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

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Religious Attitudes in Evolutionism

Uninformed evolutionists believe that Charles Darwin came up with his hypothesis all by his lonesome, and deny that evolution is actually an ancient religion (Paul debated the Epicurean philosophers in Acts 17, who were evolutionists way back then). The science aspect had been in the works for years before Darwin popularized it. However, even with the trappings of science, evolution is still religious in nature.

Several examples at the link illustrate that evolution is religious at its core.

Using presuppositions that evolution happened, proponents use that as their starting point when attempting to interpret evidence — especially anthropologists. Of course, many questions remain unanswered, and their speculations often raise more questions than they claim to answer. The real answer is that evolution did not happen, everything was created.
There’s something magical about believing in evolutionary anthropology: a sense of numinous awe at how much they don’t know but believe might be possible.

A man ponders a bone in his hands, holding it as if it were a sacred relic. “Fossil raises puzzling questions about how upright body plan of great apes evolved,” reads the subtitle of a piece called “Walk like a Man” in the Harvard Gazette. Harvard staff writer Peter Reuell seems to relish the mysteries that lie beyond the great unknown. One thing is certain: he doesn’t ask “if” upright posture evolved, but “how” it evolved. That dogma is beyond question; everything else is up for grabs.
To read the rest of this and other examples, click on "Evolutionary Anthropology as Religion". 

Monday, June 29, 2015

Homosexual "Marriage", Creation, and the Bible

As expected, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) voted to legalize homosexual "marriage". This has serious implications for Bible-believing Christians, not only in the US, but everywhere.
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There are about 30 links provided for further reading, curiosity, and research. They can be springboards for people who want to do further research. Each should open in a new window or tab when clicked. I do not endorse every site, or even every article, so I do expect all y'all to utilize your own minds.

As most people expected, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) voted to legalize same-sex "marriage". This has serious implications for Bible-believing Christians, not only in the US, but everywhere. But it's not like the US was the first country to do this, just the latest to date.

Let me point out right now that some professing Christians are expressing rage over the ruling. Frustration and righteous anger are understandable (especially when faced with the ridicule and gloating of "gay rights" supporters), but there is no justification for acting in a sinful manner toward homosexuals!

Those who demand "tolerance" are often exceptionally intolerant of those of us who believe the clear teachings of the Bible. Indeed, look at how many people are "offended", a leftist tactic which in cases like this essentially means, "I can't be bothered to think and respond rationally, and I can't control my emotions, so I want to stifle your free speech because you say things I don't like".

People tend to "think" with their emotions, and "gay rights" proponents utilize that fact quite effectively. The word gay has been co-opted from its original meaning to indicate people with a homosexual preference. When Bible-believing Christians say that homosexuality is unnatural and violates God's prescribed manner of marriage, we are called homophobes, which is a meaningless emotion-laden word used for labeling, ridicule, and provoking emotional reactions. As I've often said, I don't phobe any homos, and I don't know anyone who is afraid of them. Another appeal to emotion is when people say that "everyone has a right to love". Can homosexuals love? Yes. Sexual activity is not to be equated with love.

Homosexual "marriage" has been made into a civil rights issue, which is ironic, because fewer homosexuals want to be "married" than people have been led to believe. "Gay" is not the "new black", and there are black people who are offended by the comparison. Sexual preference and ethnic origins are a horribly fallacious comparison, but people are emotionally manipulated into accepting that comparison anyway. Homosexuals are not victims, despite the rhetoric — well, they're victims in places like Iran, but not in the United States. Did you know about that? It's difficult to get accurate information when the news has a leftist slant.

Did the SCOTUS redefine marriage? Yes and no. Those tinhorns who voted in favor of it were waving their bony middle fingers in the face of God, and rejecting thousands of years of societal norms. Dissenting Judge Antonin Scalia had some strong remarks about what the Supreme Court has become. Yes, they redefined marriage on paper, and essentially made it meaningless. (See what Matt Walsh says in "Gay Marriage Still Doesn’t Exist, No Matter What the Supreme Court Says".) I can redefine our Basement Cat as a salamander, but that does not change reality — she's still a black cat, not a green or brown reptile.

The Gaystapo insists that homosexuals have been denied a right to marriage, but where do they get that right? Evolution? Not a chance. By simply asserting it? Because they're "born that way"? Let's work with this for a moment. People have urges that they have to restrain. I can think of several women that I would like to have sex with (or even marry as a group). Do I have the right to give in to my urge? No, and never mind that God and my wife would strongly disapprove of my actions! Or this: I am a white heterosexual male who believes that the Bible is the Word of God, that that everything was created recently, and salvation is to be found in Jesus alone (John 14:6, Acts 4:12). To use evolutionary logic, we're just bundles of chemicals following electrochemical impulses, and there is no right and wrong.  I was born that way, you have no right to complain or object, so accept and celebrate my choices! Makes perfect sense.

I received a letter from a homosexual friend. Each of us knows that the other is not like the stereotype. This section was interesting:
"Marriage" has a meaning, it's had that meaning (and in all the other languages that have words that mean the same thing) for thousands of years. Why couldn't these activists settle on a different word, have their own different institution if they really needed one, and I'm sure they could have been gladly given the same legal rights. That's not good enough for one reason: the purpose is to destroy something, not to build something new. John Nolte at Breitbart got onto this before the marriage decision, when the [Confederate] flag issue was still raging. Can't have the rebel flag flying on government property? Fine, then the same should go for the symbol of anti-Christian hatred that has tormented bakers and photographers and pizza makers and flower shop owners (and Mozilla CEOs - I quit using Firefox by the way) — the "rainbow pride flag" — which has flown from plenty of government buildings including US embassies. There is nothing to be proud of in that flag of bigotry, but last night the freaking White House was all done up in its colours to celebrate its "win." [Click here for the White House colors.]
Those who are demanding "tolerance" of homosexuals are extremely bigoted and inconsistent themselves. They force Christians to go against their convictions. How about when they are seeking out a Christian bakery and suing the owner who refuses on religious grounds, railing against Chik-Fil-A, persecuting a pizza parlor, and so on? Meanwhile, those hypocrites have no problem with Mohammedan bakers who refuse to bake a cake for a "gay wedding". How about the UK couple who is threatened to sue a church in 2014 to force it to perform their "wedding"? Some of us have enough civility and common sense that, if someone refuses to serve me because it would violate their religion, we'd just saddle up and go elsewhere, problem solved.

