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

Saturday, January 31, 2015

Star Nurseries: Pillars of Preconceptions

Secular astronomers, like their counterparts in geology, biology and so forth, begin with assumptions of long ages and that large-scale evolution is true. From there, they build their scientific speculations. In the Eagle Nebula, a photograph was taken of what is called the "Pillars of Creation". Don't misunderstand, this has nothing to do with biblical creation. Instead, they claim that stars are being formed.

NASA, ESA, and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI / AURA). Misnamed "Pillars of Creation" are touted as stellar nurseries. But nobody has seen a star form. In fact, a young universe from a biblical creationist perspective fits the observed data better than secularist speculations from preconceptions.
NASA, ESA, and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI / AURA)
Problem is, they are arguing from a passel of preconceptions and presuppositions. Despite the claims, nobody has ever seen a star form. (I've been ridiculed for such statements because "scientists say" they see stars forming. Okey dokey, you go ahead and sit there for a few million years and let us know all about it, all right?) One creationist said that he has no problem with the idea of stars forming now (if it can be proven) because God designed the processes and the materials are in place. But it was a big "if" for him.

The fact remains, they make statements without evidential support based on their preconceptions. Better explanations fit the biblical creationist young universe model.
In 1995 the Hubble Telescope photographed spectacular columns of gas, illuminated by nearby stars, in a section of the Eagle Nebula. The enormous columns of gas in this famous photo have been nicknamed "pillars of creation" since secular scientists insist that new stars are being "born" within them.

In celebration of the Hubble Telescope's 25th anniversary, a new photograph was taken of the same region in the Eagle Nebula, but this time the image was captured in both visible and infrared light, in order to reveal more detail. As before, secular astronomers are claiming that this area is a "stellar nursery" in which new stars are being born. However, although stars have been observed explosively shedding large amounts of material in nova and supernovae events, the birth of a star has never been observed—not even once.

If stellar birth has never actually been observed, why do secular astronomers claim that the Eagle Nebula is a stellar nursery? They do so for several reasons. First, dense gas pockets called evaporating gas globules (EGGs) are found at the tips of finger-like projections that extend from these gas columns. Some stars are seen inside these EGGs, and secular scientists interpret these as newly-formed stars. But secular scientists have not actually observed new stars being born; they have simply concluded that stars within the EGGs are new, based upon their ideas of star formation.
To read the rest, click on "The Hubble 'Pillars of Creation' Revisited".

Friday, January 30, 2015

Another Misapplication of the Word "Evolution"


American baseball great Willie Keeler played in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. His batting advice was, "Keep your eye clear, and hit 'em where they ain't" ("they" meaning the fielders on the opposing team). It seems that proponents of muck-to-man evolution have their own version: See evolution where it ain't. Time and again, they argue from their presuppositions of evolution, and give "credit" to evolution when it is not justified.

Fishing restrictions in many places require small fish to be released so they can grow up and make more fish. This procedure may be backfiring, as studies are indicating that the results are actually undesirable. Researchers are saying that there is an "evolutionary response to overfishing". Not hardly. It's related to natural selection (which is something the Creator devised), so they shouldn't be seeing evolution where it ain't.
Many countries prohibit fishermen from bagging undersized fish—a strategy intended to ensure the sustainability of fish stocks by allowing young, small fish to grow. But scientists are calling for a rethink, after their findings showed the policy is flawed.

Researchers from Bangor University, the University of East Anglia, the University of the West Indies, and the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology say that over-harvesting larger fish not only leads to a population of smaller fish, but ones that are less fertile, too.
I'm shore you want to see the rest. Just click on "Where Have All the Big Fish Gone?"

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Lithium Ruins Big Bang Predictions

The amount of lithium in the universe is another serious problem for Big Bang proponents. Blurring the data does not help. Biblical creationists do not have these problems.
Lithium is the lightest metal (not to be confused with alternative metal, such as Flyleaf). Big Bang proponents make predictions on what they expect to find that bring to mind the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. "If the Big Bang happened, then is seems mighty likely that we'll find certain elements in certain quantities. We find them, so it must have happened." Sorry, Hoss. There are other possibilities for your observations — if they're correct. The amount of lithium doesn't fit the theories.  Not all scientists, secular or creationist, accept the Big Bang.

Lawrence "Theoretical" Krauss insists that the Big Bang is true, and gives "evidence". Some of the elements match predictions of Big Bang proponents, but his material on lithium is false. (I could be like some anti-creationists and say that he's lying, but I don't know that he's intending to deceive. It's possible, sure, atheists do that, but I won't casually make that possibly libelous affirmation — unlike some people.) The fact is, lithium is in the wrong quantities to support Big Bang concepts, and they know it. Biblical creationists do not have to keep adapting and obfuscating the data.
It is often claimed that the abundances of the light elements predicted by the big bang model match the measured abundances of those elements, and hence constitute evidence for the big bang. However, the actual abundances of the two isotopes of lithium depart significantly from big bang model predictions. The discrepancy is so great that scientists term this the primordial lithium problem. Therefore, rather than providing good evidence for the big bang model, the abundances of the light elements represents a significant problem for the standard cosmology.
That's the abstract. To get into depth and read the whole shootin' match, click on the link to Dr. Danny Faulkner's article, "The Primordial Lithium Problem A Big Problem for the Big Bang". Second, here are some articles that discuss the lithium problem, click on "Lithium and Other Problems Require Major Cosmology Reconstruction — Again". For people who get a burr under their saddle when people refer to the Big Bang as an explosion, click on "Semantics, Logic and Anti-Christian Bigotry".

