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

Monday, November 30, 2015

Earth Just Keeps Looking Better

Although nobody has seen them, astronomers are pretty sure that planets orbit other stars. We have some nice photos, but those are artists' conceptions. High-powered telescopes like the space-based Kepler give some data to work with. (Nobody had seen Pluto until they went out there and looked with New Horizons probe, remember.) Lots of time, effort, and money have been spent on finding a thousand or so exoplanets, with the hope of finding signs of life. People were betting the odds that there just had to be lots of planets out there, and just had to be life on them. Hope they didn't bet the farm.

Many exoplanets have been discovered, but the few candidates for being habitable are losing credibility. Looks like Earth is still the best place. After it, it was created to be inhabited.
Artist’s concept of an exoplanet discovered by Kepler. Image credit: NASA
Scientists are looking for the "just right" combination of planetary size, composition, star type, and other things to consider if a planet could be habitable. More considerations have narrowed the focus, making the chances of finding life out there (any life, let alone, sentient) even less likely. Now those Voted Most Likely in the astrobiologists' yearbooks are becoming disqualified. Looks like Earth is still the place for life to exist, made by our Creator as described in Genesis.

In addition, the idea of having photographic evidence of a planet in the making is based on the failed planetary accretion model and a whole passel of wishful thinking. Cosmic evolution only looks good in story books, but cannot stand up to real science.

You can read about these stories by clicking on "There’s No Place Like Earth".


Saturday, November 28, 2015

Podcast — What's the Difference Between Intelligent Design and Creation Science?

Despite the efforts of people in both camps, there is still some confusion about Intelligent Design and biblical creation science. It doesn't help matters when some owlhoots will be deceptive in their efforts to protect Darwinism, saying things like, "Intelligent Design is just creation science in disguise!" Not hardly!

There is still some confusion about the differences between Intelligent Design and biblical creation science. Two 15-minute "Scripture on Creation" podcasts help explain, plus some links at the end for further information.

There are clear differences between ID and biblical creation science. The main difference is that ID is not a Christian movement. While there are Christians involved, there are people from many philosophies and religions in it. The ID movement wants to show that evolution cannot happen — at least, not without a Designer somewhere in the process, whoever or whatever that may be. Biblical creationists tend to take a presuppositional approach, presenting arguments with science, but in a biblical framework because the Bible makes it clear that the issue is not intellectual or scientific, but spiritual (see links below). Creationists use "intelligent design" arguments, but include the creation framework, pointing to God the Creator, as revealed in Scripture.

Speaking of Scripture, Dr. Ben Scripture has a pair of podcasts on his Scripture on Creation program on this subject, "Evolution, Creation & ID: What's the Difference". His podcasts are less that 15 minutes each. To hear them, you need to make a few clicks. First, go to this radio program link. Then, click on the "Launch Sermon Player" link (you may have to scroll down). Look for 11/19/15 and 11/26/15, "Evolution, Creation & ID: What's the Difference Part 1" and "Evolution, Creation & ID: What's the Difference Part 2" to listen on site or download, both are free. If you're having difficulties, here are direct MP3 download links to Part 1 and Part 2.

There is still some confusion about the differences between Intelligent Design and biblical creation science. Two 15-minute "Scripture on Creation" podcasts help explain, plus some links at the end for further information.
Also, I rounded up some additional material about Intelligent Design:
These last two are from ID organizations. They seem a mite biased and misrepresent creation science, but here you go:

Friday, November 27, 2015

Sneaky Sidewinders

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One thing cowboys who travel certain desert areas of the Southwest United States have to know about is the sidewinder. This is a kind of rattlesnake is known by several names, but "sidewinder" is popular because of its method of travel — moving sideways across the desert sand. This critter is fast at 18 MPH (29 KPH), and only two parts of its body touch the sand at one time, which is a big advantage in the heat. Amazingly, it doesn't need to drink water.

The sidewinder is a venomous rattlesnake found only in certain desert regions. It was given unique abilities to move, hunt, and live without drinking water by their Creator.
Image credit: NPS Photo by Kristen Lalumiere
No need to keep yourself up at night worrying about being chased down, though. This rattler doesn't see you as a food source, and doesn't use its speed for hunting. Also, it prefers to be active at night. The sidewinder wiggles itself under the surface of the sand (camouflage) near a food source (the young 'uns prefer lizards, and older ones want rodents). Then it pops out, sinks its venomous fangs in its prey and has supper. Although the venom is not as potent as its larger rattler cousins, fatalities have been reported, so don't mess around with one, savvy?

I mentioned that it has several names. One is the horned rattlesnake because it has elevated scales that protect its eyes while digging itself into the sand for ambush and cool-down.

There is a very similar sidewinder in Namibia and southern Angola, Peringuey's adder. These bad boys look and act very similar to the North American versions, but are on the other side of the world. One fact-free Darwinoid said, "Though the two species live on opposite sides of the globe, they evolved in similar ways because they have a similar environment". If someone is going to tout evolutionism, some evidence, mechanisms, and more would be mighty interesting. Snake evolution is a serious puzzler for evolutionists, as the fossil record is mighty poor in providing clear transitional forms. Explaining why there aren't more of them in similar conditions elsewhere is also problematic for evolutionists. So statements about how they evolved originate only from faith, and nothing more.