For that matter, I don't reckon it's any of my concern about the sexual preferences of the waitress in the diner, the bus driver, the mail carrier, my co-workers, my neighbors, my doctor, or anyone else. Just do your job.

It's almost laughable that when homosexuals "come out of the closet" and declare their sexual preference, people applaud them as "brave". A lot of people respond with, "Big deal. I didn't want to know that about you anyway". Nowadays, the culture is pro-homosexual, and people who believe what Scripture teaches are not tolerated — those of us who stick to our principles are the ones who are really brave!

Where do rights come from, anyway? Demanding and asserting that you have a right does not make it so. Sure, some rights are made through legislation, and the US Constitution has guaranteed some rights for Americans, such as free speech (but those are eroding for Christians very quickly). God is the final authority for rights. He has established the institution of marriage (Genesis 1:27, Genesis 2:24, Mark 10:6-9). We were not created with a "gay gene", which would be a mutation, and my remarks about restraining our urges apply even if we did have one.

By the way, if someone decides that he or she is the wrong sex (except in the rare, difficult area of hermaphroditism), guess what? Mutilation and hormones won't change your XY chromosomes — you're born that way (male or female), and how you feel does not change biological reality. People get "gender reassignment" surgery and have had regrets; their suicide rate is very high.

Some people have argued that since homosexuality exists to a small extent in nature, then it must be all right for humans, too. Yes, this generalization passes as "logic" for some people.

The Bible
There are occasional complaints that Christians are hypocritical for focusing on homosexuality as the primary sin and ignoring their own heterosexual sins. To some extent, this is valid — God hates all sin, and we cannot justify our own adultery and fornication; we must confess and repent of them. Adultery and homosexuality were both capital offenses under Old Testament Law. However, homosexuality is specifically referred to as an abomination, תֹּעֵבָה (Lev. 18:22). It is a sinful choice that can be changed (1 Cor. 6:9-11 NASB, Rom. 1:24-27 NASB). No, the Bible makes it clear that homosexuality is a sin. God is the one who instituted marriage and the family unit, and he is the one who makes the rules. People demanding "gay rights" have a lousy epistemology. Unfortunately, many people do not bother to consider that Christianity is logical, as are our reasons for objecting to homosexual "marriage".

Many homosexuals are atheists, but there are also some homosexuals who call themselves Christians, choosing to rewrite and twist Scripture to suit their own feelings. Dr. James White extensively refuted the disingenuous efforts of "apologist" Matthew Vines. Those "tolerant" gay rights supporters put pressure on Christians, such as trying to force us to go against our convictions. We have to decide if we should attend a "gay wedding" or not, for example, but "gay marriage" is the result of compromise on Genesis. Did you notice that people who tend to accept homosexuality have also compromised on the literal truth of Genesis?

Whether atheist, liberal Christian, or something else, acceptance of homosexual marriage is a rebellion against the authority of God's Word. While the Supreme Court legalized and redefined "gay marriage" on paper, they cannot change reality. Before you hail these mortal, sinful men and women as "wise" because of this decision, remember that in 1857, the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision said black people are not citizens, and upheld slavery. Wrong then, wrong now. This homosexual "marriage" decision will be used against Christians, and persecution will increase; some of us will continue to speak the truth while we still can. We have a great deal to learn, and a great deal to do. Those of us who believe the Bible must remain faithful and remember to keep our faith in God and our eyes on him (Heb. 12:2). 

Addendum: Four podcasts that are worth your attention. First, Chris Rosebrough at "Fighting for the Faith" discusses the ruling, persecution, and what he calls "coercive legislation". The segment begins at the 7-1/2 mark, click on "Decide to Make Today a Landmark Day?". Two full podcasts from "Stand Up for the Truth": "Same sex marriage: where do Christians go from here?" and "Losing relationships over biblical truth". Finally, at "Noise of Thunder Radio", Chris Pinto has the podcast, "SCOTUS Decision on Gay 'Marriage'"

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Viewing Dinosaurs and Logical Fallacies from the Bunker

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Lots of reading, listening, and viewing for you today.

Derek Gilbert allowed me back on "A View from the Bunker", and it was a combination of two main points. First, we discussed dinosaur soft tissues and other evidence that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old. Next, we went into an area of special study of mine, logical fallacies. We had some fun, too. The logical fallacies are important so that Christians and creationists are not lassoed by atheists and anti-creationists, and learning about them carries over into other areas of life. I gave several examples from my own experience. Also, I mentioned my article on "Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism", which deals with some of the material.

Derek Gilbert and Cowboy Bob Sorensen discuss dinosaur soft tissues, logical fallacies, and more on "A View from the Bunker".

Many shows have a fair amount of "show prep" before recording. Not here, it just a little. I prepped myself beforehand, but didn't use my notes all that much. It was more of a free-flowing conversation. Different shows and interviewers have different styles, after all.

