originated on Mars.  New Scientist was quick to point out a contradiction:
Both studies have brought renewed attention to the idea that life on Earth was seeded from space, a theory known as panspermia. However, they can’t both be right. One idea requires Mars to be covered in liquid water, while the other needs it to be as dry as a desert.
You can read the rest at "Mars Panspermia a Sign of Desperation"

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

Thursday, September 5, 2013

Book Review — Chronicles of Dinosauria

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Having been a follower of the Chronicles of Dinosauria Facebook Page for a few weeks, I was increasingly interested in getting a copy of the book, despite my huge backlog of reading material. So I inquired about the possibility of buying an autographed copy. Richard Dobbs, the illustrator, sent me a copy and the request that I write an honest opinion of the book. So, there's the history and a disclosure: I was given Chronicles of Dinosauria: The History & Mystery of Dinosaurs and Man without charge for review purposes, and I am not expected to write a positive review. My honest opinion is that this book is definitely worth owning!

I'll start with the layout.

This is not a huge volume, and I was easily able to read it in one day. (And look forward to reading it again.) Author Dave Woetzel describes the book as a "scrapbook", and it does have a scrapbook appearance to it. There is nothing boring in the page design, and the illustrations by Richard Dobbs show his talent in many ways, from simpler drawings to extremely colorful illustrations. Some pages have illustrations in a more standard format, and others look like they are attached by paper clips or adhesive tape, but I resisted the urge to pick at the "tape" or straighten the "paper clips". These enhanced the book instead of proving to be a distraction. Also included are photographs of historical figures, artifacts and more. I am glad I did not buy it for my greyscale e-book reader.

As for Woetzel's writing...

Excellent. Chronicles of Dinosauria is very readable, and serves as an excellent overview to pique a reader's interest in doing further research on the subject, perhaps beginning at Genesis Park. The book is biblical in outlook, and has the premise is that dinosaurs and man did indeed exist at the same time. Although Dave uses the Bible to help make his case, there is much more. In fact, he traveled as part of his research.

There are eight short chapters:
  1. The Creation and the Dinosaurs
  2. The Flood and the Dinosaurs
  3. Fossil Evidence of Dinosaurs and Man
  4. Historical Evidence of Dinosaurs and Man
  5. Artistic Evidence of Dinosaurs and Man
  6. Cryptozoolgy Evidence of Dinosaurs and Man
  7. Biblical Evidence of Dinosaurs and Man
  8. Apologetics and Conclusion
To simply parrot the idea that "dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years" displays ignorance of the abundant historical relics and accounts that say otherwise. On this site and others are the scientific evidences for the recent existence of dinosaurs, but never mind about that now.

Thanks, Dave and Richard, for a valuable contribution and for all your work! This book is available at the big name Internet sellers (including ChristianBook.com), and I think it's time to start thinking about making purchases for Christmas gifts.

Now I have to figure out how to meet Dave and get his autograph on this book. If you're ever in upstate New York...

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

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Another Grand Canyon?

Another canyon has been discovered. It's longer than the Grand Canyon, but not as deep. This canyon is under the ice of Greenland, so it took the advanced technology (including radar, which mapped cloud-shrouded planet Venus) of NASA's "Operation Icebridge" to find it.

The discovery of a large canyon under the ice does not fit standard geological formulas and presuppositions.

The existence of this huge canyon under the ice defies geological assumptions about the age of the Earth and ice ages. Instead, it may very well be a source of information for young Earth creationists.
A canyon longer than Grand Canyon has been discovered under the ice of Greenland.  Scientists are surprised that it has persisted through the ice ages.
Science Magazine announced the discovery of a giant “mega-canyon” in bedrock under Greenland’s ice pack by airborne radar in NASA’s Operation IceBridge.  TheBBC News includes a radar map of the canyon, and a video explaining the significance of the never-before-seen feature.
It’s less than half as deep as the Grand Canyon (800 m) but over twice as long (800 km), and comparably wide.  Live Science is calling it the “world’s longest canyon.”  It flows from the center of the island northward to the sea, entering the sea below sea level.  National Geographic also reported the discovery.
When did it form?  Geologists believe it is “paleofluvial,” meaning it formed as a river system before the ice sheets covered the surface.  But that creates a mystery; why didn’t glaciers smooth it out and obliterate it?  “Indeed, none of the profiles are typical of glacially eroded valleys,” the paper states.  “…The canyon follows a meandering path more typical of a large river system.”
Take some time to chill out and read the rest of "Grand Canyon Demoted by New Discovery".