When you study on it, it's readily apparent that the Creator gave special design features for the sidewinder for its unique habitat.

There is a spiritual application here as well. False teachers of evolutionism disguise themselves as confident purveyors of science (including some who pose as Christians), laying in wait, then injecting their venom of evolutionary pseudoscience into unsuspecting people. Just like the reptiles, these false teachers should be avoided. In addition, getting a good working knowledge of what creation science proponents actually believe and teach, from the sources, can go a long way to prevent spiritual and scientific poisoning.

Further reading on sidewinders is below, followed by a nifty short video of one of the critters in action:

Thursday, November 26, 2015

The Foolishnes of Demonizing Creationists

Advocates of atoms-to-antitheist evolution have a habit of demonizing Christians, especially creationists. Ridicule of individuals and organizations is a registered brand at the Darwin Ranch, and this approach goes way, way back. People like Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, and others proclaim that creation science is a hindrance to true science, and do not admit to the true hindrances to science that evolutionary thinking has caused. This is actually lying about the history of modern science. Clinton Richard Dawkins is taking demonizing a mite literally.

Demonizing creationists is actually a lie about the history of modern science. The truth is, science developed under a biblical environment.

Modern scientific methods have evolved (heh!) in a biblical environment. That's because other cultures did not foster the development of science. Creationists want to know the hows and whys of God's handiwork. We can be thankful for the godly people who developed science and scientific methods.
World leading antitheist Richard Dawkins has once more blasted creationists in an interview in the Wall Street Journal. He took special offence at the Christian creationist involvement in science and society, once again showing no respect or understanding of our common humanity. A day or so later we witnessed another mass killing in American classrooms where a social misfit took his aggression out on his peers, apparently singling out Christians in particular, at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. His social media files suggest an unhealthy interest in guns, violence, the Nazis and the Occult. The targeting of Christians may have happened in other incidents as well, for instance at the Columbine tragedy in 1999.

While we cannot directly link Dawkins’ comments to the school shooting, he and other ‘New atheists’ have twisted the perception of Christians, and especially creationists, creating a climate of hatred, ignorance and disrespect in society. Sam Harris wishes to heap such embarrassment upon faith in God that it becomes impossible for people to express their belief. Even Christian evolutionists can’t escape this hatred; evolutionist Michael Reiss was forced out of his position at the Royal Society (UK) simply for calling for respectful dialogue with evolution dissenters in the science classroom (see here). And Dawkins is perhaps the most vocal voice of this aggressive new atheism. If Dawkins spoke of the Jewish community in the way he speaks of Christians he would be labelled anti-Semitic—and rightly so. But what of anti-Christian rhetoric where one’s words may incite hatred of Christians? Do the likes of Dawkins have a responsibility to be more careful in what they say?
To read the rest, click on "Richard Dawkins, anti-Christian language and the rise of science". 


Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Zircon Crystals and Rethinking Early Earth Life

The more things change — the more things change. A heap of evolutionary icons are being overthrown, often by evolutionists' own science. (Sorta like being shot with your own gun.) There are numerous challenges to the age of the solar system and the universe (especially with discoveries regarding Pluto), Lenski's bacteria experiments prove that a virus can stay pretty much the same, endosymbiosis needs a re-think and some actual evidence, water on primordial Earth is being reexamined, Lucy was an extinct ape that walked on its knuckles, and more. It's a good time to be a biblical creationist!

Another evolutionary re-think in progress. Carbon in zircon crystals moves evolutionary time way, way back.
Zircon in Jack Hills, Australia's Narre Gneiss Terrane
Image credit: NASA/GSFC/METI/ERSDAC/JAROS, and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team
But wait, there's another bronc bucking in the corral at the Darwin Ranch! Zircon crystals are showing traces of carbon. Darwinists are assuming that the carbon came from ancient life forms, and commence to using assumptions and circular reasoning (especially the dreadful radiometric dating stuff). Guess that means "carbon footprints", huh? Time to rewrite the science textbooks yet again. Instead of propping up Darwin's failed hypothesis, scientists should see that the evidences does not support evolution, but rather, shows that God created life, the universe, and everything recently.
Zircon crystals—little time capsules preserving bits of Earth’s ancient past—have in our recent past given evolutionary scientists a whole new view of conditions on the early Earth. Previously thought to have been a Hadean hell of molten magma for a very long time, the early Earth is now seen in the light of zircon-trapped atoms as a place that cooled enough for water to condense within 160 million years of being spit out of a solar nebula and coalescing as a fiery ball. Now the discovery of flecks of graphite in an Australian zircon crystal has raised the possibility that life evolved very quickly in that ancient world, 300 million years earlier than previously thought.
To read the rest, click on "Did Earth’s Earliest Life Leave Carbon Footprints in a 4.1 Billion-Year-Old Zircon?

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Early Earth Ocean Excitement

"Science is self-correcting", they say. Not hardly! Scientists tend to cling to their paradigms. Sometimes it's out of pride, other times it's because an idea is presumed to be an undisputed fact, other reasons — but especially if it involves evolution in some way. Evolutionary theories keep getting retooled these days, don't they?

