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, February 28, 2015

The Virus, the Evolution, and the Creation

It seems for the most part, when someone says, "I have a virus", they are talking about a bad invader. Fact is, not all viruses are wicked things, since some are actually beneficial. You could even say, "I have a virus" without meaning something that made you sick, because we have virus variations inside us already.

Not all viruses are bad, and some are essential. Exogenous retroviruses are the stuff of evolutionary legends, and now we have speculation that because they affect the brains of mice, they must have played a part in human evolution. Not hardly.
Influenza virus illustration from CDC.gov
Imagine taking the train out of Galveston. Some of the passengers seem to have always been there, and even have their own duties. Then some bandits come along and not only rob the passengers of their money and jewelry (and my best pocket watch!), but they start changing things for their own destructive purposes. The passengers who look like they've always been there can be likened to endogenous retroviruses that have functions, and the bandits are like exogenous retroviruses that come along and wreak havoc.

Endogenous retroviruses are essential for the development of the human placenta. Working from their worldview, evolutionists have no idea how they got inside us, so they assume that they are remnants of invading viruses in our past. Of course, this is faith-based speculation, since they have no evidence or eyewitness accounts of what happened those alleged millions of years ago. It makes more sense that they were put there by our Creator.

Research on mice reveals that endogenous retroviruses are important in their brain development. Good observational science is once again being fouled up with evolutionary speculations about how the stuff was probably a part of our evolution. Declaring "evolution" by offering guesses without evidence pays well; I'm in the wrong line of work!
About 8–10% of human DNA, as well as the DNA of animals like mice, consists of scattered DNA sequences matching those of retroviruses. These sequences are called endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) because they are actually a part of the healthy host cell’s DNA. (Exogenous retroviruses—like HIV that causes AIDS—come from outside a cell and infect it.) How ERVs came to be part of our DNA and what they are doing there have been the subjects of much speculation and research. Scientists have known for some time that placental formation depends on ERVs. Evolutionists credit such viruses with making mammalian evolution possible. Now scientists have shown that ERVs play a crucial role in the development of the mouse brain.
This article is nothing to sneeze at. You can read the rest by clicking on "Endogenous Retroviruses: Key to Mammalian Brain Development?" On a related note, you may want to check out "Viruses — Architects of the Brain?"

Friday, February 27, 2015

Formerly "Extinct" Shark is Just Frilled to be Here

Once again, the irrevocable force of evolution produces no change. Remember the coelacanth story? Considered extinct by evolutionists and paleontologists for millions of years, it turned up alive and well — and pretty much unchanged, much to the dismay of Darwinistas. The lack of change was not much of a surprise to biblical creationists, however.

The fossil record does not support evolution at all, so excuses are made. When different critters have similar features (such as sonar in bats and dolphins), they call it "convergent evolution", although there is no plausible record or model for such things happening. Also, when something disappears from the fossil record, it is assumed to be extinct. But worse, when something disappears for alleged millions of years, then fossils in more recent strata are found, they resort to weird science explanations like "ghost lineages".

Darwinian evolution showing inaction: A frilled shark that was presumed extinct was caught, and was the same as its fossil counterpart.
From video footage of a frilled shark / NOAA.gov
A living frilled shark was found looking very much the way its fossilized counterpart looked. This adds insult to injury, since evolutionists have no idea how sharks allegedly evolved in the first place; a shark has always been a shark because that's what it was created to be. (That doesn't stop the wild speculation, such as how sharks and humans are related — but I know some lawyers that make me wonder if it's true after all.) There are no decent transitional forms (living or fossilized) to support evolution, and along comes a frilled shark that was presumed lost. Really, they should stop betting on losing hands like evolutionary conjecture.
On January 21, 2015 the news broke—an Australian fisherman hooked a "living fossil." Called the frilled (or frill) shark (genus Chlamydoselachus, belonging to Order Hexanchiformes), this creature was thought to be 80 million years old.1 It looks mighty frightening, but is it truly "prehistoric" and somehow linked to shark evolution?
You can read the rest of this short article by clicking on "The frilled shark . . . is still a shark". 

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Imaging and Ancient Civilizations

Aren't science and technology wonderful? They are useful applications of observational science (where your view of origins is, or should be, irrelevant to doing the science). The remains of two formerly unknown ancient civilizations have been discovered through satellite imaging and the use of drones equipped with radar and infrared. Naturally, archaeologists are quite excited.

Two formerly unknown ancient civilizations give lie to the evolutionary idea that ancient humans were stupid and brutish. The true history of ancient humans is found in the Bible, not evolution books.
An excavation of a Roman / Phonecian site in Malta. Image credit: freeimages.com / bearcatroc
Darwin's disciples preach that early humans were stupid brutes, what with being freshly evolved out of the jungle and all that. However, there are frequent discoveries that give lie to that idea, and show how early people were actually quite intelligent. The true history about early humanity is not found in evolution books, but in the Bible. You can read about the two amazing discoveries by clicking on "Lost Civilizations: Human History Hidden in Plain Sight".

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

How Do You Know What You Know About Geological Time?

Much of what we think we know about the geologic column is based on layers of data. However, data are interpreted according to the worldview and consensus of the scientists. A date is established, and other information is added, building up on the original foundation. Unfortunately, much of it is based on circular reasoning and reinforcement.


