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

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Submerged Britain

Although there is abundant global evidence for the Flood, the British Isles are an area that warrant special study. Uniformitarian assumptions keep leading researchers on dusty trails to dead ends and wrong destinations. Great Britain was completely submerged at one time during the Genesis Flood, but uniformitarian geologists refuse to accept this, and often will often refuse to examine the evidence. For example, Siccar Point in Scotland does not have much information about it because of uniformitarian assumptions; this is the same kind of bad science that has held back research in biology (such as "junk" DNA) and other areas because they think they have things all figured out.

FreeImages / Ben Nevis via Carn Mor Dearg Arete / biscuits17
Radiometric dating is no account because of the bad assumptions involved (knowing the beginning "parent" quantities, the decay rates, and the ending "daughter" amounts). Further, those decay rates have been shown to be not constant. Having the same materials yield different dates, and even having rocks of known age calculated to be millions of years older than they really are, should cause serious geologists to be skeptical of the adherence to radiometric dating in their field. Fossil content in the British rocks does not help "deep time" assumptions, either.

Even so, using some uniformitarian materials, creationists can show that Britain was submerged, all at the same time. This flies in the face of secular geology, even though geologists will reluctantly set aside their assumptions and graciously grant that there have been occasional flood catastrophes. The evidence actually points to the Genesis Flood. If they'd get past their erroneous presuppositions and cognate on the evidence, geologists would be more likely to reach accurate answers.
Our focus in this paper is to show that when we examine geology holistically, rather than burrowing ourselves in small detached details, confirmation of the recent Flood emerges.

The UK, because of its relatively small size compared with the world’s land mass and the early development of geology here, has been explored to a higher level of detail than many other countries. This paper presents evidence from within the uniformitarian paradigm that the UK experienced a complete flood recently. In the process we show that there are also other pointers, quite independent of flood legends, to the whole world having experienced a global flood. Other researchers are then encouraged to complete this story geologically.
To read the entire article in context, click on "Why was the UK once totally under water?"

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

Monday, December 29, 2014

Asteroid Impacts, Lava Flows, and Dinosaur Extinction?

So what was it really that done in them dinos, anyway? Some people claim that "science knows" what happened to them, but "science" knows nothing. After all, science is not a sentient being. Also, even thought the dominant theory among secular scientists is that an asteroid smashed into the earth, that raises more questions and speculations, such as why mammals didn't all die, too. There are actually many guesses as to why the dinosaurs cashed in their chips, and some parts of the "theories" that scientists are not so forthcoming about, as you'll see in the article linked below.

Asteroid, Volcano, Dinosaur Extinction, Evolution, Age of the Earth, Creation Science
Image assembled from components at Clker clipart
Some are going to volcanic activity for the demise of the dinosaurs. Or maybe a combination of volcanic activity, long-term decline, and the asteroid. Oh, boy. May as well add in the constipation theory to the volcanoes and fireball from the sky. Or we can use the biblical creationist models of the Genesis Flood, the Ice Age and so on. But that is unacceptable to evolutionists, because Creation and the Flood were recent events, and secular worldviews require billions of years to wish evolution into happening.
An impact drove the dinosaurs extinct; or was it volcanoes?

For decades, the most common tale about dinosaur extinction has been the impact hypothesis: a meteorite finished them off. There’s the smoking-gun crater in the Yucatan, isn’t there? This theory gets treatment as “received knowledge” by the press. It’s simply assumed, as in PhysOrg’s headline, “Asteroid that wiped out dinosaurs may have nearly knocked off mammals, too.” This article claims that early marsupials perished in the flames of the impact, somehow giving placental mammals their chance. Result: humans.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Dinosaurs and the Battle of Killers".

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

Saturday, December 27, 2014

Does Martian Methane Matter?

The gas known as methane is known to exist throughout the universe. Most of the stuff on Earth is made through various biological processes. Methane is in places where it is accepted that there is no life, just as the gas giants in our own solar system. When it was detected on Mars, people got excited, thinking that it may be the product of life.

Gale Crater on Mars
NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona (slightly modified)
Many evolutionists think that Mars is the most likely place in our solar system outside of Earth to have life. They play the odds, even though the odds have been greatly reduced. (For that matter, the chances against life on Mars are a million to one.) Biblical creationists generally dismiss the idea of life elsewhere in the universe because of scientific reasons against evolution, and more importantly, from scriptural interpretations. The Bible doesn't flat-out say that there's nobody home out there, but that's the most likely interpretations. It's not a hill I'm willing to join a Cavalry charge to die on, though. But the biblical reasoning is sound.

"Spikes" or "explosions" in methane on Mars have gained attention. Were they caused by some kind of life? Maybe instrument errors (the measurements gave results of seven parts per billion), or some other sources. Does it matter?
Much of the earth’s methane (natural gas) originates from biological activity. That is, most methane on earth comes from the biochemistry of living things. If life on earth arose naturally as most evolutionists think, then life ought to have arisen elsewhere in the universe. Hence scientists today increasingly look for signs of life elsewhere in the universe. Within the solar system, Mars appears most promising for life outside of the earth, so much attention has been given to the search for biogenic markers, such as methane, on Mars.