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

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Troublesome Venus

As most people know, Venus is the planet closest to Earth, and second from the Sun. For thousands of years, people have looked at it in admiration and wonder. Like the moon, Venus goes through phases. Unlike the moon, Venus appears to have different sizes during its phases. Galileo documented this effect, which began the overthrow of the geocentric (the Earth is stationary and everything orbits it) systems of Ptolemy and Aristotle, and the establishment of the heliocentric (Earth orbits the Sun) system that we have today.

NASA/NSSDC Photo Gallery
From an evolutionary cosmology perspective, Venus is a very naughty girl, what with confusing scientists and all. Scientists thought that she was very similar to Earth, and called a "twin". Well, an evil twin. She rotates the wrong way, has a toxic atmosphere and is the hottest body (no, not that way, I mean literally hottest) in the solar system. Creationists are not bothered in the least by the contrary "behavior" of Venus.
Venus has the most circular orbit of any planet in the solar system. Its axial tilt is only three degrees, so there are no seasons on Venus. Since it orbits closer to the sun than Earth does, Venus orbits faster and completes a circuit every 7.4 months. But its day is much longer than Earth’s. Venus rotates once every eight months, so its day is actually longer than its year. This is the sidereal day—the rotation of Venus relative to the stars. What is even more intriguing is that Venus rotatesbackward. All eight planets orbit the sun counterclockwise, as viewed from the solar system’s North Pole. Most of the planets also rotate counterclockwise, but Venus is the exception. On Venus, the sun would rise in the west and set in the east—although it would be difficult to see the sun in such overcast skies.
Secularists do not have a good explanation for the backward rotation of Venus. In the secular scenario, the solar system is supposed to have formed from the collapse of a rotating nebula. The natural expectation of this would be that all planets would rotate in the same direction at about the same rate, and they would all have very little axial tilt. Venus is the worst offender to this concept, since it rotates exactly the opposite of what the evolutionary models require. But we expect such diversity in the biblical view.
The backward rotation of Venus causes its solar day to be much shorter than its sidereal day—a unique phenomenon in the solar system. Recall that the solar day is the average time from one sunrise to the next as viewed from a planet’s surface (e.g., 24 hours for Earth). This is different (and normally slightly longer) from the sidereal day because planets orbit the sun and not the stars. Since Venus rotates in the opposite direction, its solar day is reduced to 3.8 months. Strangely, this is shorter than Mercury’s solar day, even though Venus physically rotates slower than Mercury.
It should be your desire to read "The Solar System — Venus" in its full context.
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, September 2, 2013

Evolutionists and Assumptions

One of the most frequent problems that creationists have with evolutionists is that they refuse to do their homework. That is, they will indulge in prejudicial conjecture (making uninformed assertions) as well as building straw man arguments against creationists. They do not know what we believe and teach, and will rely on the equivalent of rumors to form their opinions. Many times, we have to correct evolutionists about what evolutionist actually believe!

Voyager 2, NASA
One area where evolutionists humiliate themselves is when they assert things that are simply untrue (including how evolution makes useful predictions). While there are many false claims about creationists, I will focus on one: The untrue assertion that creationists do not make valid predictions. One fellow challenged me on Twitter to give just one creationist prediction that was true. I told him about Dr. Russell Humphreys and his predictions about planetary magnetic fields, which were proven correct and the evolutionists were proven wrong. He backpedaled and grumbled that this was not from a biologist. Sorry, but you asked and I delivered.

Creationists have made predictions that have been verified.

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