The geologic column is built on flimsy evidence. It is sustained by circular reasoning that Reinforcement Syndrome. The data actually fit Genesis Flood models from biblical creationist geologists far better than secular models.
Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures
In addition to the circular reasoning and reinforcement, "evidence" to support the geologic column and "deep time" is flexible. That helps, since the ruling belief system of the day, evolutionism, relies on long ages.

You'd think that if something is found to be in error at or near the base, the whole thing would collapse like a house of cards built by a bored saloon patron. But no, it still stands with "facts" getting reclassified and plugged into different areas. "See? We still got us an ancient world!" Not hardly. The facts fit Genesis Flood models from biblical creationist geologists far better than secular models — and without the tampering.
Many people are intimidated by the certainties claimed for the ages of the rocks, fossils, and events of the past, and the precision claimed for these details. The edifice of the geological column and timescale (figure 1) can seem so well established with copious data from the rocks, ‘fossils’, and dating laboratories, as to seem true. As a result, many Christian scholars think the millions and billions of years of the geological column and also as claimed for evolution, have been proven. However, the ‘reinforcement syndrome’ is a large part of this so-called precision in which concepts arbitrarily believed during the start of the Enlightenment in the 1700s are assumptions that go into all earth science data analysis.
To read the rest of the article with its many examples, click on "The reinforcement syndrome ubiquitous in the earth sciences".

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

New Theory Suggests No Big Bang

The Big Bang has little resemblance to the original concept of yesteryear. It would be adjusted when scientists discovered problems with it and to hopefully fit in new supporting data. Although there are people who insist that it's a fact (and some think it negates the Creator), the Big Bang is full of speculations, conjectures, suggestions of things that should exist but cannot be found, and more. Actual science took yesterday's noon stagecoach out of this fantasy land. Many people reject it on scientific as well as theological reasons.


The Big Bang has been adjusted for decades until has little resemblance to the original. Now a new theory is presented that uses quantum mechanics and relativity, eliminating the Big Bang altogether.
Modified from an image by NASA / JPL
A new theory is puzzling. It draws from relativity and quantum mechanics, postulating that there was no singularity, no Big Bang. That would rule out the Big Bang's predecessor, the Oscillating Universe, since bang-expand-contract-crunch-repeat would not be possible. Imagine the gravity of the situation. Will this new theory become the new sheriff in town and gain wide acceptance? Unlikely, as the linked article below suggests.

There are some Christians who have compromised sound theology with current science trends. They are cautioned that if they base their faith on "science" instead of trusting God's written Word, where will they be when a theory or discovery is overturned? Trust God, not the every-changing speculations of man-made science beliefs.
A recently published cosmology incorporates an alternate geometry and attempts to include quantum mechanical effects. The authors of the model suggest that they have answered several problems of modern cosmology, such as the identity of dark matter and dark energy (or alternately, the cosmological constant). An interesting feature of this model is that it rules out a big bang singularity origin of the universe. It is not clear exactly what the authors of the model mean by this; however, it does not appear that this model is compatible with biblical creation.
To finish reading, click on "Study Says Universe Had No Beginning and No Big Bang?" For more on the subject, see ICR's "Secular Study: No Big Bang?"

Monday, February 23, 2015

Cholesterol, Global Warming and Evolution — HUH?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

On the surface, this is a strange article. Keep going and you'll see that the three items in the title actually have a common link — and the link is not missing. It's about "settled science".


The reversal of the "eating cholesterol-rich foods is bad for you" concept, global warming, and evolution have a common thread.
Modified from morgueFile / lemai13
No, I haven't had peyote buttons. A Yaqui sorcerer tried to give me some once, but never mind about that now.

This article has an odd origin. I was listening to my favorite weekday Conservative show by Chris Plante while working overtime, and I got some information as well as an inspiration. The big news is that you don't need to worry about high-cholesterol foods after all — most of our fat blood comes from genes, not victuals. (Strange, I heard that years ago. Now it's accepted?) Even though there were some nay-sayers including Ancel Keys back in the 1955, most people acted like it was "settled science", so we have to just shut up and accept it. Now the "truth" discarded, you don't have to worry so much about cholesterol. Maybe Cousin Eddie will start eating squirrels again.

Chris Plante pointed out that the cholesterol report smacks of similarities to anthropogenic global warming. We are causing the world to burn and it's "settled science". I'll take it further than Chris did. Those deniers, even though there are scientists and meteorologists who reject it, should just shut up and go with the consensus. Sometimes, scientists are attacked, but not refuted. Might makes right, majority rules, all that.

I've lost count of the owlhoots who tell me to clam up about biblical creation because Darwin killed God and evolution is a fact, and (wait for it...) "settled science". There are also people who want us to compromise and mix "settled science" evolution with creation. Evolution is not science at all, since it fails the basic requirements of a scientific theory (repeatable, observable, testable, and so on). The inconvenient truth is that evolution is a matter of belief, and there are many scientists, both secular and creationist, who do not consider evolution to be a fact. Evolution is supported by speculation presented as science, storytelling, wild conjecture, fraud, and outright lies (especially by Darwin's Drones who troll the Web, trying to silence those of us who present reality). We should obediently join the dancing in Darwin's Disco. "Settled science"? Not hardly.