The old textbook concept of an ancient dry Earth is being challenged, but some scientists are resisting the change. They should go all-out and accept the fact that the Earth was created recently, oceans and all.
Image credit: morgueFile / kconnors
For a long time, the established view was that, since Earth and the rest of the solar system formed out of hot gasses at about the same time, it was dry when it cooled off. A new theory gets traditional long-age scientists all het up because it says Earth was wet, and did not get water from asteroids. That causes consternation, because other scientists need the asteroid theory, despite contrary evidence, because asteroids and things supposedly brought life here so it could evolve. These science-deniers are suppressing the truth that creation scientists have been telling them all along: the evidence shows the Earth is much younger than fits into their schemes, was created wet, very good — and fit for life.
Time to rewrite the textbooks again. Earth started out wet, scientists now claim, overturning decades of dogma.

“Earth may have kept its own water rather than getting it from asteroids,” reads a story title in Science Magazine , a summary of a paper in Science. The authors concluded, from divination of lavas on Baffin Island collected in 1985 (Astrobiology Magazine), that the mantle must have gained its water directly from the protoplanetary nebula.

Astronomers had been telling the public for many years that Earth started out dry and got its water from comets. When the deuterium ratio of comet ice turned out to be too high, they had a problem.
To read the rest, click on "New Earth Ocean Theory Is All Wet". No, you won't need to put on your wellies


Monday, November 23, 2015

The End of Endosymbiosis

One of the difficulties for spore-to-sportscaster evolution is the evolution of the cell. The hypotheses of endosymbiosis has simple bacteria-like cells way back yonder being the ancestors for the cells found in plants and animals today, including the trillions of cells found in humans. With advances in genome sequencing (and a mighty helpful reduction in cost), endosymbiosis is in a world of hurt.

Research is threatening endosymbiosis, an idea about how cells evolved. More than that, research is affirming creation, not evolution.
Image credit: Darryl Leja, NHGR / National Human Genome Research Institute
New research is a vexation for evolutionists, which is not surprising, since endosymbiosis was based mainly on superficial resemblances and all. One problem is that there is no evidence for mitochondrial genes having an origin in the bacterial cells. Another is that there is no sign of the kind of steady, gradual progression that we've all been assured is a registered trademark of evolution. What we find is organized complexities specific to organisms, just the way our Creator planned things out.
One of the biggest problems for evolution is how animal and plant cells, eukaryotes, could have been derived from precursor bacteria-like cells called prokaryotes. Unlike prokaryotes, eukaryotic cells are highly compartmentalized and contain membrane-bound organelles such as the nucleus, mitochondria, and (in plants) chloroplasts that are not found in bacteria or archaea (non-bacterial single-celled prokaryotes). Along with numerous other genetic and molecular differences, these complex cellular organelles not found in prokaryotes, form an unbridgeable gap for evolution to somehow accomplish.

Evolutionists have long struggled to present a non-speculative explanation for the origin of the eukaryotic cell nucleus and other complex cellular features. One idea that has been quite popular for about 50 years is that mitochondria and chloroplasts were derived from a mythical process called endosymbiosis. The heart of this explanation is the fact that the mitochondrion possesses a small circular piece of DNA containing some of the genes it needs to function, combined with a process of organelle replication. This functional combination looks similar to how bacterial DNA is constructed and how bacteria reproduce, but the appearances are only superficial.
To read the rest, click on "Endosymbiosis: A Theory in Crisis".


Saturday, November 21, 2015

Audio Series: "God and Evolution" by Andrew McCaskill

This resource is a free series of 16 lectures on God and Evolution. There is some science, but also strong theology. Theistic evolution is shown to be fundamentally flawed.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

As regular readers may have noticed, an advantage to my data entry job is being able to listen to things. Rows of people in Cubicleland are plugged in to music, radios, audio books, and in my case, podcasts. I happened across this series called "God and Evolution" by Andrew McCaskill on Sermon Audio, and am pleased to share it with you.

The lecture series is a mite longer than I usually share, what with being sixteen parts and all. But I reckoned it was important. It was presented April-September 2015 at Emmanuel Baptist Church in Verona, Virginia. Mr. McCaskill isn't one of those yee-ha entertainment-driven teachers. Instead, he is soft-spoken and more concerned with delivering his content. You won't be overwhelmed with science, but there is some as well as serious theological content involved; Andrew show serious flaws in theistic evolution. Y'all know how I feel about that stuff.

Andrew McCaskill has taught biology for sixteen years. Six of those years were in Thailand, where he led creation/evolution seminars to help Thai Christians understand the implications of the origins debate. Nowadays, he's teaching biology at Grace Christian School in Stauton, Virginia as well as teaching at his church. But that's not enough! He's also studying at Reformed Theological Seminary, and has a wife and four children. Busy guy!