Methane was first detected on Mars about 15 years ago, though in minute quantities. However, some of those earlier measurements have been controversial, and the measurements have varied from source to source. Furthermore, not all methane is biogenic. There are recognized sources of methane on earth that have nothing to do with living things. And methane is common throughout the universe. Methane is present in the atmospheres of the gas giant planets in our solar system. Astronomers have detected methane in comets. The atmosphere of Titan, the largest satellite of Saturn and the only planetary satellite with an atmosphere, contains methane. In fact Titan may have lakes of methane on its surface. We even find methane in gas clouds between the stars. For the most part, scientists do not think that the methane found elsewhere in the universe is the result of living things. Hence, the discovery of methane on Mars ought not to be surprising, nor should it be taken as evidence of life.
You can read the rest by clicking on "A Methane Explosion on Mars—Evidence for Life?" You may also want to check out "Mars Methane is Not Alive".

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

Friday, December 26, 2014

Ant Beetle in Amber

Aside from being the name of a color, amber is fossilized tree resin. Paleontologists love it, because it trapped insects and things, and preserved them. Nowadays, scientists can examine the fossils. (Amber with bugs in it is also used as jewelry, which strikes me as a mite odd.) A new discovery of an ant beetle in amber is called a "transitional fossil". Really?

Credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures
Mayhaps one reason there's so much disagreement about "transitional fossils" (supposedly something evolving into something else) is that the definition of the term is so loose. I reckon it means that something looks like maybe it could be similar to something else. This new ant fossil? They're really reaching when they call it "transitional".
If ancient history according to Scripture is true, then what should we expect to find in animal fossils? Surely excellent body designs would top the list, closely followed by a lack of "transitional forms." A newly discovered specialized beetle inside Indian amber provides another peek into the past and an opportunity to test these Bible-based expectations.

Joseph Parker, a research associate at the American Museum of Natural History, specializes in this type of ant beetle, called Protoclaviger. He told the AMNH, "Protoclaviger is a truly transitional fossil." He and AMNH curator David Grimaldi coauthored a paper describing the find in Current Biology, where they wrote, "Protoclaviger captures a transitional stage in the evolutionary development of this novel body plan, most evident in its still-distinct abdominal tergites."
You can read the rest of the article by clicking on "Amazing Ant Beetle Same Today as Yesterday".

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

Thursday, December 25, 2014

Biblical Genealogies

At this time of year, many Christians read our Bibles for the Christmas story. And I reckon many of us read the genealogies in Matthew and Luke (and other ones) very quickly, if at all. I don't know many people who actually like them because we want to get to the "good parts". But they're important nonetheless.

Biblical creationists maintain that the Ussher chronologies are reliable, and an indicator that the earth is young (our foundation is God's Word, you know). There are several detailed lists in Scripture. But there are some marked differences between the listings in Matthew and Luke, and mockers who don't bother to research claim that they're contradictory.  Not hardly. The genealogies are there for a purpose, and are reliable.
Many Bible readers are tempted to just skip over the long lists of names that sometimes seem to interrupt the narrative of Scripture. These genealogies appear often in Genesis, Chronicles, and other places in the Old Testament. Matthew and Luke both have a genealogy of Jesus, tracing His ancestry back to Abraham and Adam. While modern people may tend to be bored by these lists, the people to whom Scripture was originally written would have viewed these genealogies as vital parts of Scripture, grounding the narrative in actual history and people who really lived.
To finish reading, click on "Are there gaps in the biblical genealogies?"

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

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Christmas and Creationists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Yes, I know that there are many misconceptions about Christmas.
Still, I cowboy up and ride along. I'm not going to fight with people about traditions, or even if Christians are wrong for celebrating Christmas. Here's a corral-load of links with historical information and discussions on the yes-or-no of it all. I choose to celebrate in good conscience and freedom (1 Cor. 10:29-30, Col. 2:16).

I retouched "Adoration of the Shepherds" by Rembrandt.
So, why do so many biblical creationists choose to celebrate Christmas? Because God the Son is the Creator (John 1:1-3, Col. 1:16, Isaiah 44:24). He humbled himself and set aside his glory to become a human (Phil. 2.7-8). Everyone has sinned (Romans 3:23), and all deserve eternal death, separation from God in Hell (Rom. 6:23, Rev. 20:12, Rev. 20:15). Jesus died on a cross for our sins, then rose from the dead on the third day (Acts 2:23-24, 1 Cor. 15:3-8). We can be reconciled to God (John 1:12, Romans 5:10).

The Creator of the universe died for this rotten, sinful guy and made him a son of the living God!

But far too many people reject his free gift of salvation (Eph. 2:8-9). Instead, even though they know that God exists, they suppress the truth and seek to deny his existence (Rom. 1.18-22), depending instead on the religion of evolutionism and their "wisdom" (1 Cor. 1:18-23). But there will be a final judgement of the unrighteous (Rev. 20:13-15, Rev. 21:8). Those of us who received the gift of salvation have a different destiny (Rev. 7:17, Rev. 22:1-5, Isaiah 1:18).