"But Cowboy Bob, how can all of those scientists be wrong?"

They're human, and have their own presuppositions, biases, and rebellion against the authority of Scripture. They're not infallible, and I don't think most of them have the faith in themselves that science worshipers have. They've been wrong before, and they're wrong now.

The claim that ingesting cholesterol-rich foods is bad for you, anthropogenic global warming, and scum-to-skeptic evolution have a great deal of hand-waving cheerleaders, but those things are not "settled science", not by a long shot. Sometimes, settled science ain't quite so settled. If people looked for the truth in God's Word, there wouldn't be so much fudging and insistence on speculation with global warming and evolutionism.

If you want to hear the Chris Plante show, you have two options. First, go the site and look for the "2.20.15" link. If that fails, this direct MP3 link may help. In either case, go to the 1 hr. 14 min. 35 sec. mark or thereabouts so you don't have to wade through the entire show. Political Conservatives might end up subscribing to the RSS feed, though. 

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Placing Blame — Anti-Creationist "Morality" and "Logic" in Action

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Have you noticed that molecules-to-man implies improvement? I've never read or heard something like, "Wow, that critter had some bad evolving along the way!" Everything seems to be "good".

Darwinistas have their starting point that evolution is true in all things. I keep posting research where good science is ruined by attempts to find how something evolved, or the presuppositions that evolution is the cause of everything, not just biological evolution. One of the many things these people insist on is that morality itself has evolved.

But there is no improvement in morality. Things are going from bad to worse, and what was considered bad before is now applauded as good. But anti-creationist and anti-Christian bigotry are on the increase. Christian values are not tolerated by people who claim to be tolerant, and hypocrites who say they oppose bullying will engage the in cyber-bullying and stalking of creationists.


Subjective morality and double standards.
Morality never evolved in the first place. People who believe that are deceived, and think that they are "good without God", then plainly demonstrate otherwise. They will misrepresent and even lie outright about Ken Ham, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Eric Hovind, me, and many others who are famous and not-so-famous. They believe they are doing something good by promoting evolutionism and attacking creationism.

The Question Evolution Project on Facebook had another faker attack (I discussed earlier ones here) from the same sidewinder. As I keep saying, people who accept friend request from obviously new and blatantly fake names are asking for trouble, including identity theft. Think about it. The atheopath lies to people and says that our Page is his. Then he boasts and justifies his "morality": "That just comes with you being so weak that you yourself recognize your position can't even stand up to scrutiny on the internet from some random guy". Yeah, "some random guy" is a criminal and serial impersonator. Note the straw man stuff, too. Later, he said, "And you're overlooking the fact that this started with me being censored, not me making these profiles. And this isn't illegal, by the way, since this isn't a real name." Red herring, since he's not breaking a law with that fake name, but he's a serial Facebook Terms of Service violator — this is one of those times. It's very Lowe.



Note that this is justified in his own putrefying mind because he was "censored". People like this hide behind "free speech" when they want to turn every corner of teh interwebs into their own urinal, and sometimes censorship is necessary — there is no such thing as totally free speech in society. Besides, the guy has his own Pages and groups in which to rant and rave. Some of us reckon that they're doing this because they've lost the debate, and science is not on their side, but they are desperate to bolster their false worldview.

Ironically, this guy and the owner of a poor imitation Page that was created out of a desire for revenge never bothered to read the "About" section of The Question Evolution Project's Page — it's not a debate Page, and not a place for narcissistic atheo-fascists to promote their own propaganda.

But it's my fault, right?

This goes back a long ways, back to the Garden. The serpent deceived Eve, and she ate of the forbidden fruit, then Adam joined in. When God asked what they had done, Adam blamed God, "The woman that you gave me" (Gen 3:12). Eve blamed the serpent (Gen. 3:13). Where I come from, people are responsible for their own choices.

Doing evil is seen as doing good, and attacking God's people is considered a righteous crusade by the lost. However, God does see all of these things. We are promised persecution (2 Tim. 2:12, Matt. 5:11-12), but we are to remain faithful (3 John 1:3, Heb. 6:12). Don't worry, old son. They'll get what's coming to them. Until then, their "morality" is getting worse (Rom. 1:22).

Friday, February 20, 2015

Snake Fossils Give Evolutionists Hissy Fits

Paleontologists were riding the Evolution Trail when suddenly, they were spooked by snake fossils. That's not usually a big deal, but these fossils were in the wrong place. Once again, an evolutionary timeline needs to be moved back to an earlier date. Of course, biblical creationists don't need to keep making adjustments when discoveries don't fit the big picture.

The evolution of snakes was already a disputed subject. Finding fossils of snakes that are no different than modern ones, but are much "older" than previous fossils, are rattling evolutionists.
"Quatre études de serpents" by Gustave Moreau
The evolution of snakes has already been a debated topic, especially since there are no decent transitional forms in the fossil record. Now snake fossils are found, and they still do not help Darwinists because they are pretty much the same as modern living serpents.
It's an old story. An animal or plant is discovered in sedimentary rocks by paleontologists and it pushes the organism's origin further back by many millions of years—but it's always a plant or animal already known to science. Granted, some of these fossilized creatures are extinct, but that's no indication they evolved.