These talks can be heard online or downloaded (either way is free) from Sermon Audio. The picture below (click for more bigness) is what you'll see when you click on the link I'll give in a moment. If you're not a member of Sermon Audio, don't worry about it when you get a prompt to sign up. Click on "Maybe later", and the download starts right away.  Some of the lectures have notes in PDF, so if you're inclined to getting those, click on the title of the message and look for the "PDF Text" button below the download audio options. 

I think you'll be educated and blessed by paying attention to these lectures. Click here for the "God and Evolution" series at Sermon Audio.

God and Evolution Series by Andrew McCaskill at Sermon Audio

Friday, November 20, 2015

Meteorites, Circular Reasoning, and the Age of the Earth

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The age of the Earth is determined primarily through radiometric dating methods. However, radiometric dating is loaded with scientific difficulties, circular reasoning, presuppositions, and other anti-science posturing by long-age proponents. (Links to an eight-part series on radiometric dating difficulties can be found here, and you can also search the site for articles on "age of the earth".) The workers at the Darwin Ranch don't bother to use Earth rocks very much. Instead, they calculate the putative age of the Earth from space rocks.

The age of the Earth is primarily calculated from space rocks using radiometric dating. This leads to a great deal of presuppositional circular reasoning.
Meteor Crater, Arizona / Image credit: NASA
The cognating on using meteorites and other space rocks is that the rocks right here on the place they're trying to find the age for are no good, what with plate tectonics fouling them up and all. Using their presuppositions, secular scientists assume that, since everything was formed at the same time billions of evolutionist years ago, space rocks are more pure and can yield reliable dates — except that radiometric dating is fundamentally flawed, see the articles linked above.

Further, there have been many instances of the solar system refusing to act its age. That is, there are many instances of our celestial neighbors showing signs of comparative youth, not "deep time", such as Pluto, Venus, and others. So they have very doubtful assumptions that the solar system is old and that the rocks that fell to Earth are old and more pure. This circular reasoning is used to calculate the age of our planet.

The crater pictured above was formed 50,000 imaginary years ago by an asteroid that hit Earth. Or was it a meteorite after all? Sure would be nice if they had evidence for that alleged time, though. Fragments of the big ol' rock were analyzed, and when scientists found dates they liked, they confidently asserted Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. And they want that big number so that evolution can happen — or so they think.

Their conclusions were flawed from the get-go, with a whole passel of conjecture based on erroneous presuppositions being passed off as facts. What's worse is that people fall for what "scientists say". The evidence shows what biblical creationists have been telling us all along: Earth is not billions of years old, there is no microbes-to-magician evolution, and God created everything just like he said in his Word.

Thursday, November 19, 2015

DNA Repair Mechanics

DNA is vitally important, but is subjected to abuse through use; various stresses cause considerable hurt. Passing along such seriously damaged DNA to the next generation would lead to a quick extinction of humanity, and wouldn't be much good for other living things, either.

DNA and cells wear out. A 2015 Nobel Prize was awarded for research into the intricate repair mechanisms, inadvertently exhibiting the handiwork of the Creator.
Combined clip-art images from Clker
The 2015 Nobel Prize for evolution —

"No, Cowboy Bob. There is no Nobel Prize for evolution."

Oh, right. That's mighty silly of me. Anyway, the 2015 Nobel Prize for chemistry was awarded for research into how cells repair their own DNA. It's not just a matter of enzymes, but also communication of information, and repairs are conducted. This process is clearly from the grace of our Creator, and evolution is impossible.
Tomas Lindahl from Sweden, Paul Modrich from the United States, and American-Turkish researcher Aziz Sancar were awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for uncovering how cells repair their own DNA.1 DNA repair mechanisms keep us alive, and understanding them undergirds a fuller comprehension of how cells work and fend off the disastrous consequences of too many mutations. The research of these three men implies that cells have always used DNA repair mechanisms, thus uncovering evolutionary mysteries that have not yet found sensible solutions.

Their pioneering work, mostly conducted in the 1970s and 1980s, opened a door to what has become a large research field. Investigators around the world continue to uncover new enzymes and communication networks, including feedback protocols and cellular subroutines, all aimed at protecting DNA. Good thing this happens in every cell on the planet, because otherwise DNA would lose vital information.
To read the rest, click on "2015 Nobel Prize Highlights Cell Repair Mystery". Also, see the Genesis Week video, "DNA Fixer Upperer".

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Where Did the Mind Come From?

If you study on it for a spell, you'll realize that the brain and the mind are extremely complicated. DNA is busy doing work, perception is happening, signals are being relayed so we can make sense of what our senses tell us, we have abstract thought, composition, and much more. You've really got to hand it to the brain!

The purposeful, complex activities of the brain and mind show the work of the Creator. Of course, some evolutionists give ridiculous praise to evolution.
Image credit: Pixabay / geralt
There has been a tremendous amount of research being conducted regarding the brain, thought processes, various aspects of neuroscience, and the like. Some give the typical hand-waving adoration of Darwin (it seems like some scientists consider this obligatory), there is some dreadful science with fact-free conjectures — and some that not only shows how evolutionary thinking has nothing to do with biological science, and even hints at the Creator.
Evolutionists take swipes at saying the most complex matter in the universe is a product of blind, aimless processes of nature.