One fallacy example that was not used there that I'll use here. I've long said that some people want us silenced. One way is to try to negate what we have to say, and the most frequent attack is through ad hominem and outright ridicule. "You don't want to listen to that person or group because...", and proceed with mockery. In my article, "Feral Fundamentalist Anti-Creationist Antics", I referred to someone who claims to be an academic — this tinhorn sayss that he is hiding his real identity for fear of retaliation from creationists! (He gives no reason to take his statements seriously.) This "academic" mentioned my claim that they want us silenced, and added that no, he doesn't want us silenced. Instead, he wants me to keep babbling "nonsense" so the public can see how silly creation science is. Of course, he didn't deal with the substance of the article, and inadvertently proved me right. Remember, he's an "academic". Not hardly. No, I'm not linking to him and giving him the publicity he wants.

So anyway, if you have a mind to, click on "VFTB 253: Cowboy Bob Sorensen – Dinosaur Blood" to listen online or download for free. There are also several links below regarding new developments in dinosaur soft tissues and evidence for their comparative youth. Also see the video a mite below those links by Mark Armitage, the scientist who lost his job for his work on soft tissues. You can also see an interview with him on "Genesis Week", here.

Friday, June 26, 2015

Evolutionists Should Remain Low-Key About "Loki" Organisms

Advocates of Lokiarchaeota-to-locksmith evolution assume that such evolution is true and backed by observable science. However, they keep searching for missing links to support their conjectures, whether it clinging to the defunct "Lucy" knuckle-walker story, or this instance of Lokiarchaeota as an missing link way back yonder in the single-celled years.

Evoutionary biologists are making grand claims with minimal research about a single-celled organism nicknamed "Loki" as a missing link to our alleged evolutionary past. The "science" is bad, but the storytelling is big.

Lokiarchaeota (nicknamed "Loki") has them all a-twitter. The "science" is dismal, to say the least. Genomic information is seriously lacking, but that doesn't stop some evolutionary biologists from speculating, making assertions, telling comic-book-style stories, and just plain getting excited about finding another alleged missing link. Darwinists assemble! Pay homage to the god Evolution! Puny god. The evidence supports the real God, our Creator.
Single-celled organisms called Lokiarchaeota are making headlines as missing links in our supposed single-celled ancestry. A small fraction of their genes resemble those normally associated with more complex cells. Some claim this discovery clinches the case for archaeans, rather than bacteria, as our closest single-celled ancestor.

“Loki” is short for the genus Lokiarchaeum and its phylum Lokiarchaeota. The organisms were identified in frigid sediment sampled near the mid-Atlantic Ridge, 1½ miles deep in the Arctic Ocean between Greenland and Norway, about 9½ miles from the hydrothermal vent known as Loki’s Castle. Like Loki—a mercurial character from Norse mythology—Lokiarchaeota are difficult to pin down, having never been cultured. The Lokiarchaeum composite genome was pieced together from genetic components of the sparse cells found in the sediment. And like the mythological Loki, they held some surprises.
To read more, click on "Does 'Loki' Show How Humans Evolved from Single-Celled Organisms?

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Circular Reasoning and a British Jurassic Fossil

Evolutionary paleontologists are known for using circular reasoning. They deny this, of course, but take a look-see: The age of an index fossil is determined by the rock layer where it was located. The age of the rock layer is determined by the index fossil. Then they lay out the geologic column according to their long-age belief system and put it in textbooks. Looks good in books, because the geologic column you see there doesn't exist in nature.

A Jurassic sauropod fossil found in Whitby, England raises awkward questions that long-age evolutionists cannot answer. Worse for them, reasoning brings us to the Genesis Flood as the best explanation.
Whitby Lighthouses / PublicDomainPictures / Pixabay
The cliffs at Whitby, England, down by the seashore (where maybe Sally sells seashells) are eroding and giving up some fossils. Most are no big deal, but there was one big deal, a Jurassic fossil. Circular reasoning and dating according to worldviews ensues, and a great time is had by all. However, the real world is not convenient for evolutionists. Instead, erosion rates and fossil yields support not only a young world, but indicate the global catastrophe called the Genesis Flood.
Crumbling seaside cliffs at Whitby in northern England continuously reveal new fossils. Most of them are remains of small plants and animals, but researchers from the University of Manchester described a much larger fossil: a giant vertebra from a sauropod's tail. How long ago was the rare bone buried?

Researchers described the rock formation containing this rare fossil in the online journal PLoS ONE. Sedimentary rocks containing sea creature fossils sandwich the Saltwick Formation, a roughly 80-foot-thick sandstone layer. Enlightenment Era naturalists assigned these rocks to the Jurassic System based on their evolutionary age expectations for certain fossils. The PLoS ONE authors repeated this assignment, writing, "Palynomorph [plant pollen fossil] evidence indicates that the latter formation is Aalenian in age." "Aalenian" refers to an "age" within a middle Jurassic time "Period," but these ages and periods only occur in man-made diagrams. The real rocks show no time stamps.
You can dig up the rest of the article by clicking on "Britain's 'Oldest' Sauropod and a Jurassic World". 

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

No Signs of Bat Evolution

As a child, I didn't bother to think much about bats, mainly because I didn't see them very much. Just thought they were mice with wings that might attack you. The concept that a bat is a rodent that grew wings and took off into the night sky is way, way off in left field. No, they won't seek to attack you, and many are beneficial by eating insects. They have an extremely advanced echolocation system and flight controls.

Bats are designed with outstanding flight abilities and echolocation. These are too complex to have evolved. Also, there is nothing in the fossil record to support evolution.

Proponents of dust-to-dark-knight evolution tell stories about how the bat evolved, but there isn't a shred of evidence for it — old fossil bats are like today's living bats. In addition, the echolocation system and advanced flight control are amazingly complex; everything has to be working together all at the same time, or nothing works at all. The bat did not evolve, it was created.
You don’t just put wings on a naked mole rat and make it fly. Bats are designed to be aero-bat-ic champions.