This time snakes are the subject of a recent, unexpected discovery that supposedly pushes their first appearance back an additional 65 million years. Evolutionists were shocked at the discovery of four snake fossils, the oldest (Eophis underwoodi) dating back to "167 million years" by evolutionary dating. Prior to these discoveries the oldest snake fossil was a mere "102 million years old."
To finish reading, click on "Snakes Have Always Been Snakes".

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Interpreting Geological Reports

People get excited or confused when they encounter reports about geological sites with claims of great antiquity. Sometimes, Christians feel threatened by these assertions. Proponents of an ancient earth and universe have their starting point that the earth and universe are ancient. Circular reasoning ensues.


Reports of geological features contain long-age wording. Learn to look more closely and you can spot the speculations and fallacies; the world is nowhere near as old as some claim it to be.
Barringer (or "Meteor") Crater in Arizona, USA / USGS.gov
Secular geologists use popular opinion, faulty dating methods and erroneous logic when giving vast ages. When someone learns to read (or listen to documentaries and such) closely, they can determine that there is a great deal of speculation, assumptions, and the aforementioned circular reasoning involved. Creation scientists have very different views, and present models from their starting point (some models include the Genesis Flood) that fit observed data far better. Things are not as old as they're said to be.

When looking at secular declarations, healthy skepticism is in order. Learning how to examine claims and look for actual evidence applies not only to science, but can be helpful in other areas as well.

Geologist Dr. Tas Walker explains in his response to a letter.
In order to understand how a geological feature fits within the biblical history it is necessary to re-interpret the way it is reported, and this primarily involves reinterpreting the quoted dates. In the article Haleakala volcano on the Island of Maui, Hawaii I describe how I research and re-interpret a geological site that is new to me. This should help you, too, when you encounter something that you have not heard of before, and for which you cannot find information on a creation site.
You can get some very helpful information at the rest of the article. Just click on "Maniitsoq crater, Greenland".

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Eel Biting and Evolution

Observational science on how various eels eat their food is corrupted by evolutionary just-so stories without evidence.

Once again, observational science is corrupted by evolutionary conjecture. Eels and their kin have a variety of methods of consuming their victuals (correctly pronounced like "vittles", by the way). Some use suction and don't chew, some bite and chew, others have a combination of both methods, and so on. Some researchers think that the ability to chew is something that evolved (like other methods of dining), and re-evolved. That'll be the day. Then they were speculating that it's important information about how mammals evolved. 

Never mind that there is no observational evidence or plausible models, they just bolster their just-so story with conjecture and call it "science". Never occurs to them that creatures were built that way by their Maker, does it? Actually, the biblical creation model makes more sense, even at a glance.
Aquatic animals face some special challenges as they eat, for they must get their food into their mouths and swallowed before it washes away. Many grab it with their teeth, but the majority of aquatic vertebrates suction food into their mouths. Evolutionary researchers comparing eels that suck in their prey to those that nab it with their teeth report they have shown that the evolution of biting behavior opened the door to the enormous biodiversity in the skull shapes of other vertebrates.
You can sea the rest of this article by clicking on "Did Eels Evolve Better By Biting?"

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Evolution Propaganda, SETI, and Closed Minds

Evolutionists are increasing their propaganda to condition children to accept evolution. They are also divided about whether or not SETI will have safe results. Then there are the intolerant who want to shut out creation.
Like any totalitarian worth his salt knows, target the young with propaganda. Current evolutionist trends include having children write rap songs about the origin of life (we told you that the OOL is not separate from evolution, the American Association for the Advancement of Science approves of the children's lyrics). They are also using comic books and zombies. Well, sure, use something trendy to lasso a child's interest. When Christians tell their children that God is the Creator and life has meaning, atheopaths call that child abuse. But when Darwinistas promote their "you're a product of mindless evolution and life has no meaning" view, that's "science". Sure, makes perfect sense to some people, for some odd reason.

There are some concerns about SETI making contact with alien intelligence because they may not be such nice fellas to ride the trail with (as I discussed here). "Don't worry, by the time they get the signals, figure them out, then pay us a visit, we'll be long gone." Seems contradictory to me, why bother? Others urge contact efforts to go full steam ahead.

Insistence that evolution is true is common. So is attempting to get people to compromise their beliefs with evolutionism. Of course, secularists are unwilling to consider that there is a God, who gave revelation of himself in the Bible, and he makes the rules. They'd rather tell us to forget it.

You can read about these items in more depth by clicking on "Darwin's Land of Make-Believe".

Monday, February 16, 2015

Complex Internal Biological Systems

Think about American cowboys and cattle drives for a moment. The process was engineered for a purpose. After the Civil War until about 1895, Texas cattle had to be rounded up and moved to railroads in Kansas so they could be sold and shipped for meat processing. They had to communicate to organize the whole thing, which involved hiring drovers, getting horses, supplies, the chuck wagon and cook, purchasing equipment, and so on. Then there was communication throughout the long, dangerous process. Don't forget the marketing communication at the end.


Various human-made communications systems have varieties of complexity and efficiency. Organisms, even single-celled, have been carefully engineered by our Creator to be not only complex, but very efficient as well. No evolution here, pal!
Pixabay / geralt
On a modern level, communication systems within a computer are far more complicated and efficient, and Internet communication among networked computers make the cattle drives pale in comparison. In each case, if there is a breakdown in communication, the work doesn't get done.