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Music is Not for Beasts

Animals cannot sing or talk, nor can they appreciate music. That is something the Creator only gave to humans, it seems.
A mystery for Darwinists is that even though they claim that animals and humans all evolved from a common ancestor, there are many things that set humans apart. One of those is music. Oh, sure, there are "songs" of whales, birds "sing", parrots can mimic other people singing — but that's not really music. It's pretty much imitation or functional, not for joy.

Humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). It's interesting to note that God sings (Zeph. 3:17), and that there are many verses in the Bible that refer to singing and making music (Isaiah 51:11, Psalm 149:3-5, for example). Darwin's Cheerleaders can only guess as to why we're tuned to tunes.

There are three interesting studies about music. One had two diverse groups of people who had no knowledge of the other's music, and the results were rather interesting. The second study is about perfect pitch, and how the brain processes it. Third, something that has been looked at before in some ways, music not only helps children develop in the first place, but musical training has some very strong benefits. But don't expect much if you play Mozart to your chimpanzee, old son, because it's an animal, after all. It may soothe the savage breast, though.

"Many animals make sounds; birds and whales can sing; but there’s nothing to compare with the human brain’s capacity for music." You can read about those three reports by clicking on "Music is a Human Thing".

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Anti-Creationist Intolerance Helps Show the Importance of Question Evolution Day

evolution, logic, creation, question evolution day, the question evolution project, atheist, Bible, creation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

For many years, I have long contended that people are bombarded with goo-to-you evolution as if it was a fact. Darwinian evolution is not confined to college textbooks and academia, it also permeates our literature, entertainment, animated cartoons, everyday speech, politics, sports, and more. In addition, Darwin's Cheerleaders are so intent on protecting their fundamentally flawed worldview from scrutiny, they resort to sneaky word games such as equivocating "evolution" into "science", so that when we say that we oppose evolution and affirm creation, we're "science" deniers. 

Anti-creationists are also very evangelistic, although many of those owlhoots don't even know what they believe and why, they just "know" that evolution is true and we're wrong. Somehow. Two of their favorite tools are badgering and ridicule, and those are often intertwined. A politician says that he rejects evolution, and leftists get in a blood frenzy, attacking the "science denier". For instance, Paul Broun publicly rejected evolution, and the media went after him, digging up other things to add to the poisoning the well story. I'll let you do your own search on Twitter.

The Evo Sith are intolerant of creationists presenting (and even having!) views that affirm creation. Take a look at the vituperative comments that atheists made on this article on The Christian Post about Question Evolution Day (the nastiest stuff was deleted). Attacks on other creationists and me have been documented on this site, so I won't link up a passel of them just now. 

In my article "More On Anti-Creationist Bigotry", I brought up some news from the sports world:
Since I am not much of a follower of sports, the next two items were furnished to me. The first one is about how an NFL football commentator made a remark about his lack of belief in evolutionism. He was strongly attacked. Second, I was tipped off about how baseball player Curt Schilling argued against evolution on Twitter. A surprisingly good article about Schilling's experience is here, and if you do a search for this topic, you'll see some amazingly vitriolic posts against him.
I remembered this because Doug McBurney's "The Weekly Worldview" Conservative podcast brought up something else from the world of sports that made me get riding at a full gallop. Dave Pasch and Bill Walton are ESPN college basketball sportscasters. It was Pasch's birthday, and Walton wanted to evangelize Dave to "science" (see, equating evolution with science again), so he gave him a copy of Papa Darwin's On the Origin of Species. It's bad enough to try to convert someone to an unscientific atheist philosophy, but to use an outdated, cumbersome, boring tome like that one? I reckon that Walton doesn't realize that traditional Darwinism has plopped on the trail long ago, and Pasch wouldn't learn anything from Origin of any significance anyway.

My point in all this is that people are harassed for doubting evolution. Question Evolution Day is a way to show some solidarity. We can accomplish several things:

  • Raise awareness that there is strong scientific evidence against evolution and in favor of creation
  • Show that some of us still believe in academic, intellectual, speech, and other basic freedoms
  • Point out that real science thrives on examination and doesn't need to be protected
  • People who have not seen or heard evidence against evolution can be prompted to follow links, read material, watch videos, and so on
  • Ultimately, for biblical creationists like me, evolutionists can learn that their worldview is irrational, and evolution is actually contrary to science — only the biblical Christian worldview (beginning at creation) has the necessary preconditions for human experience
Ironically, a comment on an atheist-dominated anti-creationist forum stood out by an "I'm not an atheist, I just act like one and side with them against creationist" hater. It was meant against us, but fits what we contend with from their ilk: "Its time to break free from those who would tie us down and box us up in their own small-mindedness." Yup. Break free of small-mindedness and science limitations from evolutionism.

You can be a part of Question Evolution Day, and it won't cost you anything, not even a sign-up. Click on the picture at the very top to go to the page with further information, links to graphics, videos and more. You can click here to see our Facebook Page, The Question Evolution Project. We can encourage people to examine the evidence and think for themselves.

Monday, January 26, 2015

The Hills Are Alive With the Sounds of — Dinosaurs?

Did dinosaurs make sounds? Looks that way, as we get some ideas from both paleontology and the Bible.


Just imagine...a couple of cowboys one night on the lone prairie, brewing up coffee at the campfire. There's a sound in the distance.

"Didja hear that?"

"Yup."

"Sounds like an iguanodon. He sounds mighty cranky."