A primer on bat flight in Current Biology by Anders Hedenström and L. Christoffer Johansson begins with list of amazing facts that defy evolution:
To read what they said and more, click on "Bats Are Home-Run Flyers". 

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Naturalism, Evolution, and the Bible

Quite a few people don't cotton to the notion that science is a philosophy. You may hear something like, "Science is science", as if it was a separate animal. But if you stop to ponder on it for a spell, you'll see that science (and the scientific methods) have philosophical foundations, as you can see in these definitions of science. However, science is also defined with naturalistic philosophies. That is, even though the logical conclusion of analysis is God, don't go there, girlfriend — the powers that be disapprove because of their naturalistic worldview. In the 2005 Dover trial, "science" defeated "religion", even though Intelligent Design is not a Christian doctrine per se, so the foolish verdict was rendered on the basis of definitions from philosophy.

Science is a philosophy for interpreting data in the natural world, but now has an anti-theistic approach. This has infected many areas, including the way some people understand the Bible.

How did we get there? In early days, Bible-believing scientists were making all sorts of discoveries and advancing science. Along came naturalistic philosophies, and the Christians backed off. From there, anti-theists took over and made their own definitions. Of course, Charles Darwin fit right in with the plan, and evolutionary thinking has impeded science and morality ever since. Worse, all of this has infected the way people approach their understanding of the Bible; naturalists want to explain it their way.
The truth is that evolutionists have many times and in various ways, attempted to explain the Bible. Or to be more precise, the same worldview that gave rise to the theory of evolution in the Western world, also gave rise to a new interpretation of the Bible. By the eighteenth century, the West came increasingly to enjoy and appreciate the benefits of the scientific achievements of such biblical, creation-believing scientists as Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton, born mainly of the Reformation. Innovation, invention and observation of the universe in which we live were growing exponentially.

In the midst of this scientific and intellectual revolution, anti-theists such as Voltaire, Rousseau and Hume, emboldened by the achievements of science and their own hubris, began to reject all forms of authority other than ‘science’. Philosophers and scientists all over the western world began to apply their own definitions of science to disciplines as diverse as economics and anthropology. This intellectual movement became known as the Enlightenment. It gave rise to any number of ‘isms’. Rationalism held the notion that reason alone was the determiner of truth. Naturalism was a ‘rule’ subjectively applied to the definition of science that excluded the possibility of the supernatural. Positivism claimed that only empirical science could provide real knowledge about the world and universe, including origins. Note two important delusions inherent in these ideas. Firstly these statements are, by their own definitions, self-refuting. Try and think of how one would use the scientific method to determine whether positivism is true or not. Obviously it cannot be tested by its own criteria. Clearly, much of what came out of Enlightenment thinking was not so much scientific but philosophical. Metaphysical anti-theism began increasingly to drive the science; not the other way around.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Evolutionists on the Bible — Philosophical naturalists ‘explain’ the Bible" in its full context. 

Monday, June 22, 2015

Is "Jurassic World" Unrealistic?

At this writing, Jurassic World is in its first weekend. It had a yippie ky yay of an opening day, with $511.8 million USD. Reports are that audiences liked it, as well as many critics. People are excited about a Steven Spielberg movie, but he's not the director like he was for the first two, he's an executive producer.
Is "Jurassic World" unrealistic because its dinosaurs did not have feathers? There are many reasons this movie is unrealistic, but demanding dino feathers is itself unrealistic.
A complaint was made because the first one was good, but this is just another monster movie because it's "unrealistic" — the dinosaurs didn't have feathers. (Sorry to break it to this tinhorn, but the whole thing is unrealistic. It's a movie, done like most others, to make money and entertain people.) Although most evolutionary paleontologists believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds, there is no significant evidence that dinosaurs had feathers. Also, for Bible-believing Christians, there's an irreconcilable difference in the creation order: birds were created before land creatures. There is a passel of evidence that birds and dinosaurs lived at the same time, including dinosaurs having eaten birds.

It's a movie, not an evolutionary propaganda documentary. If you want one of those, watch BBC, or the Discovery networks on television. Oh, and realism? The whole premise is unrealistic, so the term "suspension of disbelief" applies here. Velociraptors in the movie were far too large. I guess it's hard to terrify an audience with a critter the size of a large turkey or medium-sized dog, huh? Unless you have them stampeding and eating everything in their path, or maybe have them taken up by a funnel cloud and killing people that way, like in Sharknado and its sequels. Just a thought. Personally, I'm not into many movies with large-scale killing and violence, so I'll probably skip this chop fest.
Fans of the Jurassic Park trilogy have been eagerly awaiting the release of a fourth movie, Jurassic World. This highly anticipated sci-fi film [was] released in the US on June 12, 2015. Recently a trailer for the movie was released that has created a big buzz in the media. Reportedly, the film is going to be a “big disappointment” to dinosaur fans because “unlike the 1993 original, which was praised for its attention to detail and accuracy, the new film shows portrays [sic] its Tyrannosaurus Rex and velociraptors all wrong.” One paleontologist made this comment: “The original film showed dinosaurs that were not simply roaring, scaly monsters but were active, social, bird-like animals with dynamic bodies. Now, Jurassic World is simply a dumb monster movie and there has been a deliberate effort to make its animals look different from the way we think they should.” Apparently the problem with Jurassic World is that the dinosaurs—including T. rex and velociraptor—lack feathers, and therefore the movie is supposedly completely inaccurate.
To sink your teeth into the rest of the article, click on "Is Jurassic World Wrong for Portraying Dinosaurs without Feathers? For additional news on featherless dinosaurs, check out "Dinosaurs Wore Scales, Birds Wore Feathers".