For us, there will not be presents under our tree this year due to some serious financial setbacks (we're recovering, though). As you can see from what I wrote above, I've already received the greatest gift of all.

Charles Darwin was not born according to prophesies. He did not die for anyone's sins but his own, and he certainly was not resurrected from the dead!

We Christians not only have the best possible reason to celebrate the humble birth of God the Son, our Savior, but an opportunity to proclaim the gospel.

Happy Christmas!

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

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Equine Evolutionary Exasperation

Evolutionists like to claim that the evolution of the horse is one of the best evidences of biological evolution, and their evidence is in the geologic record. But the evolution of the horse is not what they claim, being loaded with assumptions and bad logic — and the horse was never a good example of evolution. It's not as simple as before, more like a patchwork quilt with things added and others taken away. New developments should make equine evolution stories only fit for telling around the campfire.

Vito (left) and Royal are both American horse breeds. Thanks to Michelle Studer for the picture.
Once again, genetics is an enemy of evolutionary ideas. Populations, reproductive isolation, "positive selection" and so on need to be addressed. For that matter, equine populations and species show remarkable diversity. In the picture above, Vito (on the left) is a 16-hands tall cart-pulling Standardbred, and Royal is a 30-inch Miniature who can also pull his own cart. Then you have Clydesdales, Shires and other, larger horses. But they're all horses.

Since evolution doesn't work, people are rewriting the story again, adding patches to that old quilt.
Horses, asses and zebras show evidence of gene flow despite extreme chromosome rearrangements.

An international team studying genomes of living members of the genus Equus (horses, asses and zebras) was astonished at how different species could share genes despite extreme chromosomal rearrangements. In “Speciation with gene flow in equids despite extensive chromosomal plasticity,” published in PNAS, the team extended the story of horse evolution with new whole-genome data from six species of asses and zebras. They were surprised by what they found.
I know you're chomping at the bit to read the rest. Just click on "The New Horse Series: Genomes Confuse 'Textbook Example of Evolution'".

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

Monday, December 22, 2014

Field Trip to Giant's Causeway

Tas Walker conducted a large field trip to Giant's Causeway, a World Heritage Site in Northern Ireland. A causeway is an elevated road, often above wet ground or water. The legend for this one is that it was built by a giant. Giant's Causeway is interesting not only because of the rock formations, but is studied by geologists. This trip had several participants (and even had a few tourists there join in).

Giant's Causeway / Pixabay / Ben_Kerckx
Most of the time, all people here is the biased viewpoint of uniformitarian old earth geologists, and other views are rejected as "not science" because they do not support evolutionary ideas. Here, Dr. Walker explained the geological features from a biblical creationist Genesis Flood perspective, and showed how the standard views are often lacking. Edit: Moments after this was published, I found out that today is Tas Walker's birthday. In the off chance he sees this, happy birthday!
In September 2014, I visited the Giant’s Causeway in Northern Ireland to conduct two geological tours on the same day. In all almost 90 enthusiasts came from all over the province, and some from Republic of Ireland, even as far south as Dublin and Athlone. The event was organized by CMI-UK/Europe in partnership with Creation Outreach Ministries of Northern Ireland.

The aim of the tours was to train people to see how the Bible explains the rocks and landscapes. We wanted people to understand how this worked, and not just take our word for it, so we made a point of discussing what we could actually see as we walked along the various paths (figure 1). Then we would explore ideas about what could have happened in the past, events that would explain the features in the present, including explanations by long-age geologists. We were careful to stress that stories about what happened in the past are speculative because we cannot go back in time and make observations. However, the approach taken for biblical geology is different from that of long-age geology. It has a logically defensible basis because it does have observations of past events—observations made by those who were present at the time, which have been written down and passed onto us in the biblical account.
You can read the rest of his account by clicking on "Geological excursion at Giant’s Causeway in Northern Ireland:A giant first—interpreting an iconic World Heritage Site using biblical history".

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

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Java Man Flexes Mussels

Java man was discarded as a transitional from between apes and humans a long time ago, and has been mixed in with the Homo erectus gang. The original was conjured up from a skull cap and some artifacts that were found on Java over a century ago. Using a great deal of artistic license and just-so storytelling, Java man was put into the evolutionary parade of "what you evolved from" for a while.

Those owlhoots can sell you a bill of goods with a sculpture built from mostly imagination, can't they?

Anyway, some mussel shells found in the same area have been examined. They are showing activity that is consistent with the other artifacts: precision and ingenuity. Some Java man or people bored holes in the shells, and occasionally engraved them. Not quite the activity that fits with the "Me Og, me stupid and not quite evolved yet" preconceptions of evolutionists.
Interest in human origins persists generation after generation, and researchers continue to uncover and interpret clues. The latest set comes from a reinvestigation of clam shells dug up in the 1890s on the Indonesian island of Java. Someone skillfully drilled and engraved those shells. Who was it?

Publishing in Nature, a team described what they found in the collection of shells from at least 166 individual freshwater mussels held in the Naturalis museum in the Netherlands since 1900. The shells were taken from Trinil, the place where Eugene Dubois found evidence of human remains in 1891 that generations have referred to as Java Man—today called Homo erectus. Any news about these ancients' behaviors or habits attracts intense interest from those who consider Java man an evolutionary link between apes and humans.
You won't need a cup of java to stay awake, the rest of the article is rather short. Just click on "How Different was 'Java' from 'Modern' Man?"