"Nope. Just a hadrosaur. We're okay."

"You sure?"

"Yup. Boom boom acka lacka lacka boom."

But seriously, folks, do we have any ideas what dinosaurs may have sounded like? Yup.
Were dinosaurs noisy? Did dinosaurs honk nasally like Chewbacca in Star Wars? Did dinosaurs make moaning noises like mourning doves and owls, or did they wail like bagpipes?

Are there any clues about dinosaur sounds in Scripture or science? In both, actually. If this answer seems surprising it shouldn’t be, because both Scripture and science provide trustworthy evidence that dinosaurs were anything but silent.
You can find out what the racket is about by reading the rest of "Sound Science About Dinosaurs".


Saturday, January 24, 2015

Some Small Shrimp are Unseen

Some feller was investigating shrimp — oh, wait. Kathryn Feller (I got it right, now) was investigating the larvae of mantis shrimp. They are mostly transparent, except for their eyes, which reflect colors. The amazing thing is that they can become almost entirely invisible, as if they had a cloaking device.


Some shrimp larvae us tricks of the light to make their eyes invisible. Evolution cannot explain this, it is the product of the Designer.

As expected, the researchers ruined good observational science by invoking evolution to explain their findings. Actually, they conflated natural selection with evolution. They should know better, since natural selection is not evolution. And no, there's no way they'd saddle up on design as an explanation, even though that's a reasonable conclusion.
To figure out how the shrimp larvae hide their eyes, Kathryn Feller collected mantis shrimp larvae from Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. In her lab, exposed to ordinary white light, the shrimp glowed blue-green. “The whole sphere of the retina at the centre of the eye reflects this sparkly blue-green light,” she says. “It’s quite brilliant.”

Feller measured the spectra of this eyeshine reflected from several species of shrimp larvae. Some, like Pseudosquillana richeri and a Harpiosquilla larva, bounced back blue-green light with “very discrete peaks in that region of the spectrum.” Another species, Pullosquilla thomassini, reflected light in two different colors—green from the top part of the eyes and blue from the bottom. Spectral analysis confirmed this to be a distinctive characteristic of the species. “We suspect that it is something similar to counter shading,” Feller says. “Perhaps the dorsal part of the eye is held against background that is greenish and the ventral part of the eye is more bluish.”
You can read the rest by clicking on "Biological Cloaking Device Renders Shrimp Larvae Invisible".

Friday, January 23, 2015

Behemoth and Leviathan — Bible Dinosaurs?

Many creationists go against evolutionary and uniformitarian dogmas by believing that not only did man and dinosaurs coexist, but they are described in the Bible. Anti-creationists ridicule this concept because their presuppositions depend on "deep time" (billions of years) and evolution (which requires long ages).

If they'd cognate on it for a spell, they'd realize that they're ignoring and suppressing evidence such as soft tissues found in dinosaur remains (not supposed to happen), carbon-14 results (shouldn't be any carbon-14 in them at all), and discard historical (and not so historical) accounts of dinosaurs with people. Remember, the word "dinosaur" didn't exist until Richard Owen came up with it in the 1840s. Before that, critters that were called "dragons" looked and acted quite a bit like we'd expect from dinosaurs (until fanciful tales made dragons into magical things).

Here are two candidates for dinosaurs in the Bible. There's a bit of confusion about them, since they are in what is probably the oldest book of the Bible, and the original language gets a mite tricky in spots. It doesn't help that some Bible translators have downright illegitimate material, comparing Behemoth to a hippopotamus, elephant or somesuch. But those don't have a "tail like a cedar" (fortunately for them).

Sometimes translators and commentaries even say that the creatures in Job were entirely allegorical. Two main reasons for that bad information are because the big monsters weren't around at the time of translation, and that many Christians had ceded science to false uniformitarian assumptions. One extremely important thing to remember is that context is key. In the book of Job, they are referred to as real creatures, and named in lists with other extant animals. However, the word "Leviathan" has been used both as figurative (such as in the Psalms), and as a literal creature (more later). This offends 21st century sensibilities, and we have to learn the historical, linguistic and other contexts.


Behemoth may have been a sauropod dinosaur. Openi.nlm.nih.gov

First, we have Behemoth. Job 40:15-24 quotes God as saying "...which I made along with you", which was the sixth day of creation. It also indicates his amazing size and strength, as well as an attitude that would make you forget about saddling him up and riding off into the sunset..
In Job 40, the Lord is infallibly describing a real historical creature, called ‘Behemoth’. No known living animal, such as the elephant or hippopotamus, fits the passage adequately. A detailed analysis of the key clause Job 40:17a suggests that the most natural interpretation is that the tail of Behemoth is compared to a cedar for its great size. Consequently, the most reasonable interpretation is that Behemoth was a large animal, now extinct, which had a large tail. Thus some type of extinct dinosaur should still be considered a perfectly reasonable possibility according to our present state of knowledge.
To finish reading about our first featured animal, click on "Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?"


Sarcosuchus / Wikimedia Commons / ArthurWeasley

Next up, we have something that is both frustrating and amazing: Leviathan. The frustrating part is that he is referred to as an actual creature in Job 3:8 and Job 41:1-34, but in Isaiah and Psalms, it is allegorical (which we can tell from biblical, linguistic, and cultural contexts). The amazing part is how he's fierce and strong, "king over all the proud beasts". Two possible candidates for Leviathan's identity are the Sarcosuchus and the Parasaurolophus. But we read that he gives off fire. Huh? Christians shouldn't be quick to dismiss that part, since again, God is describing actual creatures that he made. Think of the bombardier beetle's boiling chemical defense system (or something similar) on a much larger scale.