Inside living cells, there are levels of communication that are far more complex and efficiently engineered than anything we could imagine. Even the E. coli single-celled organism is highly organized. Did this evolve through time, chance, random processes and all that? Not hardly. It should be obvious that all these intricate cells with their efficient systems were engineered by the Creator.
Biochemical networks, signaling cascades, and genomes in cells are complicated information processing systems that are key to all aspects of living organisms. An increasing body of research shows these systems are finely tuned and highly optimized. Unlike devices built by professional engineers, such as an automobile that needs regular servicing and replacement parts, these divinely created living systems are self-organized and sustained within the cell.

The formation of any biological or man-made system generally follows a basic engineering model with an end goal in mind. System components are needed to construct a network, critical space is allocated to accommodate those components, time is required to process the information, and energy is needed for every orchestrated step of network operation. These component entities are also resources that constrain the design and performance of any biochemical network in the cell.
You can round up the rest of the article by clicking on "Optimized Design Models Explain Biological Systems".

Saturday, February 14, 2015

Catastrophe for Uniformitarian Geology

Evolution's True Believers™ circle the wagons when someone shows flaws in their "the present is the key to the past" paradigm, and insist that long-term gradual processes are true. This happens despite observed evidence, not because of it. Geologists themselves will reluctantly put their beliefs aside for a spell when they can't get around the evidence.


Occasionally, uniformitarian geologists are forced to admit that catastrophic processes existed in Earth's past, but they do this reluctantly. Research at Deitfoss gave them some uncomfortable information.
Deitfoss / Pixabay / mirluc
Geologists of the biblical creation persuasion believe that the Genesis Flood shaped much of the world's surface features (one model is called "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics"). But evolution requires long ages, and having a lot of water in a little time is the opposite of their flood geology of a little water in a lot of time. When secular geologists see evidence for catastrophe from their own sources, they unenthusiastically make some allowances for such processes, even though they don't understand them.
Europe’s biggest waterfall likely formed catastrophically instead of gradually, a new analysis reveals.

The Detifoss waterfall in Iceland is the terminus of a 28-km canyon that is 100 meters deep in places (see canyon photo on Science Daily and waterfall photo on Science Magazine). The canyon was formed rapidly in “dramatic floods,” Science Magazine says, that may have been thousands of years apart.

The new study was published in PNAS by researchers who studied helium isotopes at various locations in the canyon. The isotope ratios were so similar, they concluded that the dates of the falls, canyon and rim were nearly contemporaneous.
To finish reading, click on "A Niagara-Class Waterfall in Days".
 

Friday, February 13, 2015

Increasing Disarray in Evolutionary Timelines

February 2015 in the USA. We had Groundhog's Day, and today is Friday the 13th. What other irrational practices can we endure? I know! Atoms-to-anthropologist evolution!

Evolution's advocates spruce up their version of historical science like they were going to get awards at the county fair. They can get awards for storytelling, sure, but for real science? Not so much. Deniers of Darwin are ridiculed with nonsense like, "We have the fossils, we win!" Not only does everyone have the same evidence, but secular interpretations of fossils and other evidence continually changes — for the worse, in their case.


Evolution is not the tidy package displayed in the geologic column and through the dating of artifacts that some people think. In fact, things are going from disorder to disastrous disorder very quickly.

True science is changed according to the evidence and observations, and theories can be thrown away when they're shown to be full of errors (except evolution, of course, that's kept despite its flaws). Artifacts from ancient humans are found "older" than they should be, so the timeline gets pushed back. Existing materials are recalculated, also causing some tenets of evolution to be dated backward as well.

The geologic column isn't carved in stone (heh!), despite the way some people present it as a nice, linear progression of simple to complex life forms. Some fossils are recalcitrant, appearing "out of order", disappearing for alleged millions of years and then reappearing later ("ghost lineages"), appearing on the wrong side of the planet at the wrong time, and so on. Other fossils reveal organisms that wreck timelines and threaten conjectures about the age of the earth, prompting paleontologists to come up with excuses as bad as the ones made over a losing poker hand. The observed evidence cooperates more with the biblical creationists' Noachian Flood models far better than secular stories.
Archaeological and palaeontological activity results in a continuous flow of new discoveries that are often subjected to dating estimates. These discoveries, sometimes involving new dating techniques, not infrequently result in an extension of previously accepted date ranges for some fossils and artifacts.

As a result, the ranges of fossils within the geological timescale continue to expand. Changes of index fossils, in particular, create doubt in biostratigraphy. At the same time, dates for various human activities get pushed back in time. These suggest that the fossil timescale, and its evolutionary evidence, is less well known than commonly taught. Continual reporting of these new problems and exceptions to the established timescale will only serve to weaken its reliability.
It's really not that hard. You can read the rest by clicking on "Fossil range extensions continue".
 

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Book Review — Defending Genesis: How We Got Here & Why It Matters

Defending Genesis by Tony Breeden covers several topics in the creation-evolution controversy. He deals with them from philosophical, scientific, and theological standpoints.
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

When I was pondering which horse to saddle up and ride for Question Evolution Day (since every day is QED for me), Tony Breeden came along at the right time and said that he had a new book coming out, Defending Genesis: How We Got Here & Why It Matters. That title is singing my song.