Did sight emerge from blindness without wanting to? Did thinking emerge from irrational matter? These are the propositions evolutionists must accept in their attempts to build a human brain from nonliving solids and fluids, and ultimately from a nothingness that exploded. Let’s look at some evolutionary perspectives on the mind, then consider discoveries that point to creation.
To read the rest, head on over to "The Mind and Brain: Evolved or Created?"

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Agonizing Alaskan Dinosaur Deposits

While it is expected for scientists to work from their worldviews and assumptions, secularists have a habit of clinging to evolution and uniformitarian biases to the point of absurdity. Part of that problem is that these scientists do not consider possibilities beyond their own presuppositions. Speculations are put forward in an effort to explain various findings, but those speculations often defy analysis.

Evolutionary paleontologists cling to uniformitarian assumptions, even when the data are in conflict with the facts. The best explanation for this discovery is the global Genesis Flood, not a local river flood.
Juvenile hadrosaur / Pavel Bochkov / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 2.0
In the instance of juvenile Hadrosaur-like bones discovered in Alaska, the ruling paradigm dictates that, although these dinosaurs were rapidly buried, it was due to local flooding. This concept does not fit the observed facts. The better explanation is anathema to them: the rapid burial was due to the global Genesis Flood.
In late September of this year a report was published on a new species of Hadrosaurid dinosaur (commonly and hereafter called duck-billed dinosaurs) dubbed Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis (“ancient grazer” in the language of Alaska Inupiat Eskimos). The newly discovered species is considered to be closely related to Edmontosaurus but has a few anatomical differences, especially in the skull, and most noticeably in the mouth area. The discovery, a cooperative effort between the University of Alaska Fairbanks and Florida State University, took place in the Liscomb Bone Bed of the Prince Creek Formation along the Colville River more than 300 miles (500 kilometers) northwest of Fairbanks. The findings were published in Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, an international paleontology quarterly journal.
To read about the findings and the best explanation, click on "Were Duck-Billed Dinosaurs Found in Alaska Warm Blooded?" Also, to see about how sneaky the owlhoots at in the evolutionary press can be on this subject, click on "Deceptive Paleontology Reporting".

Monday, November 16, 2015

Evolutionary Blame Shifting

One of the most common moves for someone who feels that they've been dealt a losing hand is to play the victim card. It's usually a move to get sympathy from the uninformed, emotionally-driven crowd or from peers who shave the same perspectives as the card player. Instead of playing the hand they're dealt or cashing in their chips and finding another game, they try to stack the deck and manipulate others.

One trick that people use when they want to play for sympathy is to "play the victim card". Atheists, evolutionists, and others are great at this. When the facts are checked (as in the linked story), the victims are actually dishonest.
Modified from Clker clip art
There are certain political parties that are famous for this, as well as atheists and evolutionists who realize that they've been bested by Christians and creationists. When this "oh poor me, I'm a victim" move is used, it can be cranked up to blaming other people for circumstances of the player's own making. It's sort of like an old joke I heard: A mother hears crying from the living room and rushes in. "What's the matter, little Tyler?", and Tyler sobs, "Tony hit me back!"

Creationists have to deal with bad plays like this quite frequently.

Here is a story where the evolution-biased media accepts false reporting from a fake "victim", and uses it to blame others who were not the cause.
The Australian Museum claims it has righted a wrong against one of its earliest curators Johann Ludwig Gerard Krefft whom they say was sacked for being—wait for it—an evolutionist!

Known as Gerard Krefft, he was curator from 1864 to 1874, and was physically removed from office in a public and humiliating manner. He subsequently sued for unfair dismissal and the government of the day agreed to pay some compensation but—for various reasons including that he refused to accept the terms under which it was awarded—he did not receive the full amount.

The museum’s current director, Kim McKay, has given up her traditional office space and turned it into the ‘Krefft Room’ as a tribute to the zoologist and palaeontologist. Australia’s national broadcaster, the ABC, devoted almost seven minutes to that story on its 7.30 television program.
To read the rest, get ready to cry for the "victim" and click on "Was Gerard Krefft sacked for being an evolutionist?"

Saturday, November 14, 2015

Making God More Attractive through Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Theistic Evolutionists and other long-age compromisers have claimed that biblical creationists are distorting the gospel message and being harmful to the overall health and unity of the church as a whole. Why? Because we believe that the Bible means what it says, even back in Genesis 1, and don't cotton to adding to God's Word (Prov. 30:6). People have come to faith in Christ through biblical creation ministries, and I reckon one reason is that we don't compromise on the authority of the Bible. They, however, are trying to make God more attractive by elevating atheistic interpretations of evidence to the magisterial position, and telling God what he said and meant. By adding to God's Word and taking a low view of Scripture, they are essentially lying about God. These owlhoots invariably demonize biblical creationists, as I discussed in one example, here.

Theistic evolutionists and other old Earth compromisers claim that they are making the gospel more attractive to unbelievers by removing biblical creation. What kind of gospel is it that needs help from heresies?