How do we handle the confusing uses of the word "Leviathan"?
Job 41 describes a creature beyond compare, something which defies all human attempts to subdue or tame it. No weapons are effective against it, and the mere sight of it is enough to terrify even the bravest man. God’s creation and ownership of Leviathan is put forward as a prime example of God’s power:
“No one is fierce enough to rouse it. Who then is able to stand against me?” (v. 10).
If God is glorified because He created Leviathan, surely it’s reasonable to conclude that it was a real creature, which Job could have actually looked at and been expected to recognize.
To finish reading, click on "Leviathan—real or symbolic?"

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Fish Fossil Flusters Evolutionists

When you have a series of conjectures touted as a major scientific theory, and the scientists cling to their paradigm instead of realistically evaluating the evidence, you have corral full of irritated evolutionists. Once again, we hear about how a new discovery will cause them to substantially rewrite their timelines because one of the crossbeams has gone out of skew on an evolutionary treadle.

This time, a fish fossil is hard to classify because it has a mix of features, and the evolution of the fish jaw needs re-cognating. To make matters worse for Darwinists, evidence for an intricate network of sensors and brain responders existed early on. Kinda like they were designed that way.
A so-called “primitive” bony fish with traits of sharks confuses the usual story of fish ancestry. They’re calling it Janusiscus, part two-faced Janus and part piscus (fish). This fragmentary two-faced fossil from Siberia, claimed to be 415 million years old, has lots of bone but also some traits from cartilaginous fish—the second major branch of fish that includes sharks and rays. Because it has a mosaic of features, Science Magazine says it “may rewrite [the] fish family tree".
Now that you're hooked, you can read the rest of the article at "Fish Ancestry Turned On Its Head". 
  

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Geomagnetic Field Reversals and Ideology

Uniformitarian geologists, using their standard "the present is the key to the past" presuppositions, have used a dynamo theory to explain the earth's magnetic field. They also need to explain the magnetic field reversals. Although they don't really understand it and have a plausible model for it, they have the magnetic field reversing itself over huge amounts of time.


Secular geologists are scrambling to find excuses to downplay scientific evidence for rapid magnetic field reversals as predicted by creationist scientists.
Dr. Gary A. Glatzmaier / Los Alamos National Laboratory / U.S. Department of Energy / PD
Evidence has been found for rapid field reversals that jump the uniformitarian fence; lots of theories and speculations are in jeopardy. This bothers the secularists, because it fits predictions made by biblical creationists like Dr. D. Russell Humphreys. Creationist models of the Genesis Flood involve many catastrophes, including catastrophic plate tectonics, changes in radioactive decay rates — and those pesky very rapid magnetic field reversals. At first, the evidence was being faced. Then they chose to find ways around the evidence with dubious new tests. In addition, other tests have supported the findings.
For almost three decades the paleomagnetic record of extraordinarily rapid polarity reversals of the earth’s magnetic field in basalt lava flows at Steens Mountain in southern Oregon has stood as a challenge to the conventional millions-of-years geodynamo model. It has also been a severe embarrassment, because it is consistent with predictions of rapid polarity reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Flood according to the young-earth freely-decaying electric currents model for the generation of the geomagnetic field. Thus there has been a recent attempt to re-measure the paleomagnetic record in the Steens Mountain basalts using a new untried method, but the results and their re-interpretation are far from convincing. Instead, published at the same time, a new independent study of the paleomagnetic record in mud layers in a former post-Flood Ice Age lake in Italy has used Ar-Ar dating of interbedded volcanic ash layers to constrain the timeframe of a well-documented geomagnetic polarity reversal to less than 100 years. When accelerated radioactive decay is factored in, the timeframe for this reversal is reduced to just months, further stunning evidence consistent with the young-earth model for the earth’s magnetic field and rapid reversals during the Flood and its aftermath on a young earth.
Hold onto your hats and continue reading by clicking on "More Evidence of Rapid Geomagnetic Reversals Confirms a Young Earth".

The Question Evolution Project's third anniversary is today

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

The Immune System from a Biblical Creationist Perspective


Those pesky microbes making people sick. But we were created with an immune system. Some people think this indicates there was disease before the Fall, and put forth some ideas that they hope will reconcile God's perfect creation with our disease-fighting capabilities. Some fall flat and are pretty much like faith assertions that are unsupportable from science and Scripture. However, we're full of the tiny critters, and our immune system does more than fight disease; not all viruses and microbes are harmful.
If God originally created the world without death and disease, where did our bodies get their disease-fighting capabilities? Christians generally explain the origin of immune systems in three ways. These explanations, though, have theological and scientific snags.
... 
Creationists need biblical explanations that are scientifically sound and not simply lighter versions of evolutionary lines of thinking. So, one way to begin is by asking: Does our immune system serve any non-disease-fighting purposes today? Yes, it does.
To read the rest in context, click on "Does Our Immune System Indicate Disease Before the Fall?"

Monday, January 19, 2015

Another Gilgamesh Great Flood Pretender

There have been scoffers for many years who simply dismissed the Genesis Flood as a fanciful tale or a complete fabrication. (Worse, there have been liberal Christians who have agreed with atheistic interpretations of geology and said that the Flood never happened, that it was local, "tranquil", or some other nonsense.) Many flood legends exist around the world, and quite a few are only fit for jawing with folks to fill time while riding the lonely trail — nowhere near believable. Yet, many of the flood tales from around the world have elements in common with the Genesis account.