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Deep Discoveries in RNA Editing

Genome research keeps getting more interesting. Basic views of DNA, RNA, and proteins have been modified with further research, and additional discoveries are even more amazing. Alternative splicing was already very interesting, but complex RNA editing has been discovered in an unlikely place: the squid.

Yes, I know that Squidward isn't really a squid, the character is a misnamed octopus thingie.
Evolution? Not hardly! The detail and complexity of RNA editing in the squid shows the hand of the Master Engineer at work, and there's still a passel more to learn.
When the workings of the genome were first being discovered, the central evolutionary dogma of molecular biology claimed that genetic information passes consistently from DNA to RNA to proteins. Now we know that RNA messages can be altered by a variety of mechanisms, and a new study in squid genetics has vaulted one of these processes—called RNA editing—to an unprecedented level of biocomplexity.

All major animal groups from jellyfish to humans use amazing cellular machinery to modify RNA transcribed from both protein-coding and non-coding RNA genes. One of the first such systems to be discovered was that of alternative splicing, where a single gene could have its modular components added, removed, doubled, or even combined with the products of a completely separate gene. Thus, a single gene can produce a wide array of RNA variants, including many different protein forms if the RNAs are translated (made into proteins).
To read the rest, click on "RNA Editing: Biocomplexity Hits a New High". 

Friday, June 19, 2015

Further Findings Fluster Space Scientists

Recent discoveries in the solar system are giving fewer answers and raising more questions than secular scientists would like to deal with.

Mankind has always wondered about what's up yonder in the night sky. Hans Lippershey patented the refracting telescope, and it was tweaked by other early astronomers. The wonder increased as celestial objects were brought into focus (heh!), Isaac Newton made a practical reflecting telescope, others kept on improving until we got to the huge telescopes in observatories. Not good enough, we had to put the things up into the final frontier. Also, we sent probes to other planets so we could get a gander at them from images sent back.

But you know us, we still want to know more. Improvements in technology have led to better telescopes and more ambitious space probes. Unfortunately for long-age astronomers and cosmologists, the more we learn about the universe, the more it acts far younger than they want it to. Our solar system is also recalcitrant toward secular views, as more questions are raised than answered.

Now we are learning that Mercury has huge cliffs, asteroids Ceres and Vesta are not acting they way they're supposed to, the rings of Saturn were troublesome enough to try to explain (lousy explanations, by the way). Yes, plenty of things are troublesome to secularists, but biblical creationists are not at all perplexed — probably because they don't reckon to make excuses for when the data show a young, recently-created universe after all. You can read about these items and more by clicking on "Solar System Puzzles Needing Explanation".

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Feral Fundamentalist Anti-Creationist Antics

Anti-creationists will go to great lengths to negate biblical creationists and silence us. But we can see their shenanigans for what they are, and they are in denial because their evolutionary worldview is crumbling.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Many evolutionists insist on believing in goo-to-geneticist evolution despite abundant evidence to the contrary. Whenever flaws in their speculations are presented (and especially when information is given that supports special creation), they circle the wagons to fend of raiding bands of us evil creationists.

There are Darwinists who want to go on about their evolution business, ignorant of what biblical creationists actually believe and teach; they do not go to the sources for their information. Instead, creationists are maligned with blatant misrepresentation, claims that we are "science deniers", calling us "liars" because they disagree with our interpretations of evidence, and other nonsense. Let's be blunt — they want us silenced. These people are intolerant in the real sense of the word.

It's common to find someone with a new, fake Facebook profile. The paint's not even dry yet, but they annoy the public by going on Pages and leaving inane, abusive comments. When they're banned, they lie to their friends with things like, "They won't tolerate me giving facts to them", and omitting how they were acting like jerks.

Obviously, rabid evolutionists, atheists, and the like have no respect for biblical creationists, especially when we dare to express our views. Instead of dealing with the topic at hand, they demonize people (which includes defamation, spamming, stalking, and more). Many of these feral evolutionists have little education, but pretend that they're smarter than the creation scientists. They "refute" creationist material by throwing around links to articles they don't understand (often times using outdated extracts) and once again fascistically branding people they disagree with as "liars".

Did these anti-creationists thoroughly read the creationists' material and check out the references? Very rarely. But then, they're in fear and denial because their evolutionary worldview is crumbling. It's a religious experience for them, so they desperately cling to evolutionism rather than humble themselves before the Creator, who makes the rules. With this passion and rage in the air, those thinking, honest evolutionists who have inquiring minds must dig deeper for information about creation science — they certainly won't get accurate information from those who misrepresent us!

One guy claims to be an academic former creationist and writes under several pseudonyms, but refuses to give his real name because of alleged threats from creationists. Yeah, sure. Yet, he still supposedly gives lectures in colleges. This kind of tale is common among atheists who pretend to be former Christians and also pretend to be former creationists. F'rinstance:

Have you ever seen an anti-creationist say, "That was a well-written article and made some interesting points that I'll need to consider. Also, I like the style". Me, neither.

Ironically, some act like it's their duty to rid the world of biblical creationists (we're "evil", remember), but they have no consistent standard of morality! Let's go back to the accusation of "liar". Why not? Evolutionists do it, and it's consistent with their "survival of the fittest worldview". If evolution were true (and if we really were dishonest), we're just bundles of chemicals doing what we need to survive; they have no right to complain. But by doing so, they're inadvertently appealing to the ultimate source of moral authority — God. This means they know that their own worldview is irrational, so they have to sake a claim on ours, which is based on the Bible.

Meanwhile, the angry anti-creationists go on their secularist jihad to spread their propaganda. Why? Because they want to believe in evolution despite evidence — and despite rational thought. There are times when anti-creationists are so passionately devoted to their religion of evolutionism that they are not able to use logic. 