We're used to being called "science deniers", creatards, cultists, and other things by atheists and liberal "Christians". In fact, N.T. Wright called us Gnostics! (Interestingly, some misotheists use a kind of Gnostic approach that, if God exists, he's evil and wrote the Bible to deceive people.) People who know the Bible can see that the bad theology of theistic evolution is destructive to the gospel message by its reworking of the Pelagian heresy, and twisting Scripture in general. If you check the statement of faith on many biblical creationists' sites including Answers In Genesis, Creation Ministries International, Institute for Creation Research, even mine, you'll be hard pressed to find anything outlandish.

"Yeah, but you're anti-science!" 

Better read this about the anti-science charge, old son. 

By the way, TEs and atheists accusing creationists of believing in "magic". Well, many TEs believe that, although the Genesis account of creation is not literal in their eyes, Adam was real — in a sense. At some point, God bestowed souls on hominids, then one became Adam. That's strictly imagination and eisegesis, and it smacks of magic.

Meanwhile, the compromisers and heretics are often cozying up with atheists to slap leather with creationists and promote evolutionism. (Like the tinhorn atheopath that said, "And the reason people like me and Tyler Francke repudiate a 'young' Earth is not because it is 'biblical' but because it is SHEER NONSENSE.") Of course, they are both arguing from a Bible-denying worldview and ignoring the abundant evidence that not only demonstrates a young Earth, but refutes old Earth hypotheses. Both camps ride together for the Darwin Brand. One claims to be Christian (but with a low view of Scripture, lacking understanding of it, and presenting heresy). The professing atheists in other camp suppress the truth of God (Prov. 18:2, Rom. 1:18-22). 

Why can't we believe what atheists say about God? Seems like a silly question even on the surface, but apparently it needs to be addressed. They hate God (Rom. 1:28-32, Rom. 8:6-8), and cannot understand spiritual matters (1 Cor. 2:14). Further, they do not seek God (Psalm 10:4) and need to be born from above (John 3:3, Rom. 6:23Col. 1:21). 

I contend that evolutionism is a cult, and it's mighty interesting that "Christian" cults have a burr under their collective saddles regarding biblical creation. False religions hate the truth of God's Word, including atheism and theistic evolutionism, seeking to destroy the foundations of the gospel found in creation. Really, if evolution were true, there would be no need for God the Creator: Is there creation with a purpose, or wasteful, cruel, random chance? Evolution and creation cannot be reconciled, the conflict is too great. People who play around with compromise bring to mind 1 Kings 18:21. 

Judas was accepted as one of the twelve inner core of disciples, even though they knew he was a thief (John 12:6), but was a superficial "believer". When Jesus said that he was going to be betrayed, nobody said, "I bet I know who it is!" and named Judas (John 13:21-25). Theistic evolutionists pose as one of our number, but their false teachings are dangerous, and they should be exposed for what they are. If nothing else, I recommend avoiding them so they don't corrupt your theology.

Let God be God, and let his Word speak plainly. There is no need for TEs and other compromisers to lie about God so that he is more attractive to unbelievers; what kind of gospel — or God — would need that?  Also, it's not up to us in our wisdom to do the saving (1 Cor. 2:1-5), people are saved through the work of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). We need to present the gospel message accurately, without compromise, and the gospel begins in Genesis 1:1. Apostates, atheists, and false teachers need to repent before it's too late (John 3:18 ESV).

Friday, November 13, 2015

Creation, Evolution, and Entropy

A classic argument used by creationists against microbes-to-mechanic evolution is the first law of thermodynamics, which in the simplified form states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Riding close on its heels is the second law, where energy becomes less useful. This is entropy. The second law has been modified in recent years, formerly understood as everything goes from order to disorder.

Creationists have long used thermodynamics to refute evolution. Unfortunately, many of us do not use the argument properly. In addition, many evolutionists try to refute creationist arguments, but they misunderstand the laws.
Image credit: Pixabay / skeeze
Years ago, I used the entropy argument inefficiently. Yes, our own observations and common sense tell us that things go from order to disorder. But too many Christians do not have a good working knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics and are unable to respond to critics. Of course, when tinhorns who do not understand the material resort to "Dawkins refuted this", throwing links at you, or complaining about what is not mentioned, it's time to saddle up and ride on. That's part of the problem — many evolutionists do not have a good working knowledge of thermodynamics, either. They misuse the concepts and think they've "refuted" the creationist argument. Even so, the laws support biblical creation (Gen. 1:1, Heb. 1:3a).

While there are some good arguments showing how the second law of thermodynamics is an enemy of evolution, creationists need to work on getting a more cohesive argument. Here are some things for you to ponder.
The second law of thermodynamics has long been a topic of discussion in the evolution/creation debate. What is the second law of thermodynamics? Let us start with the first law of thermodynamics—that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. While the total amount of energy is conserved, energy can be transferred and converted into different forms. We observe that in these changes, energy becomes less useful to us. To quantify this observation, physicists define a term, entropy, to describe how un-useful energy is. Thermodynamic entropy is defined by energy divided by temperature, expressed on an absolute scale. The preferred unit of energy is the Joule (J), and the preferred absolute temperature scale is Kelvin (K), so entropy is properly expressed in J/K. The second law of thermodynamics can be stated a number of different ways. The simplest form is that entropy never decreases. We normally use the letter S to represent entropy, and the Greek letter ∆ to represent a change, so mathematically we express the second law of thermodynamics as ∆S ≥ 0.