The Great Flood / Artist unknown / PD
Some scoffing scholars insist that since the "Epic of Gilgamesh" is the oldest legend of a global flood that we have on record, it must be the original, and Genesis is a copy of it. Even a superficial reading of the Gilgamesh story (written as a fantastical poem) shows that it's another story that has some of the same elements of the Genesis record.

But some tinhorn came along and claimed to have the "real" Noah's Ark story, and insists (despite common sense, other possibilities, and reason) that not only is the Gilgamesh story the real one, but everybody else had it wrong for all these years: the ark in that story is not a cube, but circular. Mockers and odd scholars get attention when they attack the Bible, but knowledgeable people are able to show that their work is meadow muffins.
Dr Irving Finkel is an Assyriologist at the British Museum in London and an expert in ancient cuneiform scripts. In recent months he has become something of a celebrity, following the publication of his book, The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood, and the Channel 4 documentary, The Real Noah’s Ark. The source of this media hype is his recent translation of a small Babylonian tablet, named the Ark Tablet. It is about the size of a mobile phone and has been dated to around 1750 BC.

In contrast, the Ark described in Genesis has been shown to be a design which would have been particularly stable in rough seas. According to Finkel, the Ark Tablet contains the original Flood story, upon which the biblical version was based centuries later. Moreover, he claims, this new tablet reveals that the real Noah’s Ark was not as described in Genesis. 
To finish reading the article (as well as seeing the illustrations and the math), click on "The real Noah’s Ark?" Some of the comments afterward are quite interesting as well.

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Atheism and Evolutionism Are Illogical


This post is a follow-up to "Charles Darwin, Creationist at Heart?" It won't be easy, because the content sometimes is deeper than the Colorado River at the 135 Mile marker. But the content is important.

Evolution is a cornerstone of the fundamentally flawed atheist worldview, and both are irrational. They do not comport with reality, and do not have the necessary preconditions of human experience. Science, logic, morality and more are impossible if atheism and evolutionism are true. Professed atheists hate God, but claim that they do not. Their conduct betrays them with their emotional, illogical attacks on God and Christians. This post from Atheism on the Slide helps illustrate my point.

Only the biblical Christian worldview (beginning at creation) is consistent and makes sense of those conditions for human experience. Yes, atheists and evolutionists can do science, act logically and be relatively moral because they are made in the image of God who upholds all things, but they cannot comport their views with reality.

There is a documentary that I really hope you'll watch. It has some drawbacks, however. First, it takes an hour (that's why it's not embedded, I understand that too much video information slows down sites). Second, the background music, which would be well-suited for book reading, is a bit too loud. Third, it talks about Reformed theology. There is very little of that in here. I'm not Reformed in my theology, but I still like the content. Finally, the narrator is not exactly exuberant. Even so, the material is important, as I said. Now that you have an idea of what to expect, you can see the video by clicking on "Atheists Don't Exist".

Saturday, January 17, 2015

Charles Darwin, Creationist at Heart?

Evolution and atheism cannot account for logic and science. When using them, atheists and evolutionists are borrowing from the biblical worldview, which is the only one that makes sense of these things.
It will come as a shock to many people, but Charles Darwin was actually a biblical creationist. No, he didn't want to be, and he never knew it himself.

The problem is that science, logic, morality, laws of nature, and more are not possible in an worldview based on materialism, atheism and evolutionism. Those are irrational paradigms. We expect laws of nature to be the same every day (or every minute). When I put my foot into the stirrup to saddle up, I expect to swing up and then sit in the saddle, not launch off into space because gravity suddenly changed. How can you perform science when things are changing? Yet, an evolutionary view is that life, the universe and everything are the products of time, chance, random processes, mutations and all that.

Laws of logic are not material; you can't trip over the Law of Identity, for example. It can be described and used, but not seen or held. In a random universe, laws of logic will pretty much be nonexistent and make it impossible to play poker. Wisdom comes from God (Prov. 1:7, Col. 2:3, James 1:5), and the wisdom of man is futility without God (Jer. 8:9, 1 Cor. 1:19-21, Psalm 53:1).

Atheism is incoherent and irrational, and cannot explain logic and science. Only the bibical worldview containts the necessary preconditions of intelligibility.

Only the biblical worldview, beginning at creation, is coherent and makes sense of logic, science, laws of nature and so forth. It's ironic that people who try to use science and logic to refute creation, the Bible and even God's existence are actually standing on the biblical creationist worldview in their attempts to refute it, because their own worldviews are fundamentally flawed. Cornelius Van Til had an illustration that a child could sit on her father's lap and slap his face. But she could only do so because he was supporting her. This is the same in the unbeliever's rebellion against God. Charles Darwin tried to use science (which is only possible because the Creator exists) to make his pseudo-scientific creation myth; he was a creationist and didn't know it.
Evolutionists often attempt to use observational science—arguments from biology, paleontology, geology, or even astronomy—to support their belief. But the really interesting thing is that they base all their arguments on principles that ultimately come from biblical creation! As strange as it may sound, evolutionists must unwittingly assume that creation is true in order to argue against it. That means that Darwin was (in a sense) a “creationist.” All evolutionists must borrow the principles of biblical creation in order to do science (even though they would deny this). Here is why.
You can read the rest of this startling, eye-opening article by clicking on "Darwin—Unwittingly a 'Creationist'". Also, I recommend an article that takes a different approach to the subject, "How Do We Know that the Bible is True?" ADDENDUM: A follow-up to this post is at "Atheism and Evolutionism Are Illogical".