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

Friday, December 19, 2014

Bill's Un-de-Nye-Able Propaganda

So, Bill Nye wrote a book. Ken Ham, his debate opponent on February 4, 2014, has authored, co-authored and edited dozens of books. Ham writes a lot, nobody bats an eye. Nye writes one book, and everyone loses their minds. The difference is that Nye is a celebrity propagandist for evolution, which he equivocates with "science", and Ham teaches biblical creation science — which is considered "cool" to bash nowadays.

Wikimedia Commons / Ed Schipul

Bill Nye apparently can't stand Ken Ham. In interviews and things, he refers to Ham as "that guy". The question has been raised that if Nye trounced Ham in the debate like his fans claim, why doesn't he promote the video, which is available to watch free online? Perhaps it's because he misrepresented many things, and told several untruths; Answers In Genesis gave several responses to these things. Or maybe because the debate format itself was appallingly bad. Even so, Ken Ham's not afraid or ashamed of the debate.

I had to edit in this graphic from Why?Outreach.

Why should anyone care about his book, Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation? Because he continues his misleading, disingenuous and sometimes dishonest attacks on biblical creation science, and he uses bad science as well. The following review shows some of these concerns about this anti-creation crusader's writing, with references and additional material to further show how he is misleading many people.
Some people think the “Great Creationism Debate” between Bill Nye and Ken Ham represented a battle between science and the Bible, but the Bible and science are not at war. In the debate and in the ongoing duel of ideas expressed in these two books, the battle is between man’s fallible evolutionary ideas for which Bill Nye crusades with evangelistic zeal and God’s infallible Word, which Ken Ham defends in his book (in accordance with Jude 1:3). Biblical truth is by no means at odds with observational science, and it will triumph over man’s godless assertions—particularly Nye’s caustic caricatures and denial of a straightforward reading of God’s inspired Word (2 Corinthians 10:4–5).
You can finish reading this lengthy but information-loaded article by clicking on "Book Review: Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation". Also, if you have a mind to and some time, you can see the debate itself (skip ahead to the 13 minutes 14 seconds mark for the actual beginning).

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

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Astrobiology Fantasies Fading Fast

The pseudoscience of astrobiology has less justification for its existence all the time. Using scenarios that look good on paper but have no evidence, astronomers are speculating that Earth's primordial atmosphere may have been blasted away by multiple impacts when the solar system was forming. (I didn't see any explanation about oxygen's presence in "old" rocks, belying the idea of an old atmosphere that was replaced later on.) These are people that believe in the Oort cloud, you know. The "impacts destroy atmospheres" concept does not bode well for planets elsewhere in the universe, even by evolutionary reckoning.

Additional observations and speculations are hostile to the future of astrobiology. There are people who use Sagan-esque speculations based on the presupposition that evolution is true, then play the odds that since there are so many stars and galaxies, there must be life out there. That hope has been diminished by 90 percent, due to space radiation. Star formation has supposedly halted in some galaxies (as if they were watching stars form in the first place). And more killjoys for astrobiology. Nope, the fact is that Earth was specially created hereabouts, full of life, and God has big plans.

You can read up on the stories by clicking on "Astrobiology Hopes Diminish". Also, what if you take "bio" out of astrobiology? You get astrology. Really, is there much philosophical difference? Click here to read "Astrobiology Has No Bio".

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

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Can Darwin Give You a Hand?

The human hand is a marvel of engineering. With it, a cowboy can maneuver to throw his lariat, and then hang on once he lassos the critter. Dexterity, sensitivity, strength. Very complex, very useful — there's nothing else quite like it among the animals.

Even with admiring the intricacies of the hand, Darwinists still want to give praise to blind, purposeless evolution and to natural selection. Storytelling is passed off as "science". Amazing how their faith keeps them from giving deserved credit to the Creator.
As part of a television series called Dissected, Britian’s BBC website has published an article written by the show’s presenter Dr George McGavin titled ‘The incredible human hand and foot’.

In it, Dr McGavin outlines several fascinating features of our hand, which gives us a powerful grip but also allows us to manipulate small objects with great precision. This ability sets us apart from other creatures. The muscles in the hand are ‘strangely’ arranged, since most of the hand’s movements are controlled by muscles not located in the hand but in the forearm. The fingers are connected to the forearm by long tendons that pass through a flexible band.

This arrangement gives the fingers movement and strength that would be impossible if all the muscles were in the hand. In short, the hand looks like a bony puppet controlled by the forearm.
You can grab the rest of this article by clicking on "The incredible human hand — Naturally engineered or designed by intelligence?"