This expression shows that, while entropy can be increased, it cannot be decreased. This peculiarity introduces an asymmetry that makes the second law of thermodynamics fundamentally different from the first law, and from many other laws of physics. While other physical laws permit changes that can go either way in time, the second law works only one way. Any process that follows other physical laws is permitted, as long as entropy does not decrease. Thus, the second law imposes a direction to time, so some physicists and philosophers refer to the second law of thermodynamics as time’s arrow.
To finish reading this semi-technical article, click on "Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics Favor Evolution?". To further your education, I linked to additional material in these posts on the subject: "Evolution — It's Against the Law Part 1", "Evolution — It's Against the Law Part 2", and "Evolution — It's Against the Law Part 3". Part 3 is very interesting, but you need to be enlightened by Part 2 so you can get a good appreciation of the content.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Cladograms and Mosaic Critters

Cladograms are fun examples of begging the question, since cladistics is a way of classifying organisms according to their features and their evolutionary ancestors. It's fun and easy to do, just arrange things according to your personal preference and molecules-to-metallurgist evolutionary bias, and lookie here, we got us science!

Pardon the sarcasm, but cladistics is laden with biases and subjective reasoning.

Phony evidence of evolution involves the use of cladograms and "mosaic" creatures, which depend on the personal preference of the one making the claims.
Image modified from Cockerellites liops / National Park Service / PD
A kissin' cousin of cladistics is the concept of mosaic creatures is when there are features that seem to belong to different kinds (birds with teeth, fish with lungs), so they are assumed to be transitional forms and called "mosaic". This is evolutionary wishful thinking. Fact is, those creatures were created to be what they are, with no stages of evolution in evidence.
When describing so-called ‘transitional’ fossils, we often call such fossils ‘mosaic fossils’. What do we mean? Ryan B. from the United States writes:
Hi CMI, I have been reading some of your articles about mosaic fossils such as Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik and the mudskippers and you say that mosaic fossils don’t qualify as transitional fossils. I am having trouble understanding the whole mosaic idea; if a fossil contains both fish and reptile features doesn’t that make them transitional? Same thing with archaeopteryx. I was talking to my brother’s friend who is going to med school and his professor showed him Archaeopteryx as “proof” of bird evolution and proceeded to show me how Archaeopteryx had bird and dino features. Can you explain to me how “Mosaic” features is not the same as transitional features? And also do evolutionists recognize this difference?
CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:
To see Shaun's response, click on "Mosaic fossils?"

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

The Universe is Falling into Disorder

One basic fact is that things go from order to disorder unless acted on by something outside. Creationists have given many evidences for a young Earth and young solar system, and one of the most famous is that of long- and short-term comets that can not exist for the alleged age of the solar system because they burn up. Secular cosmologists have come up with the Kuiper Belt and the purely imaginary Oort Cloud to replenish the supply, but those don't help the speculations. To make matters worse for the "deep time" gang, there are many evidences for a young solar system, including recent activity around Saturn.

There is a great deal of entropy in outer space. This belies and old universe, and affirms the young universe that biblical creationists have been saying.
Comet Hale-Bopp / Credit: NASA
Comets are a small part of what is being seen elsewhere in the universe showing how things are burning up and wearing out. What is seen reflects what biblical creationists have said all along: the universe is not nearly as old as secularists claim. To read the bad news for them, click on "Entropy in Space Seen at All Scales".

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Puny God of Evolution Receives Credit for Balance

Imagine a movie scene with a police officer, NCIS agent, old West sheriff, soldier, or someone in an action scene. He runs, jumps, dives over something, rolls a bit, and then stops to determine his next move. That's a lot of position changing, but our hero (or the stunt double) doesn't get motion sickness. The example is more extreme, but we change positions frequently in our daily activities without getting dizzy. Why not?

New research helps show why we keep our balance during voluntary motion. Researchers gave glory to their puny god of evolution for this intricately designed feature, instead of to the Creator who did the work.
Image from Clker
Researchers reckon they have a handle on this. It seems that the spine sends out signals to let your balance control center know how to respond to voluntary motion. Unfortunately, these owlhoots gave credit to evolution for this intricately designed purposeful system that our Creator put in place. In fact, they gave glory to their puny god of evolution for planning ahead. There isn't a shred of evidence for evolution happening. That ain't science, pilgrim, that's a mystical religious view.
Bodies bounce while jogging or performing any number of other vigorous activities, usually without getting dizzy. However, bodies get dizzy when they are "bounced" from the outside, like while on a boat or airplane. What's the difference? Researchers pinpointed amazing new details behind the mechanism that maintains balance during voluntary motion, but their notion of its origins clearly misses the mark.

The vestibular organ (VO) resides inside the semicircular canals of the inner ear and senses head motions in all directions and all six rotations. It must have a process to dampen its sensitivity when the body itself causes motion. Without this dampening function, intentional body movements would disrupt balance—imagine getting motion sick every time you go for a jog. How does your VO protect against self-inflicted motion sickness? The answer involves a mechanism with precision parts and precise timing that has every characteristic of fine-tuned, intentional design.
To read the rest, click on "Discovery: Spine Signals Ears to Maintain Balance". 