"But Cowboy Bob, he writes science fiction and stuff!"

Yeah, well, so did C.S. Lewis and others. Tony has been writing nonfiction for years, and my favorite of his sites is "Defending Genesis" (no surprise that I like that one). He spearheads "Creation Sunday", a response to the efforts of deceptive atheist Michael Zimmerman to get Christians to compromise with evolution. Breeden has interacted with a variety of people, from obstreperous atheist stalkers to enthusiastic supporters and those in between.

Defending Genesis is written in a conversational style for the most part, and has some humor throughout. There are 22 chapters plus an appendix, so it's not too difficult to get through a chapter if you're pressed for time. Breeden tells his personal story of being a false Christian, toying with other beliefs, accepting evolution, questioning it, eventually becoming a committed Christian and ordained pastor. This account is not filler, but is there to make a point.

There is strong material presented on how Darwinian evolution is weak both scientifically and philosophically. In addition, Old Earth creationism, Theistic Evolution, and other compromising viewpoints are incompatible with biblical values, have to impose extra-biblical material so they can pretend that the Bible supports their views. Unlike many of those people, he believes in the Genesis Flood, Noah's Ark and dinosaurs exiting with humans.


Tony Breeden, Defending Genesis, Creation Sunday, Clergy Letter Project
This picture is not in the book, but it fits here nicely.
If you want science and how evolutionists will play fast and loose with it as well as giving inaccurate presentations as "evidence" for microbes-to-microbiologist evolution, you'll get that as well. Tony Breeden shows that he's informed about science and philosophy, and shows how abiogenesis fails. There's a section on aliens and directed panspermia, and I hope if he reads this, I hope he'll check out this article on the subject. Whale and horse evolution are also effectively dealt with. He discusses the philosophy of science, and how someone's worldview will dictate how s/he interprets evidence.

I told Mr. Breeden that I would give a fair review, but the only problems I have with his book are more along the lines of personal preference than anything else. For instance, I didn't care for his use of capitalization. Another thing is that although he made a strong presentation on how our worldview determines how we interpret the evidence, I'd prefer just a bit more of a presuppositional approach — but he does not divorce Scripture from science so the unbeliever can decide through his own mighty intellect to decide that God exists. Not hardly. My other quibble is that the appendix seemed a bit awkward at first. It has good material in it, though, so don't take out, the appendix is not vestigial. Like I said, the negatives are pretty much my own preferences, and they do not detract from the strong content of the book.

Regular readers may have noticed that I am not in a habit of reviewing books that I dislike or think are harmful, I ain't got time for that, and will link to other writers for such things. You can cognate correctly that Defending Genesis: How We Got Here & Why It Matters is a recommended resource. This book gives an excellent overeview, so if someone is rather new to the origins controversy or wants to honestly learn a biblical creationist perspective, s/he should read this book. It is also good for someone who knows about creation science and can use a review — and will probably learn some new things.

I got my e-book as a promotion, and told Tony that I was going to review it. Not that I'm special, it was available to anyone who signed up for his newsletter through the end of February 2015. Although atheopaths will call me a liar, his mention of my name and his promotion of Question Evolution Day in chapter 22 did not influence this review.



Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Ape and Speech Essence

Everyone has a starting point by which they interpret what they observe. Proponents of molecules-to-man evolution interpret their observations in one framework, and biblical creationists have a far different approach. Unfortunately for evolutionists, their paradigm continually disappoints and puzzles them.


Evolutionary scientists think an orangutan that makes speech-like sounds can demonstrate the evolution of speech itself. Unfortunately, research is tainted by unwarranted extrapolation.
Pixabay / James_Valma (modified)
Everything supposedly can be explained through evolution, but speech itself has been problematic. Observers were excited when an orangutan made purposeful sounds to communicate, so this supposedly points to the evolution of speech. Except that this one is an exception, and that it was raised in captivity.

I reckon they won't learn that evolution fails to explain anything because evolution isn't true. We were created with the ability to speak, and that's the gospel truth.
Only human beings speak. The syllables and words, phrases and sentences people use to speak their minds all over the world consist of rhythmic sequences of consonants and vowels. Consonants and vowels are the building blocks of speech. Despite their remarkable variety, all spoken languages rely on our ability to rapidly produce sequences of consonant and vowel sounds—typically 3–8 times per second. Only humans have shown the ability to ascribe symbolic meaning to these sequences of sounds, to use those sounds to express creative thoughts, and to communicate those thoughts with other humans.

Where did humans acquire this unique ability? Evolutionary researchers assume that all that exists has an evolutionary origin, but they admit the origin of speech is “enigmatic.” Do people speak because they have thoughts worth putting into words, or did ancestral humans learn to think great thoughts because they evolved the vocal apparatus to make the necessary sounds? The annoying reticence of great apes—our supposed evolutionary cousins—on this subject, has proven a source of consternation to evolutionary researchers who seek to learn the nature and origin of man from Darwinian musings.
You can read the excerpt in context, and the rest of the article, by clicking on "Can Orangutans Talk Like Humans?"


Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Radiometric Dating and Reason — Part 4

The Rubidium-Strontium radiometric dating method has serious flaws and assumptions.  Opponents of recent creation do not have anything substantial upon which to base their assumptions. Despite the bad science, secularists fight to keep their erroneous dating methods, because bacteria-to-biologist evolution requires long ages.
The previous installments in this series are "Radiometric Dating and Reason", "Radiometric Dating and Reason — Part 2", and "Radiometric Dating and Reason — Part 3".

Old-Earth advocates insist that radiometric dating methods are accurate and reliable, but they've put the shoes on the wrong horse. Not only do radiometric dating methods require three basic assumptions that are improbable at best, some of those assumptions mask important secondary assumptions. In addition to unscientific assuming, they get wildly varying results (such as rocks known to be 60 years old testing to be 133 million years old, and ranges of a hundred million years or more). More than that, the age of the world has been calculated by using meteorites, not Earth rocks — which has several major assumptions as well.

The Rubidium-Strontium method has all of the aforementioned assumptions and problems, plus a few more. For one thing, adequate quantities of rubidium-containing minerals suitable for testing are not exactly common in nature. Another difficulty is determining the extremely long half life. Opponents of recent creation do not have anything substantial upon which to base their assumptions. Despite the bad science, secularists fight to keep their erroneous dating methods, because bacteria-to-biologist evolution requires long ages.

Here is an article on radioactive decay, and it has side bars for people who like to do the math.
Using rubidium (Rb) decay as a clock to date minerals was first suggested by Otto Hahn and Ernst Walling in 1938. Five years later, Hahn performed the first age determination using this method.

Like potassium (K), rubidium is an alkali metal and therefore chemically behaves much like potassium. Physically, it has an ionic radius of 1.48 Å, which is close to potassium’s (1.33 Å) and therefore should move within a crystal structure in a similar manner. This allows rubidium to readily substitute for potassium in all K-bearing minerals.

Determining the half-life of Rb presents scientists with a challenge for two reasons. First is the extremely long half-life of Rb, and second is because Rb beta decays with a relatively small energy of 275 keV. During beta decay, the decay energy is shared; thus, the emitted beta particle has a spectrum of energies rather than a single unique energy, making direct detection of the beta particle difficult. From 1964 through 2012, seven attempts were made to directly measure the half-life of Rb. The results of these measurements have varied from 4.77 ± 0.10 x 1010 yrs. in 1964 to 4.967 ± 0.032 x 1010 yrs. in 2003. A value of 4.88 x 1010 yrs. is used by Gunter Faure and Teresa Mensing3 and is the current value recommended by the Union of Geological Sciences. Whether this decrease is real or simply due to better measurement techniques remains uncertain. In any case, there is some uncertainty in one of the critical parameters used by isochron dating models of Rb decay.
If you're ready for the rest of the article, click on "Alkali Metal Dating, Rb-Sr Dating Model: Radioactive Dating, Part 4".
 

Monday, February 9, 2015

A View from the Bunker, the Reality Bomb, and Question Evolution Day


In the Doctor Who mythos, Davros wanted to destroy the universe with the Reality Bomb, a device that makes all matter go to pieces. Even if someone was that stupid and insane, Christians know that such a thing is impossible (Hebrews 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17). But let's borrow from the Reality Bomb concept, shall we?

Darwinistas (thanks to Chris Rosebrough for that word) cling to their faith in evolutionism despite the evidence, not because of it. If they were to seriously examine goo-to-you evolution, they would see that nothing is holding it together; Question Evolution Day could be the Reality Bomb for evolution!


What do "View from the Bunker", Dr. Who and Question Evolution Day have in common? A strange series of links introducing a discussion that I hope people will find interesting.

Question Evolution Day works in layers:
  • Standing together to affirm intellectual, religious, speech, academic and other basic human rights, that those of us who reject evolution should be able to state our views without censorship and reprisals
  • Sharing links, graphics and so forth showing that the evidence supports creation and not goo-to-you evolution
  • Biblical creationists explain that Genesis is the source of all major Christian doctrines
  • Some of us go further and point out that your worldview determines how you view the evidence, and that the fatally flawed worldviews of atheism and liberal Christianity cannot exist without evolution
I had the pleasure of being interviewed on Derek Gilbert's "View from the Bunker". This started because I learned about the show from Why?Outreach. What with me being a cowboy at heart and all, I thought, "Derek has some diverse topics and interesting guests. Maybe he'll think I have something worth saying". Guess he thought so. And he's an experienced radio professional with the kind of voice that's very pleasing to the ears.

This interview was not just an interview, but a discussion. And you might get a snicker at how my train of thought got hopelessly derailed a couple of times, and I had some verbalized pauses ("umm, ahh"). Anyway, you can download or play the podcast by clicking on "VFTB 224: Question Evolution Project". Addendum: We did not talk about Dr. Who, that was my own special thing for this introduction.
 

Saturday, February 7, 2015

Pirate Christian Radio and Question Evolution Day

The third of three audio interviews I did is the first to be released. I was excited to be on Chris Rosebrough's "Fighting for the Faith", a production of Pirate Christian Radio. He's excited about Question Evolution Day.

#qed2015 Chris Rosebrough interviewed Cowboy Bob Sorensen about Question Evolution Day on his "Fighting for the Faith" program.
Modified and used with permission.
I reckon it's not exactly right to call this an interview since it was more like a discussion and interview combination. Maybe it's because he's an experienced interviewer that made it seem more like a talk. Anyway, Chris is a very intelligent Christian apologist, and sees the importance of Genesis to Christians; this was the emphasis of our talk. He had some excellent comments. Maybe that was the pastor in him coming out. And we had a few laughs as well.