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

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Ciliate Makes Evolution Sillier

Once again, genetics is showing how evolution is increasingly ridiculous. Single-celled creatures that were considered "simple" are, upon closer examination, amazingly complex. A ciliate under study has two genomes, and after reproduction, they scramble and rearrange the genomes — with an encryption that would cause envy in IT people. Blind and purposeless? Nope. The complex product of a Creator with a purpose in mind? You betcha!
One-cell creatures called ciliates are expanding our knowledge of genome dynamics and complexity. Now a newly sequenced ciliate genome reveals unimaginable levels of programmed rearrangement combined with an ingenious system of encryption.

Contrary to the evolutionary prediction of simple-to-complex in the alleged tree of life, one-cell ciliates are exhibiting astonishing genetic complexity. The ciliate Oxytricha trifallax has two different genomes contained in separate nuclei. The micronucleus is dense and compact and used for reproduction while the macronucleus is dramatically rearranged, amplified, and used for the creature's standard daily living.
To get your mind boggled further, finish the article by clicking on "Genome Scrambling and Encryption Befuddles Evolution".

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

Monday, December 15, 2014

Dinosaurs, Birds and Making Tracks

Tracks can give some decent information about who or what made them, including size, weight, stride and so on. Fossil footprints are a bit less reliable because they are usually made in some kind of mud. The stuff distorts the footprint, and the fossilization process also adds some distortion.

Grallator track / NPS.gov
Researchers have a new technique for studying dinosaur tracks. They study birds making tracks in poppy seeds. I reckon that some people can't get past the disputed dinosaurs-evolved-into-birds story, even though not all paleontologists are in agreement with it, dishonesty in museum displays, and the fact that dinosaurs ate birds. Still, they want to use birds. The technique is interesting, but does not support evolution in any way. Nor does it shed light on how fossil footprints formed, and how they lasted for alleged millions of years. That is best explained by biblical creation Genesis Flood models.
By devising a ground-breaking technique to peer beneath the surface as a bird’s feet make tracks, Brown University scientists Peter Falkingham and Steven Gatesy have discovered how to reap a wealth of information from that delightful paleontological prize, the fossilized footprint of a dinosaur.

You can tell a lot about animals and people by examining their footprints. And when the trackmakers—such as dinosaurs—are long gone, fossilized footprints are the only way we have to assess how they moved. Clues about their anatomy, their gait, and perhaps even their behavior are locked away in stone. Could the memory of the very motion that pushed and piled up particles of mud or sand be somehow preserved in the prints?
To finish reading the article, hoof it over to "Bird X-Rays Shed Light on Dinosaur Tracks".

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

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Archer Fish Takes Aim

Just for fun, this was scheduled to post on the thirteenth of December, 2014 at 10:11 AM Eastern Time. So, for Americans, we can say 10:11, 12-13-14. Little things like that amuse me.

One creature that creationists and Intelligent Design proponents have long liked to discuss is the archer fish's hunting abilities. It was already impressive, knowing that it could lurk below the surface of the water and squirt out a jet of water, knocking an insect off a branch into the water below as a guest for lunch.

Wikimedia Commons / Pearsman Scott Foresman
The argument for design becomes even more impressive with the fact that further research shows that a fair amount of physics is involved with the archer's arching. Too many details are present that can be accounted for by evolutionary means.
The secret of the archer fish’s powerful spits has been discovered, and it isn't powerful muscles.

The fish that shoots bugs out of the air uses physics, a paper in PLoS ONE declared. By letting physics amplify the momentum in the drop shot out of the water, the fish achieves six times the wallop its own muscles can attain.
You can read the rest of this short but interesting article by shooting over to "Archer Fish Amplifies Muscle with Physics", and there's also a short video below:

Uninportant Addendum:
Yep, right on schedule!

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

Friday, December 12, 2014

When Did the Very Good Creation Get Very Bad Things?

How do biblical creationists explain some of the things we see in nature? After all, the Bible clearly teaches that everything was created vegetarian in the beginning, and God said his creation was "very good". I suspicion that "very good" supports the contention that living creatures, נפש חיה, did not experience death for a short time because death was not a part of God's creation.

freeimages.com / mexikids
Indeed, death entered through sin (Romans 8.19-23a), and death is an enemy (1 Cor. 15.26) — do you reckon that death will be a part of the new creation at the end of it all? Not hardly! So, back to the big questions: From a biblical creationist perspective, where did death, pointy teeth, venom, poison and all that stuff enter into the picture, and can this be addressed without compromising on scriptural truth? There are answers that are theologically sound, and also have scientific support.
One of the most common questions asked of Christians is some version of: “If God is so loving, why are there bad things in the world?” The implication being that if God created this world in the state it is in, He can’t be ‘very good’ Himself. This is sometimes used as a reason to reject belief in God.

Exodus 20:11 states God created everything in 6 literal days. But that then means that claws and poison must also have been created within those 6 days …

CMI’s Creation Answers Book devotes a whole section to explaining this in great detail, providing not only a philosophical answer but also addressing more detailed questions such as, ‘What about animals that have attack/defence structures that seem ‘designed’ to hunt and kill (or protect them from such activity)?’ Again, this is because skeptics of biblical creation have used the (reasonable) argument that a ‘good’ God surely wouldn’t have created creatures designed to tear other creatures to pieces etc.
To read the rest, click on "The good, the bad and the ugly … If God created everything in 6 days when exactly were ‘bad things’ created?"