Monday, November 9, 2015

Real Science Radio Interview of Professor Steve Taylor

While it's helpful to read about creation scientists of the past and present, it's nice to hear actual interviews with them. It also helps silence owlhoots who lie about the lack of intelligence and credentials of creation scientists.

Real Science Radio's Bob Enyart continues his invasion of Britain with an interview of Professor Steve Taylor (not to be confused with recording artist Steve Taylor). Dr. Taylor is an expert in electrical engineering, and has done work on accelerated mass spectrometry. He works on mass spectrometry at the University of Liverpool.

National Electrostatics Corporation 250kV accelerator mass spectrometer in a biomedical laboratory.
Image Credit: US Department of Energy
Professor Taylor rejects evolution and affirms biblical creation. Steve and Bob discussed accelerated mass spectrometry, making a portable carbon-14 device, his work with his government in helping detect chemical weapons, and more. The interview begins at the get-go. You can listen online or download at "RSR in the UK with University of Liverpool's Steve Taylor".
Real Science Radio interview with Professor Steve Taylor on mass spectrometry and other topics.
Click for larger.


Saturday, November 7, 2015

These Fists Were Made for Punching?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

On the October 25, 2015 podcast of "The Weekly Worldview", Doug McBurney accessed his "Science — Really?" file for some interesting items. Stuff that fungus-to-fighter evolutionists pass off as valid scientific research is just plumb loco a lot of the time, and Doug had a doozy to share.

Another silly idea is that the human hand evolved for the *reason* of making a fist to punch out opponents. Yes, really! No evidence for the how or why, of course. Also, comments on Pluto, and a link to Doug McBurnery's podcast, "The Weekly Worldview".
Image: ClkerFreeVectorImages / Pixabay
Some owlhoots decided that the human hand evolved the ability to make a fist for the sake of punching an opponent without as much pain. They need to get out of the lab more and experience real life. If you throw a punch with your fingers in the proper position (the picture above is pretty good), that's a start. But if your thumb is sticking out, you risk breaking it when you strike. Also, the proper motion needs to be used for an effective hit.

Once again, Darwinoids offer speculation without evidence, and it's based on the presupposition that we were st00pid brutes in the past. Nor do they explain how they know the reason why such alleged evolution happened. But some people just eat this fact-free stuff up and say, "Hail Darwin! Blessed be!" Ain't that a kick in the teeth?

Fists are good for pounding on desks, holding someone you're rescuing, cinching up a saddle, working a ratchet, confining an insect, gently holding flower petals, playing drums, or doing other things. An open hand is useful, too — including giving someone a cuff on the back of the head to get them to snap out of the galloping stupids. Or to caress someone you love. The hand is mighty handy because God designed it that way.

McBurney went on to discuss how findings on Pluto are baffling long-age cosmologists. (Here are more pieces of information on that, if'n you're looking, Doug.) Shouldn't they have been able to predict this stuff instead of being constantly startled and amazed by what is found all over the solar system?

Doug would like a discovery that would utterly destroy the Big Bang idea. Sorry to inflate your bubble to the big banging point, but it won't happen. The Big Bang has been refuted many times already, but they just keep rewiring it, hooking up electrodes to the bolts in its neck, giving it a shock, and then screaming, "It's alive! It's alive!" It's not a matter of science and evidence, but of the will and spiritual condition. People don't want to admit that there's a Creator who makes the rules.

In the debate between Christian Greg Bahnsen and atheist Gordon Stein, Dr. Stein was asked what would constitute adequate evidence for God's existence. He said, "If that podium suddenly rose into the air five feet, stayed there for a minute and then dropped right down again, I would say that is evidence of a supernatural because it would violate everything we knew about the laws of physics and chemistry."

 Dr. Bahnsen pointed out, "People are not made theists by miracles. People must change their world views; their hearts must be changed. They need to be converted. That what it takes, and that's what it would take for Dr. Stein to finally believe it. If this podium rose up five feet off the ground and stayed there, Dr. Stein would eventually have in the future some naturalistic explanation because they believe things on faith, by which I mean that they believe things as which they have not proven by their senses." The source is here, beginning at the 2:07:36 mark, but listening to the entire debate is very enlightening.

Anti-theists detest the fact that all have sinned (Rom. 3:23) and have to repent so they can have life through Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:23). So they keep up the naturalism nonsense and think, "Yee ha, by golly, us humans are wise in our own eyes! Who needs God, anyway?" God laughs at such "wisdom" (Rom. 1:22, 1 Cor. 1:20, Psalm 14:1), and we all need God.

If you want to hear the podcast (there is political and social commentary after the part I'm going on about, and also some secular rock music clips used in an ironic manner), click on the link way up yonder at the tippy-top. The part I'm going on about it as the 12 minute 46 second mark. And you think I occasionally get sarcastic when telling the blunt truth about bad "science"?

ADDENDUM: Fists were also made for bumping: (But I cannot endorse that video channel.)