Atheists and evolutionists detest when Christians expose the flaws in their worldviews, and they especially hate the biblical creationists who refuse to compromise on the authority of the Word of God. They get meaner'n a burlap sack full of rattlesnakes when they see that they're clinging to evolutionism through blind faith, not evidence, and that said evidence actually affirms the Bible.

Some want to slap leather with us and — you know the expression, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight"? Some won't even go that far, not even bringing a pointed stick. They attack with fresh fruit. That is, using logical fallacies (their favorites seem to be ad hominem and equivocation.) Two things that infuriate these people is to tell the truth about them, and use sound logic. We all know they've been defeated in the logic department, but they'll deny defeat anyway.

Many are deceived (often willingly), chanting the Dobzhansky mantra, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", which has been shown to be false. Evolution has hindered science (for example, the claim that there is "junk" DNA, which turned into a huge embarrassment for them). And then there's the simple fact that someone's view of origins don't make no nevermind when calculating rocket trajectories or doing other practical science — which shows the foolishness in Bill Nye the Propaganda Guy's anti-creationist rants.

Evolutionary scientists are not the pillars of virtue that some people make them out to be. They have been known to fudge data if needed, bluster about "peer review" (an agenda-driven "good ol' boys' club"), and disingenuously call something "evolution" (even when evolution has nothing to do with the subject at hand). As a "settled science", evolution's predictive ability is as valuable as dust on the prairie, and its advocates spin a lot of yarns that get presented as science. When there is no evidence for their tall tales, they resort to "evolution of the gaps". Sorry to break it to some people, but scientists are fallible, just like everyone else. Just because we're told "Scientists say..." doesn't mean something is correct.

We have biblical creationists affirming the truth of creation, presenting evidence refuting evolution, giving evidence for a young earth, and defending the gospel. Then we have Darwinists, many of whom are conditioned to believe only the evolutionary party line, and are unaware that there is contrary evidence. Then there are the rabid evolutionists who are motivated by hatred, whose antics are described above. Creationists will continue to present the truth in hopes that it will not only strengthen the faith of Christians, but prick the consciences of the unbelievers. We do have the scientific evidence on our side, and we have the written Word of the Creator, who explains how to know him.

Note: This article began as an introduction to yesterday's "God of the Gaps" post, but got too long. So I developed it and let it stand on its own.

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Fundamentally Flawed Evolution is a "God of the Gaps"

Evidence and logic often indicate that the evidence shows the involvement of God. Atheists and other anti-creationists claim that creationists are invoking a "God of the gaps" excuse.

One way evolutionists misrepresent biblical creationists is to accuse them of invoking a "God of the gaps" approach to science. Actually, evolution is a god of the gaps!

However, when evolutionists get puzzled, they make evolution into their own magical god of the gaps. Basically, "There's missing information, but we know that EvolutionDidIt®, and we know that someday, we'll learn how it happened. This means we can believe in our evolutionary god of the gaps because that's 'science'." Meadow muffins! That's blind faith, Fergus.
When a false god is called upon to solve gaps in knowledge, this is sometimes referred to as “god of the gaps.” For example, if someone did not know that ice is formed when water freezes and proposed that there was an “ice god” that occasionally causes ice to spontaneously appear, then they would be guilty of using a god-of-the-gaps explanation.

Biblical Creation Is Not a God of the Gaps

Atheists have often accused Christians of invoking God to fill in a gap in scientific knowledge. Even the great scientist Isaac Newton has been accused by atheists of using a god-of-the-gaps explanation when he said that the universe reveals evidence of design.1 But creationists like Newton do not believe in a god of gaps, but a God of absolute necessity. Newton recognized that the universe could not exist without the supernatural creative power of an almighty Creator.

Newton and most of the other founding fathers of science could see that the universe can only be fully explained with a combination of natural and supernatural explanations. Creationists only invoke God in origins when a supernatural action is necessary according to the laws of science. For example, according to the conservation of matter and energy (the first law of thermodynamics), it is impossible for a universe to come into existence without the supernatural intervention of an all-powerful being.

To read the rest of this excellent article by Professor Stuart Burgess, click on "Evolution (Not Creation) Is a God of the Gaps". There is a follow-up of sorts to this article scheduled for tomorrow.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

DNA and Information Storage

The DNA molecule is amazingly complex, and more of its functions and properties are constantly being discovered. Its mind-boggling capabilities give lie to the concept of goo-to-you evolution, and affirm the amazing design of our Creator. DNA's abilities and storage dwarf even the best computers. In addition, it is known that DNA is unstable and quickly deteriorates, but has been found in dinosaur bones, along with soft tissues — which puts a burr under the saddle of those who believe in an ancient earth.

The DNA molecule is amazingly complex, and more of its functions and properties are constantly being discovered. Its mind-boggling capabilities give lie to the concept of goo-to-you evolution, and affirm the amazing design of our Creator.
Modified US Army photo of ENIAC, ca. 1946
DNA stores a vast amount of information that is processed in living things, and even has its own repair systems. It's mighty ironic that people who believe that DNA, life, the universe, and everything are the products of chance and random processes want to intelligently design something based on God's handiwork (biomimetics). How about using DNA for data storage?
Living creatures not only contain enormously complex machines, they also contain the ‘instruction manual’ to build these machines—which can be seen as a sort of ‘recipe book’ programmed on DNA, the famous ‘double helix’ molecule (deoxyribonucleic acid). In many articles and books, we have pointed out two of its remarkable features:
1. Huge information storage capacity dwarfing that of the most advanced computer hardware.
2. Surprising chemical instability.
Now some recent high-tech experiments on information storage have further vindicated our articles.
To finish reading, click on "DNA: the best information storage system". 

Monday, June 15, 2015

Dinosaur Egg Colors Defy Long-Age Beliefs

Although most fossilized dinosaur eggs seem to resemble stones in concrete, sometimes they are found with colors. But how can colors stay intact for the millions of years that deep-time advocates insist upon? A recent discovery is perplexing to secular scientists.