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

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Evolutionary Dating Methods and Stonehenge

Stonehenge has been the subject of study, tourism, speculation, occult lore, the A303, and so on for a very long time. The consensus is that it was built thousands of years before the time of Christ. But this dating is based on the common practice of evolutionary thinking, which is to reject records and other indications of age that don't square with evolutionary preconceptions. Then they get surprised that "ancient primitives" (not fully evolved yet) had the notions to do some intricate design work and amazing labor. From a biblical creationist perspective, it was built after the Genesis Flood by intelligent people.
Stonehenge, circa 1890 / PD
Using historical documents (and working around some of the less-than-historical material), plus some other conjectures, we get a much more recent date for the construction of Stonehenge; I wonder if this will affect the dating of the Rollright Stones? (Evolutionary thinking also influence people to reject the Bible as a historical document because it contradicts evolutionary old Earth paradigms.) When going checking evidence instead of clinging to assumptions, more accurate results can be had.

There's a bonus. New research indicates that Stonehenge is just part of the story, and there are more structures underground. What we see is actually a small part of a much larger complex.
Archaeologists have been using ground-penetrating radar and other techniques to intensively study underground areas all around Stonehenge, a mysterious circle of stones in England that secular historians believe was constructed many thousands of years ago. Recently the archaeologists discovered an unexpected array of buried stone structures, leading them to once again rewrite their Stonehenge origin theories. Bible believers also struggle to understand when and why Stonehenge was constructed. Forgotten clues from history answer these questions with much greater surety than secular speculations have mustered.

First, we can reject the stone artifact’s reported ages, ranging from 6000 to 2500 B.C., for at least two reasons. Secular archaeologists regularly select dates simply because they align with the evolutionary timescale of human history, but Institute for Creation Research scientists, along with other researchers, have amply demonstrated why that timescale has failed. Enlightenment era secularists concocted it, and their disciples continue to systematically reject any dates that don’t fit, protecting their timescale with what amounts to mere circular reasoning. Another reason to reject their reported ages is that they dismiss written records detailing Britain’s past and similar records from several ancient European nations that trace royal ancestries all the way back to Japheth son of Noah. With ancient documents including the Bible out of the way, evolutionists have felt free to invent a version of history that excludes God and even humanity’s own historical records.
To finish reading the article, click on "A Recent Origin for Stonehenge?"

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

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Planet-Sized Deflector Shields?

Planet Earth is protected by a "Star Trek" - like shield in space? Seems to be. More evidence of the Creator's work to keep us safe.

In the early days of space exploration, belts of radiation were detected around Earth. They were named the Van Allen belts. Their structure has been studied for a long time, but scientists were a mite surprised to learn that there is a shield in there that protects Earth from dangerous radiation. It's been likened to stuff from "Star Trek".

More and more, we keep seeing that there's just something special about our own planet (such as how Saturn's tilt and orbit affect life here, and that gamma-ray bursts should have already exterminated life on our world according to evolutionary reckoning.) The unique properties of Earth, our solar system and more seem to make the search for life in the great unknown even less likely. Secularists are baffled by this, can't figure out how it evolved, which is a common happening in space studies these days. It is another case of seeing the design of the Creator but refusing to admit it. He has safety measures in place and watches over our planet. How much more amazing it is that he cares about you and me!
On January 30, 1958, the U.S. launched its first orbiting satellite, Explorer 1. On board was a geiger counter instrument developed by James Van Allen and his team from the University of Iowa. The counter went “off the charts” at a certain altitude, measuring an unexpected level of radiation. Further flights isolated this high energy radiation to two belts above the Earth, named the Van Allen Radiation Belts in his honor. It was the first major scientific discovery of the space race, after the Russians had successfully launched two Sputnik probes and the dog Laika in late 1957.

Now, 56 years after their discovery, physicists have discovered that the Van Allen belts have a new function: protecting Earth. Nature reported it this week. Between the inner and outer belts is an “impenetrable” barrier that shields the Earth from the solar wind’s highest-energy electrons:
To read the entire article, click on "Star Trek for Real: Impenetrable Force Field Protects Earth". As for me, I'm uncomfortable wearing this red shirt. 'Scuse me while I go change.

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

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Iceland, Zircons, and Hades-Earth

Some ancient Earth advocates believe that zircons are proof that our planet is old. This is based on uniformitarian ("the present is the key to the past") assumptions and circular reasoning. You can't use zircons to decorate your horse's bridle, though, they're tiny. But tough, since they withstand a lot of abuse from geologic action.

Vocano / PD / US National Park Service
The idea is that zircons were formed in the Hadean time when Earth was very young and a hot place, and getting bombarded with rocks from space. Based on that story, zircons were compared with other zircons from Iceland, which has volcanic activity. Those zircons were formed under "lower" temperatures, relatively speaking (not that much lower, really). Of course, the press went wild and gave some stories that were probably embarrassing to the geologists.