Friday, January 16, 2015

Seeping Methane and Early Earth

Evolutionary scientists have been speculating about conditions on a primordial earth. The failed Miller-Urey experiment was based on the assumption that our planet had a "reducing" atmosphere with gasses that prevented or removed oxygen, but scientists later found that oxygen was present early on. Oxygen is a paradox, because most life forms need it to survive, but something trying to evolve would be killed by it. So those owlhoots cling to their faith and try to cognate when oxygen arrived or formed on Earth. Without actual evidence, of course.


Methane bubbles rising from the sea bed / Image courtesy of the NOAA Okeanos Explorer Program.
There are life forms that live in extreme oceanic environments, such as those in deep thermal vents. But there are things living in shallower, colder areas where methane seeps up from the ocean floor that are used, according to presumptions, to gauge changes early on our planet. Methane was one of the alleged primordial gasses in our planet's atmosphere. But things they relied on are found to live near methane seeps as well as in areas richer in oxygen. If these scientists didn't insist on their evolutionary and old-earth presumptions, they probably wouldn't be finding so many things on their dusty science trail that stampede their conjectures.
Fossils living in and around newly-discovered methane seeps have cast strong doubt on a leading theory of earth’s climate history.

For a long time, evolutionary geologists have inferred the oxygen levels of ancient oceans by the fossils of marine organisms, particularly foraminifera (forams for short). That inference fed into theories of how life was evolving and how earth’s climate was changing. Now, studies of living forams in and around the seeps shows that forams live both close to the seeps and away from them.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Theory of Early Oxygenation Undermined".

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Darwinism and Laissez-faire Capitalism

Although some people consider evolution to be a biological theory, Darwin's ideas have been used to formulate and justify many negative philosophies. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, authors of The Communist Manifesto, were happy about Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Karl Marx said that it "provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle". Hitler was a Darwinist, the philosophies of eugenics are evolution-based, racism was "scientifically" justified by evolution, abortion has been supported by false evolutionary claims, and so on. Unfortunately, many liberal "Christians" also embrace evolutionism and shipwreck their fragile faith.


Industrialist Andrew Carnegie (with his hero Charles Darwin added)
People will find ways to justify their bigotry, selfishness, greed, and pride. (For that matter, see the kinship of atheism and Satanism.) Rebellion against God's commands for personal gain has existed in one form or another since the beginning (Genesis 3:6). When capitalism is performed through biblical guidelines and respect for others, society flourishes. But laissez-faire capitalism is ruthless, and is based on greed and Darwinian principles. It existed before Darwin's writings (as did racism, evolutionary ideas, and other evils), but it flourished under "scientific" ideas. It's ironic that people who tried to mix a form of Christian values with extreme capitalism were so vicious that people rebelled by going the other way, supporting socialist and communist views (especially through labor unions). Both views were supported by evolutionary thinking
The Darwinian worldview was critical, not only in influencing the development of Nazism and communism, but also in the rise of the ruthless capitalists that flourished in the late 1800s and early 1900s (Morris and Morris, 1996). A key aspect of this brand of capitalism was its extreme individualism which indicated that other persons count for little, and that it is both natural and proper to exploit "weaker" companies. The socalled robber barons often concluded that their behavior was justified by natural law and was the inevitable outcome of history (Josephson, 1934). Many were raised as Christians, but rejected their Christianity or modified it to include their socialist/Darwinian ideas. Gertrude Himmelfarb noted that Darwinism may have been accepted in England in part because it justified the greed of certain people.
You can read the rest (for free, as always, no laissez-faire happening here) by clicking on "Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism".


Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Fly Geyser Shows Conditions, Not Long Ages, in Formation

Did cowboys of the old days ride across the land of Nevada and visit Fly Geyser? Not hardly. Oh, sure, they probably rode on the land itself, but the geyser didn't exist yet. It's only about a hundred years old, and its origins are a strange combination of natural processes, human activity — and maybe a bit of accident.


Fly Geyser in Nevada / Podruznik / PD
Some of the same stone that is found here is stuff that uniformitarian geologists say takes millions of years to form. The Genesis Flood had radically different and very extreme conditions that affected global geology, and Fly Geyser is yet another item that refutes secularist paradigms.
In Nevada, there is an unusual water feature known as Fly Geyser, so-named as it is found at Fly Ranch, near the town of Gerlach, Washoe County. In the 1960s, a drill hole previously bored into a natural, underground source of water began gushing heated water up at the ground surface, creating a geothermal hot spring. Rock minerals began depositing, and have now formed an oddly-shaped formation 3.7 metres (12 feet) high.
You can read the rest of the article by clicking on "Fast-forming ‘Fly geyser’". You might want to look at the related articles listed underneath, too. As well as the short video right here.



Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Evolution, "Ought", and Ethics

Although evolution is an ancient religion, it has become mostly associated with biology. Well, it had been. Evolutionary thinking have since come to influence many areas, including various philosophies. Using a naturalistic base, people have presumed that evolution is true, and then based worldviews on that belief. Some try to derive ethical behavior from evolution, but cannot account for altruism and self-sacrifice, nor can they deal with innate values of what "ought" to be, which flies in the face of the deterministic view of what "is". The only rational basis for morality is biblical Christianity.