Sometimes dinosaur eggs are found with colors. But how can colors stay intact for "millions of years"? A recent discovery is perplexing to secular scientists.
Dinosaur eggs photo from US National Park Service
Finding dinosaur soft tissues and red blood cells indicate that dinosaurs are nowhere near as old as secular geologists and paleontologists maintain, since the tissues and blood cells would deteriorate completely over long periods of time. Molecules for pigmentation are rather complex as well, and would also break down. No, the accumulated evidence shows that that the unfortunate critters were rapidly buried as a result of the Genesis Flood, just a few thousand years ago.
German scientists revealed that some Chinese dinosaur eggs probably looked similar to the dark blue-green hue of modern emu eggs. If the dinosaur’s original pigment molecules revealed the egg’s color, then a significant question emerges. Can pigments really stay colorful for 66 million years?

The eggs came from three different upper Cretaceous sites, and their dark color contrasted with the sediment that encased them. Curious about the color, the German team from the University of Bonn conducted chemical separation techniques to isolate original dinosaur egg pigments—the first discovery of its kind. Though the eggs have likely lost some of their pattern detail, the presence of specific pigments named protoporphyrin and biliverdin within the ancient shells confirmed they were probably a dark blue-green color.
To read the rest, click on "Colorful Dinosaur Eggs Challenge Deep Time". 

Saturday, June 13, 2015

Giant Impact, Secular Miracles, and Bad Science

There are several secular models for the formation of the moon. Co-accretion (condensation) concept is that Earth and the moon were formed at the same time from the same nebula that formed the rest of the solar system. Another is the fission (spin-off) idea, where a molten Earth threw out a chunk of matter before it had cooled, and that became the moon. Then there's the giant impact hypothesis, where some cosmic wanderer about the size of Mercury smacked into Earth and the debris formed the moon, which was lassoed by gravity and yee haw, we got us a moon! None of these fit the data.

There are several secular models for the formation of the moon, but none of them fit the data. Disingenuous secular scientists are cheating the data to keep the giant impact hypothesis going.
If the impact had happened, maybe it looked like this. Image Credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech
Of the three main cosmic evolution failures, the least dismal failure is the impact hypothesis. Rather than give credit to the Creator, some owlhoots getting grant money spin yarns to keep that idea going. Problem is, they're being disingenuous. They invoke their version of miracles, and they tamper so much with the data, it has no basis in reality. Then this stuff is passed off as "science", and gullible anti-creationist tinhorns point to it and say, "See? Science is smrt! Yahyuh!" It happens far too often.
You can’t get Earth’s moon from a planetary collision without quasi-miraculous tweaks to the models.

Science TV shows often make the moon’s formation look simple: a body flies into the Earth, breaks it up, and out of the pieces the Earth-moon system forms. This accident of nature was unique to the Earth, since it didn’t happen for the other three rocky planets. Viewers of the animations may not be aware that the simple picture is false. Specifically, the materials making up Earth and the moon are too similar to be explained by some third body, which likely would have been composed of different materials.

A recent paper in Nature by Israeli and French astrophysicists reveals what secular naturalists are up against trying to explain Earth’s moon by purely physical processes, without design.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Moon Origin Models Require Cheating". 

Friday, June 12, 2015

Dis-CERN-ment and the End of the World

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This article almost went to my "Biblical Creation and Evangelism" Weblog, but I reckoned that it was appropriate to put here. Tough call. Also, this was a painful article to write, and I aim to share it with all y'all.
"Honey" is a six-week-old Jersey heifer calf.
Honey the Jersey heifer is unwilling to be dragged into false teachings.
People are spreading fear about CERN and the end of the world. So what is that CERN thing with 21 European member states, and what about that Large Hadron Collider, and all?

From the CERN site:
At CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, physicists and engineers are probing the fundamental structure of the universe. They use the world's largest and most complex scientific instruments to study the basic constituents of matter – the fundamental particles. The particles are made to collide together at close to the speed of light. The process gives the physicists clues about how the particles interact, and provides insights into the fundamental laws of nature 1.
The Large Hadron Collider is a huge underground particle accelerator:
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the world’s largest and most powerful particle accelerator. It first started up on 10 September 2008, and remains the latest addition to CERN’s accelerator complex. The LHC consists of a 27-kilometre ring of superconducting magnets with a number of accelerating structures to boost the energy of the particles along the way.

Inside the accelerator, two high-energy particle beams travel at close to the speed of light before they are made to collide. The beams travel in opposite directions in separate beam pipes – two tubes kept at ultrahigh vacuum. They are guided around the accelerator ring by a strong magnetic field maintained by superconducting electromagnets. The electromagnets are built from coils of special electric cable that operates in a superconducting state, efficiently conducting electricity without resistance or loss of energy. This requires chilling the magnets to ‑271.3°C – a temperature colder than outer space. For this reason, much of the accelerator is connected to a distribution system of liquid helium, which cools the magnets, as well as to other supply services 2.
Many people have heard of the poorly-named "God Particle", the Higgs boson, which is supposed to give evidence for the Big Bang 3. Again according to CERN:
On 4 July 2012, the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider announced they had each observed a new particle in the mass region around 126 GeV. This particle is consistent with the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model. The Higgs boson, as proposed within the Standard Model, is the simplest manifestation of the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism. Other types of Higgs bosons are predicted by other theories that go beyond the Standard Model.

On 8 October 2013 the Nobel prize in physics (link is external) was awarded jointly to François Englert and Peter Higgs "for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider." 4
It would be a mite helpful if they updated their site, though, since the celebration and Nobel Prize chatter were way too premature 5. So, we see that, according to their official public sources, CERN is a group of scientists doing science stuff, with apparently secular materialist worldviews. Scientists work from their worldviews, so no big deal there.