Do zircons reveal anything about early Earth? Not hardly. There is a story, but no plausible model or evidence. Biblical creationists have a very different worldview about early Earth.
Vanderbilt University: Early Earth less hellish than previously thought
Zircons are tiny crystals of zirconium silicate that crystallized from magma. Impervious to environmental conditions, they survive more or less intact despite erosion and environmental changes that radically alter most rocks, preserving within them clues to the conditions prevailing at the time they formed. A Vanderbilt University research team has compared zircon crystals collected in Iceland to zircons believed to represent earth’s earliest days. The results surprised them, and they concluded Hadean earth wasn’t quite as hot as previously thought.

Hell on Earth?
The Hadean period is named for Hades, a Greek word for the underworld often associated with a fiery hell. Conventionally dated at more than four billion years ago, zircons embedded in sandstone from Western Australia are the only minerals on Earth thought to represent that time.

“We reasoned that the only concrete evidence for what the Hadean was like came from the only known survivors: zircon crystals—and yet no one had investigated Icelandic zircon to compare their telltale compositions to those that are more than 4 billion years old, or with zircon from other modern environments,” explains Vanderbilt University geologist Calvin Miller.

Zircons believed to represent stages in Iceland’s recent 18 million year history were compared with Hadean and other zircons from different former and modern geologic settings. The results suggest, headlines proclaim, that the early earth was not quite as hellish as once believed.
You can satisfy your burning curiosity about what the rest of the article says by clicking on "No Hadean Hell on Earth".

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

Monday, December 8, 2014

Disagreements About Natural Selection

The article by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (linked below) has caused me to rethink my views a mite. Yes, natural selection is something that most creationists agree on. In fact, we agree with evolutionists that it exists. What we do not agree with is the idea that it is a creative force. Natural selection does nothing of the kind.

I've been known to use some of the arguments that natural selection implies a kind of entity or active force to do the selecting. In my experience, some of Darwin's Disciples treat it just that way, personifying both natural selection and evolution. Problem is, there are uninformed evolutionists who still believe that natural selection adds genetic information; they are out of touch with current trends in evolutionary hypotheses, and act like there is something to do the selecting. Evolution and natural selection are not the same thing, and Darwin's ideas on that have been left behind for the most part.

So I'm kind of in the middle here, knowing that knowledgeable evolutionists know that natural selection is not a being, but I still have to deal with underinformed laymen who insist that creationists are wrong, even though they don't have both boots in the stirrups of their evolutionary horse.

Unfortunately, there are some creationists who go further than I ever did. They dislike the term "natural selection" so much that they want to use something else altogether. But there's no call for that. This article should be interesting and helpful for creationists who think they're being faithful to Scripture by denying natural selection. It's not a threat to biblical creation science. As for me, I'm going to reign in my own metaphors about the personification of the thing. Live and learn, huh?
From time to time, we receive requests to reject natural selection, and adopt the alternative theories of Dr Randy Guliuzza of ICR. One sample letter follows (slightly modified), then Dr Jonathan Sarfati explains why creationists should not be afraid of natural selection and thus abandon the concept to evolutionists.
To finish reading, click on "The fact of natural selection".

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

Saturday, December 6, 2014

Letters to a Mocker: Response to Scientism, Part 2

This is the promised conclusion of the last article (I urge you to read Part 1, here). To recap, I was included in some replies to spamming rants by Haywire the Stalker, and received permission to show his responses. Last time, I made some introductory comments and presented the first part of his responses. I have edited both of them a little, but the substance is intact. Note that Haywire is typical of his ilk, dodging the important matters and attacking the person.

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Your response affirms my statements, including the fact that no one can "observe" the unobserved past events. Thus,this is not "meaningless mantras" but a repeated statement of scientific "fact". 

I further note that you have addressed none of issues I raised, and provided NO "testable" and verifiable "experimental" science to substantiate any of the necessary stages of the "hypothetical" evolutionary continuum. Nor have you provided any "directly observable" scientific evidence for your godless religious beliefs. So, it is you, and not Bob or any other creationist, who mischievously engages in disinformation and attempts avoid providing science to substantiate your assertions.

As such, I could well conclude that you mislead others by misrepresenting and embellishing the facts. You mistakenly, or knowingly, promote a evolutionary theory as science when you have no real testable and verifiable science to support ANY aspect of your hypothetical "historical" theory.

You misrepresent and embellish the facts by mistakenly, promoting godless "metaphysical" religious beliefs as science. So I remind you that many scientists, including the Nobel Committee, have openly acknowledged that evolution is a "hypothetical" historical theory that has nothing to do with "experimental" or "observational" science. Principally because verifiable "empirical" science and the scientific method plays no part in the evolutionary historical framework.And, moreover, has no place in the "metaphysical" religious beliefs on which evolutionary theory is founded. Namely, that of "metaphysical" naturalism and godless materialism, better known as Scientism.

As such, there is no empirical science available to "learn a fair amount about the unobserved recent or distant past from the evidence that past natural events leave behind". And no testable, verifiable science to support your godless evolutionary worldview.  Meaning, evolutionary theory is nothing more than a historical theory founded entirely on SUBJECTIVE opinions and interpretations of unobserved past events — all of which operate on unverifiable godless presuppositions, assumptions, inferences, invented 'explanations', contrived interpretations, conjecture, and sheer speculation as to what SUPPOSEDLY happened in the unobserved past. None of these can be substantiated by the scientific method or real testable empirical science.