David Hume, by Allan Ramsay
Using "Hume's Guillotine", Brenton H. Cook shows how three evolutionary-based views of ethics are incomplete, and even self-refuting; the Naturalistic Fallacy is persistent.
The problem of establishing an ontological basis for morality has troubled materialistic philosophers since Darwin. This paper demonstrates that three attempts to explain the derivation of human moral norms within a naturalistic paradigm are inadequate. First, it examines Stuart Kauffman’s attempt to derive morality from monkeys. Second, it examines Ayn Rand’s Ethical Egoism. Third, it examines the evolutionary behaviorism model proposed by B.F. Skinner and held by numerous others.
To finish reading this lengthy but thought-provoking article, click on "Hume’s Guillotine and Evolutionary Ethics: Evaluating Attempts to Overcome the Naturalistic Fallacy".

Monday, January 12, 2015

Evolution and Playtime

Evolutionary scientists are presenting speculation as actual science again, basing their reasoning on assumptions about the unobservable past. Someone left the gate open on the corral, and the horses of speculation are wandering into the Not Evolution range. That is, why something evolved, since natural selection is supposed to be purposeless.

Young Basement Cat getting acrobatic on a flimsy wooden drying rack.
This was before she became a heifer.
Scientists like this seem dour. Play not only evolved, but evolved for a purpose, never mind that these are mere assertions. Often, play takes creativity, especially in humans who are clowning around for entertainment purposes. Instead of using the utilitarian route, how about considering that the only purpose is to have fun, and the Creator granted us this bit of joy?
Yes, your dog enjoys play, say biologists, and so do birds, dolphins and many other kinds of animals. How did “having fun” evolve?

Current Biology’s first issue of 2015 is about animal play. The special feature includes these papers:
You can read the excerpts and analysis at "Is Animal Play Just an Evolutionary Survival Mechanism?"

Saturday, January 10, 2015

Study Animals to Determine Human Fairness — Seriously?

To study the sense of fairness in humans, researchers study monkeys and so forth. Yeah, that makes sense.

Researchers studying "fairness" in humans did the most logical thing: they studied animals. Sure, makes perfect sense. Not hardly, old son. How about studying humans? But no, they study animals. Not surprisingly, the researchers assume that evolution is true, and manage to not only indulge in typical circular reasoning, but raise more questions than they started with. Also, the results could more appropriately reveal that fairness was put in humans and some animals by design, not by blind chance evolution.
How does it make you feel when you put forth just as much effort as the next guy, but he receives twice the reward? Unfair! But how did people acquire the sensibilities involved when assessing fairness? Certain animals recognize unequal rewards too, prompting researchers to try and unravel the origins of fairness.

Publishing in Science, Sarah Brosnan from Georgia State University and Frans de Waal of Emery University reviewed studies on fairness in animals. Their review unwittingly exposed reasons why those who cling to a bias of naturalism may never discover the real roots of fairness.
I'll be fair, and tell you that the rest of this article can be found at "Human Fairness: Innate or Evolved?"

Friday, January 9, 2015

The Faulty "Appearance of Age" Explanation for Genesis

It's ironic that people who don't believe the Bible want to know about how things seem "old" in the Genesis account of creation, and then refuse to accept explanations that are offered. Fortunately, there are people who honestly want to know about that as well. Even though some well-meaning creationists have offered their ideas, they should've left their six-guns in their holsters instead of misfiring and making things worse.


Did creation have the "appearance of age"? Not hardly. There's a better explanation.
"Creation of the Animals" / Raphael / 1519
When reading Genesis, we can tell that Adam and Eve were walking and talking from the beginning, they were to tend to the garden, trees bore fruit, animals were brought to Adam, stars were shining — those mean that there was an appearance of age, right? Not hardly. "Appearance of age" is an incorrect and misleading term, and entirely subjective. But there's a better way to look at things, especially if I stop muddying the waters with this introduction.
Extracted and adapted from the author’s landmark 2015 book The Genesis Account: A theological, historical, and scientific commentary on Genesis 1–11.

One striking feature of the record of God’s creative acts in Genesis 1 is that the created things are fully ready to perform their appointed tasks. On Day 3, God created the plants mature, already bearing seeds. Later on, on Days 5 and 6, He created animals as adults ready to multiply, and finally Adam and Eve, likewise as adults, able to speak and multiply. For inanimate objects, on Day 4, God created the sun and stars already shining. All this is creation with functional maturity.

In contrast, there is an errant concept of ‘creation with apparent age’. One obvious flaw is that age has no appearance! Rather, we infer an age from appearance, after making certain assumptions about processes changing over time, and about the starting conditions.

I will try to explain further, presenting some case studies from Scripture and from various Christians, including the errant but often-misunderstood ideas of Philip Gosse.
You can read the rest by clicking on "God created with functional maturity, not ‘appearance of age’".

Thursday, January 8, 2015

Rodent Fossil Gnaws at Evolutionary Tree


A rodent fossil that kinda-sorta resembles a groundhog has been causing some difficulties in some Gondwana and evolutionary circles. A skull was discovered (except for the lower jaw) that was rather well preserved, causing some classification difficulties. One problem for paleontologists is that, according to their worldview, it was found in dinosaur strata, and shouldn't be there. Because of the discernible features, this critter does not fit into the three major mammal classifications, and is a candidate for its own classification. It has also been called "primitive".


A fossilized rodent skull that resembles a groundhog is causing a stir in evolutionary circles. It doesn't belong in the main mammal groups, and the evolution story may have rewriting yet again, after the circular reasoning is done.
The fossil has a resemblance to a groundhog. This groundhog clip art has a resemblance to a groundhog as well.