Let me elaborate on that part about working from worldviews. We all have them, and they're comprised of our presuppositions about how the world works, how we should respond to situations, our emotions, and all sorts of things — not everyone is aware of their worldview, and few have systematically spelled it out. Secular scientists work from them, creation scientists work from theirs as well. Similarly, have you ever watched paranormal investigation "reality shows"? They have readings from various kinds of equipment, maybe an audio recording now and then — but just data. When they assert that they've found spirit activity, they are interpreting and presenting their material according to their worldviews. If you go to a gathering of "ancient astronaut" enthusiasts, expect them to assume that UFOs and alien visitations are a "given", then they work from that presupposition. Darwinists and old-earth geologists assume that evolution is true and that the world is ancient, and build from their conjectures. See? We all have worldviews and operate from them.

A few scientists have sounded an alarm, saying that the LHC could have disastrous results, even ending the world 6. (However, there is some contention that atheist Stephen Hawking's remark was misquoted 7.) Personally, I suspicion that some writers and members of the public are after the sensationalistic doomsday aspects, and not really citing the scientists correctly.

For that matter, some people think that because the LHC is underground, it's because they know something terrible may happen. The facts are disappointing, because the thing is underground for more mundane and practical reasons 8. Another item that spooks a few people and leads to a passel of speculations is that a statue of the Hindu false god Shiva (sometimes called the destroyer, others call it the benefactor). This statue was a gift from supporters of CERN in India, where Shiva is "trampling ignorance" 9. This idol is annoying, but I don't see that it means CERN are up to no good.

None of this was painful for me. The material above was time-consuming, what with references and all. Here is where it hurts.

On a podcast of "Fighting for the Faith" 10, Chris Rosebrough showed how disgraced religious huckster Jim Bakker and his associates were using world-ending speculations, prophesies, inappropriate Scriptures, Apocryphal books and more about CERN. Saddle up, doomsday's a-comin', and we need to round up our supplies for when times get bad! Bakker's show conveniently sells survival gear and food for those dismal times 11. Indeed, if you look at the archives of "The Jim Bakker Show" starting with this one 12 (I see three in the series), and if you can endure it, survival items are being hawked (no relation to Stephen Hawking). Books, too. This seems like a religious-oriented shop-at-home network.

If the world is coming to an end, what good will it do to go broke on buying that stuff beforehand?

On "Fighting for the Faith", Pastor Rosebrough had an episode called "Cern and the Gates of Gozer" 13, which inspired this article. He played an excerpt and had a bit of fun with it that is well worth your time. Click on the number "13" just above and you can listen to or download the episode. The part I'm jawing about starts around the 16:40 mark, just after the foolishness of Chuck Pierce. Edit: Chris has another bit about CERN, this time with "prophet" William Tapley. You can listen to or download that here, at the 38:06 mark.

"Why are you talking about the end of the world when your ministry is about the beginning, Cowboy Bob?"

Glad you asked, and it's about time I got to that part.

Genesis is the foundation for all major Christian doctrines, 14 so the end of all things makes more sense if you have a solid understanding of the beginning. Also, biblical creation ministries often emphasize critical thinking 15 and discernment 16What is in the Jim Bakker stuff above? Nothing resembling sound exegesis or biblical hermeneutics, that's for sure. No, those sidewinders are just as bad as atheopaths, using emotional manipulation to get people to react — in this case, to make money. People who are established in the Word and sound doctrine, as well as having some skill in critical thinking, should be able to get past the snake oil salesmen, and avoid getting roped into false teachings (resisting like Honey the heifer at the top of the article). Also, I think I heard one of those people on the Bakker show say that if you don't have the Apocrypha, you don't have the whole Bible. Really? It was left out for a reason. Also, I've seen many people who have odd views base a lot of their material on the Apocrypha.

Some religious hucksters are using fear about the CERN particle accelerator to sell books, food, and other merchandise. Should we be worried? Do they have a point, or are they just using the gospel for sordid gain?

While I'm at it, I want to add a few words of caution. There are social media Pages that claim to be creationist, and will even post links to valid material. But watch out, some slip in theistic evolutionist, agnostic, cult stuff, and other Bible-denying material. Sure, it may look good at its source, but you may be roped into some bad stuff. Before you tie up to someone's hitching post, find out what they really believe. 

There are cults pretending to be creationists 17, and I know of one Page that is apparently run by a Modalist (where God is not a Trinity, but manifest himself in three modes). Ask them who God is, if they believe the Trinity, if Jesus is God in the flesh who died and bodily rose from the dead, if the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity. As for me, look up top, I have a Statement of Faith, and I expect the moderators on our Facebook Page to agree to it. I reckon that some of these people are less concerned with equipping Christians and presenting the gospel to the lost than they are with bolstering their egos; some seem to embrace creation so they can vociferously attack atheists. Who gets the glory, God or themselves?

Earlier, I linked to material from Lutheran pastor Chris Rosebrough. Now I'm going to give you a link to Dr. James White, a Reformed Baptist. I'm in neither camp, but both of them give important information to help people from being deceived. I strongly recommend that you spend an hour (yes, really!) on how Tony Campolo used Scripture twisting and appeal to emotion in regards to homosexuality 18. The principles there apply to more than just that subject (click on the number "17" for the free audio links). 

My exhortations are that you check with Scripture, pray, seek solid teachings, and just think about things. Don't react with emotions, that just gets people deceived and even trapped. Stand on the authority of Scripture first and foremost. It doesn't matter if someone is a religious celebrity, your spouse, a pastor, a friend, or something I write doesn't sit well with you. See what God's Word says, that's the final authority for Christians.