But my stuff isn't the whole show, the rest of the podcast is definitely worth your attention. Phil Johnson, executive director of "Grace to You", has a strong sermon called "Why I Don't Believe in Atheists", that fits in well with the overall theme. Edit: My apologies to Chris for the noise. I kept fiddling with my microphone cord and not paying attention to it when I moved around, and it made some odd sounds.

You can click here to listen on the site or download the podcast.

Some of the other sites I referred to:



Friday, February 6, 2015

Bill Nye the Tiresome Anti-Science Guy is a Symptom of a Deeper Problem

Bill Nye does a disservice to the scientific community with his bigotry, poor logic and dreadful use of science. A recent interview shows more of his bad thinking and emotionalism. Nye is not the problem, he's a symptom.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  

This may come as a shock to anti-creationists, but Bill Nye is not a threat to the Bible or biblical creation science. He thinks he's on a crusade for "science", and so do many of his fans. If those things he opposed were actually wrong, and if Nye was capable of understanding science and logic in the first place, then he might make some valid points. His cheering section frequently shows disunderstanding of science, logic, philosophy, and more, so they are enablers that encourage his bad behavior.

I'm on record for saying that in the big debate with Ken Ham that he used terrible logic. But that's okay for people who want to defend "science" (that is, equivocating "evolution" with "science") from the big, bad creationists who want people to use critical thinking and actually examine the evidence. (Rabid evolutionists tell you what to think, many creationists like me want to tell you how to think.) People who think should be embarrassed by not only Nye's antics in the debate as well as in the present, but also by his fans who think he is brilliant. For that matter, some insist that Nye won the debate, despite his constant misrepresentations, question-dodging, logical fallacies and dishonesty.

I've said before that someone who wants to promote real science would not be interested in suppressing contrary viewpoints, because science thrives on development; maintaining the status quo is counterproductive. He does not know what the Bible teaches, his knowledge of creation science is dismal, and he has serious flaws in his understanding of science itself.

Why do some people think Nye is brilliant? He is a celebrity that ridicules Christians and biblical creationists. It's much easier than dealing with things intelligently. I think I see why he kept getting rejected for astronaut employment at NASA, that requires logical thinking instead of appealing to emotion. But no, they buy his propaganda book, even though it is loaded with falsehoods. (Some don't even need to read it to know that the book is right and the mean old creationist critics are wrong! For that matter, they "know" what a creationist is going to say, so they don't bother to read books, articles, watch videos, and so on. But I digress.) I recommend that you read "UndeNYEably Uninformed" for more information on his dishonesty, bad science, and faulty reasoning.

Bill Nye is all sound and fury, signifying nothing of consequence to real science. Sort of like the odd horse that wanders by the corral at night and agitates the horses inside. He is also typical of so many of his ilk: they attack, appeal to emotion, misrepresent, lie outright, resort to slander and libel, lots of emotional appeal, but have no substance. Nye, Tyson, Krauss and others are one of the reasons that Question Evolution Day is necessary (click here for more information).

An enthusiastic but somewhat obstreperous supporter of Question Evolution Day posted in a "debate" group on Facebook. ("Debate" here means "atheists gang up on creationists".) Naturally, their reactions were venomous. After their poor thinking was displayed in a post on a different Facebook Page, the post was removed and they banned the creationist — and atheopaths accuse us of fear and censorship.


Question Evolution Day, Why?Outreach, Star Trek, Borg
"Meme" at upper right made a Imgur. Frame and other enhancements (improvements!) from Why?Outreach.
Nye was in an interview where he was given easy questions and made to look good. The fawning didn't fool thinking people.
National Geographic gives Bill Nye the Science Guy an open mike to make unchallenged generalities, with feeling.

In a “Book Talk” segment, National Geographic writer Jane J. Lee let her bias known right in the headline and sub-heading: “Why Bill Nye Calls Evolution ‘Undeniable’ and Creationism ‘Inane’: Darwin’s theory explains so much of the world, from bumblebees to human origins, says the Science Guy.

Jane threw softball questions to Bill Nye about his new book, Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation. She began by reviewing Nye’s debate with Ken Ham: but don’t expect equal time for Ham in this piece, nor any quotes from the hundreds of books in the Answers in Genesis bookstore at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, where the debate was held last February (2/04/14). Instead, she let Nye trash creationism with emotional remarks like, “The inanity took my breath away.”

Emotionalism and storytelling is actually a running theme in Nye’s responses. He’s proud of it. Scientific facts are sorely lacking in the article; instead, evolution is portrayed in broad brush strokes as a fact beyond debate. Nye is so passionate about crushing this “inane” worldview, he doesn’t need facts. He needs to attack it with emotion. Here are some examples with references to fallacies defined in the Baloney Detector:
Not so fast. To read the examples, you'll have to go to the source: "Bill Nye Admits to Propagating Evolution Via Emotional Stories". I wonder if someone will ever interview him with serious questions instead of just coddling him.

Meanwhile, the anti-creationist and anti-Christian activities are becoming more aggressive.
 

Labels