Scientists are using their worldviews to "explain" its transition, the hows and whys of its evolution, and its relationship to other mammals — using circular reasoning and selective data citing. Indeed, they may need to rewrite evolutionary history. Again. Biblical creation scientists do not have to keep forcing facts into preconceptions, nor do they have to significantly rewrite theories every time a new discovery is made.
The lucky discovery of a 5-inch long skull belonging to an extinct 20-pound Mesozoic groundhog-like animal threatens to rewrite the evolutionary history of mammals. Dubbed Vintana sertichi (because “vintana” is Malagasy for “lucky”), the skull (minus its lower jaw) was found fossilized in Madagascar with lots of fish in a large block of sandstone dated late in the “age of dinosaurs.” Believed by evolutionists to have inhabited a large southern land mass known as Gondwana 66 million years ago, it is the first good representative of the gondwanatherians, previously known only from isolated teeth and jaw fragments.
To finish reading, click on "Rodent-like Mammal Shakes the Evolutionary Tree".

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

"Philae", Comets, and Life From Space — Cosmologists Keep the Blind Faith

Even before the Rosetta spacecraft and the Philae probe met up with their targeted comet, some Darwinoids were cheering in anticipation that the results of the mission would disprove the Genesis account of creation. According to their evolutionary worldview, the Bible is wrong and the universe was formed from the Big Bang, and the earth was a hot, molten blob with no water.

So what stagecoach brought the water here, then?

"Why, comets, of course, don'tcha unnerstan' science, ya idjit?"

No, we don't understand speculations that have no logical or evidential support.


Despite unscientific wishes from evolutionary cosmologists, comets are disqualified as the source of water and life on Earth.
4-image mosaic of images taken from centre of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko on 14 December 2014
ESA/Rosetta/NAVCAM – CC BY-SA IGO 3.0
But hope for reasons to reject the Creator spring eternal, old son. From one fact-free wish to another, since the comet-water idea was debunked, they jumped to the idea that asteroids brought water to Earth, not comets (ya idjit). Still, they throw about vague notions of "the building blocks of life", which are essentially meaningless. It's more rational to admit that the universe was created recently and that God told us all about it than to resort to wish-craft and evolutionary conjuring tricks.
Astrobiologists dream of comets as bearers of life in spite of—not because of—the data from Rosetta’s comet.

The Rosetta mission, Science Magazine’s Breakthrough of the Year for 2014, gave bad news to astrobiologists this month. A photo caption in Science Magazine says, “Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko has begun to emit jets of water vapor that is unlike the water found in Earth’s oceans”. And with the Philae lander going to sleep prematurely, mission scientists were unable to get data on possible organic molecules under the comet’s surface. The “dinosaur eggs” found (Science Mag) have nothing to do with dinosaurs; they are clumps of ice on some part of the comet that a few cosmogonists are speculating might have been “cometesimals,” building blocks of the comet, even though they are larger than predicted. “But we don’t understand them,” one admitted.

In short, nothing about Comet 67P looks lively. Its water could not have given birth to our oceans, and its organic molecule inventory, if any, is unknown.
To read the rest, rock on over to "Comets Are Not Life Givers". Second, you may want to click on "Has Philae discovered life on comet 67P?" Also, you may be interested in "Study: Comets Did Not Supply Earth's Water". (I have to say that the first sentence in footnote #3 is silly, being unsupportable from Scripture or science. Otherwise, the article is useful.)

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

Amazing Machinery Works Inside Cells

Sometimes, simpler is better. Extremely complicated machines that perform multiple functions can be susceptible to breakdowns, and simply wearing out. For example, the "all-in-one" machine that does copies, faxes, document scanning, printing and so on can have one problem that makes the whole thing stop, and you're without all of those functions while it's getting repaired or replaced. Likewise, having several simpler machines working in concert can have the same problem. Another example, your car has many things depending on each other, but a critical component can make it so you're not going anywhere (such as when my starter broke down last year). You can get by with a faulty car part, but not always.

DNA is kept on track by amazingly complex and astonishingly complex machines, defying evolution and affirming the design of the Creator.

Inside each of us, there are astonishingly complex machines. Lots of them. Different kinds. Some are at work inside the cells, performing maintenance and copying of DNA and other things. They keep themselves going, and have many backup systems in place, and it takes a serious intrusion (such as cancer) to interfere with their work. These complex machines are moving, too! This shows the hand of the Master Designer, and I reckon it should make a secularist stop placing bets on evolution, fold, and walk away from the table. There is no gambling with God, because he knows what he's doing.
As you read this article, think about your body. It’s composed of over 100 trillion cells working nonstop in a complex choreography of microscopic building and repairing. Scientists have looked inside these cells and viewed the unparalleled sophistication of their millions of tiny machines made of protein.1 In this article we’ll look at several kinds of these incredible micro-machines. An evolutionary website recently made this statement about a spindle machine involved with mitosis—the cell’s nuclear division:
At the cellular level, the mitotic spindle apparatus is arguably the most complicated piece of machinery in existence.
The spindle apparatus is formed from very thin protein threads called microtubules that stretch between opposite poles of the cell during mitosis. These are forming by the millions right now inside your body!

If you took high school biology, you were probably taught how cells make protein—a process called protein synthesis. In recent decades, newly discovered details show this process to be incredibly complex and highly orchestrated.
To finish reading, click on "'Dicer' Enzyme Keeps DNA on Track".
 

Labels