If you can prove otherwise provide me with the testable and verifiable science that I have asked for, and never got.

You falsely state, "Science can highlight with confidence that certain things happened and eg date rocks that are associated with certain fossils including animals or plants that are now extinct. It can also rule proposed past events out due to the necessary evidence not being found anywhere."  

Yet again misrepresent and embellish the facts, by"deliberately blinding yourself" to the reality that "testable" or "verifiable" empirical science plays no role in this subjective "opinion" based hypothetical evolutionary framework. So yet again I must remind you that all evolutionary "historical theories" about the unobserved past all involve SUBJECTIVE opinions and interpretations which operate on unproven godless presuppositions, assumptions, inferences, invented 'explanations', contrived interpretations, conjecture, and sheer speculation as to what SUPPOSEDLY happened in the unobserved past. None of which can be substantiated by the scientific method or real testable empirical science, and thus have no experimental or observational basis. This is also true of the many assumptions underlying dating methods.

In reality there is that there is no instrument know to science that "directly" measures the age of any historical relic. Thus,  every method used by science to measure age involves "untestable" and "unverifiable" assumptions and inferences, without exception.

He asks, "Why don't you address the evasiveness of Jonathan Sarfati?" [Note the loaded question, he said "evasiveness", which is not proven. -CBB] 

I have already addressed this issue but you again failed to notice. I plainly stated that "no scientist" was there to observe what actually happened, nor were you. As such, it all comes down to untestable and unverifiable "opinion" as to how it happened. 

Your rambling and garbled statements reek of  misrepresentation, misinformation and embellishment. Again I have yet to see any testable and verifiable scientific evidence to substantiate your many assumptions.

Then you glibly state "That Achilles Heel promotion video is also stuffed full of lies and half-truths. I could elaborate."

Please do elaborate. But when you elaborate we expect you to provide "testable" and verifiable science, not your usual assumption-based opinions. I have already asked you to provide this and you have failed to do so. In this regard you state, "You ask for perfect knowledge of the past from your opponents - and then want to crow "I win" when they admit they cannot provide it. As indeed I cannot - and have never claimed."

I have never asked for perfect knowledge, only testable and verifiable science to substantiate the multiple stages of the evolutionary continuum. Which you repeatedly claim is based on science. However, you now openly admit you have not provided real experimental or observational science because you cannot.  Thus you have again "tripped yourself up" by making claims you cannot substantiate. Thus again substantiating that your claims are purely 'subjective' and just 'hot air'.

Your misguided attempt to falsely equate evolution with "eyewitness testimony" also warrants comment. As someone who has been to Law School and studied criminal law, I can tell you that "Eyewitness testimonies" of past events are based on actual "observations" by witnesses of these past events. They are records of what people observed, not what SUPPOSEDLY happened in regard to unobserved past events. Archaeologists and historians likewise observe recorded inscriptions and messages left by observers and people of that time. None of this can be equated with evolutionary theory. Fossils and all other such relics from the unobserved past have "labels" describing what actually happened. As such, scientists operate on presuppositional "assumptions" as to what SUPPOSEDLY happened in the unobserved past. And therein lies the problem for evolutionists.

There is an ocean of difference between "observed" past events, and "unobserved" past events: A reality that must be faced by you and all evolutionary minded advocates in the international scientific community who actively embrace and promote godless "metaphysical" naturalism and scientism.

Moreover, as a strong advocate of BCSE [The ironically named British Centre for Science Education, an evolutionary indoctrination group. -CBB], you well know that the atheist and Humanist spawned censorship, suppression and ridicule is being done by evolutionists.  Nonetheless, I can assure you that in spite of all this censorship, creationist scientists will not only endure but eventually prevail. Indeed, the rapidly growing impact of creationist scientists affirms that the future belongs to the "science of Theism", as was the case with the pioneers of modern science. The writing is already on the wall for the currently entrenched "Scientism of atheism",  for reasons CMI's new production Evolution's Achilles' Heels well demonstrates. 

I won't comment on the rest of you opinion based comments as they are merely your subjective opinions based on "hot air", I have made my point so will leave it at that. I cannot waste any more time on people who misrepresents creationists, refuse to provide scientific evidence to substantiate their claims, embellish the facts supposedly supporting evolution, cannot discern the ocean of difference difference between evolutionary "history theories" and testable and verifiable science, and cannot discern the decisive difference between science and scientism.

Nonetheless, you are entitled to your own misguided opinions and I don't begrudge you that. My advice is that you need to stop lying to yourself, and join the real world.

I believe that these two articles provide a strong challenge to anti-creationists: We don't need rants and opinions asserted as facts. Try using real science, and understand how science operates. Something that they utterly reject is that God has given us revelation in his written Word, not only for spiritual guidance and salvation, but about the age and creation of the universe.

Yes, Haywire did reply to those letters, but again, I did not seek permission to reproduce them, and all they did was prove my friend's points. Although Haywire has been a tremendous source of my illustrations of logical fallacies, bigotry and hatred, I'm going back to ignoring this attention-seeker. 

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