Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Showing posts with label Triangle Association for the Science of Creation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Triangle Association for the Science of Creation. Show all posts

Thursday, December 7, 2017

Scientism and Free Will

Every once in a while, an atheopath will claim that "an omniscient God negates free will". This shows a blatant special pleading fallacy: imposing a different standard on others than for oneself. Why is this special pleading? Because free will is impossible in a materialistic evolutionary worldview that atheists presuppose! It is also a ridiculous objection because the owhoot is fabricating a simplistic excuse to rebel against the God that he pretends does not exist (Romans 1:18-23, Psalm 14:1).

Why is free will impossible for an evolutionist? Because we are just bundles of chemicals responding to what electrochemical dictate, according to materialists. They are atheists because of their chemistry. The Japanese did not have free will when they bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. Chemistry also "explains" mass murderers, abortionists, faqirs, doctors, philanthropists, biblical creationists — we are all "born that way". So, an atheist has no right to complain about my promoting biblical creation science, if he is consistent in his worldview. If the atheist says something is "wrong", he or she is tacitly denying atheism and standing on the biblical worldview, which makes sense of the preconditions of human experience! For an atheist to object with his simplistic straw man argument about God denying free will, he or she is hypocritical.

Theologians have wrestled with ways of explaining free will for a mighty long time. Calvinists have their explanations, Arminians have their ideas, other groups answer the free will question differently as well. There is even dissent among the ranks of various groups. Since I refuse to identify as Calvinist or Arminian and simply identify myself as a Christian who is a biblical creationist, I am not going to tackle the question. It's too big and beyond the scope of this site, you savvy? Even so, I will say that God is sovereign, and he will not do wicked things because he is a loving God and our Redeemer. Here is a modern English section of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith on free will.

But I will give you some interesting material to read, even though the atheopath who made the complaint that started this discussion has an aversion to learning (Prov. 18:2 ESV), and I don't think he's read any article he's criticized. Learning the truth is frightening to some folks, I reckon. Secular scientists are being inconsistent by insisting against their worldview that free will exists, and then trying to find it. See "Can Scientists Find Free Will?" for more information. Also, I hope you'll read "No Free Will According to Evolution". 

Finally, we come to the article that is being featured here today. Atheists are promoting Scientism (an irrational emphasis on the scientific method as a way of life and a de facto religion). Their Scientism involves rejecting free will, and incorporating nature into our choices. This is a kind of pantheism, which is fitting, since evolution is an ancient pagan pantheistic/animistic religion before Darwin made it into a pseudoscience.
In their new book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow defend scientific determinism . . . They essentially argue that the laws of nature must hold true in all cases without being overridden by divine intervention. Scientific laws must operate without exceptions, except “under a stipulated set of conditions. ”
. . .

If a person begins with scientific determinism and a no-exceptions view of the laws of nature, then it makes sense that he would conclude that free will is illusory. However, this still causes many problems for the Hawking and Mlodinow argument. No doubt they would try to persuade people of the veracity of their view. Presumably this is at least one reason for writing this book. However, if free will is an illusion, what is the point of persuasion? If Hawking and Mlodinow are correct, then a person agrees or disagrees, is persuaded or not persuaded, only because he was scientifically determined to do so. Hawking and Mlodinow hold their view and wrote their book only because they were scientifically determined to do so.
To read the rest (you have a choice in the matter, you know), click on "The Grand Design and Free Will". Also, for an article on how evolutionary psychologists actively deny free will (which is consistent with evolutionism), click on "Evolutionary Psychologists Deny Their Own Minds". And an interesting parody by ApologetiX is below.

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

Monday, November 27, 2017

The Oort Cloud: Faith Without Evidence

Atheists and evolutionists mock biblical creationists for believing in the observed work of the Creator, but have their own blind faith and "miracles". One example is their fact-free presuppositional assertions that neutron stars make gold in space. Another example of faith in their own schemes is discussed below.

 A serious problem for long-age cosmic evolution is the existence of comets. Those nuclei of those bad boys are small by astronomical standards (but you would not want one in your driveway), and are seen when they get close enough to the sun. Then, some of the surface burns off and we see the glow and long gaseous tail. They go orbiting again, and more of the nucleus burns off on the next pass. Repeat and fade until nothing is left, or it crashes into a planet or something. Using the dating methods and assumptions of secular scientists, comets should not exist because they would have been entirely used up millions of Darwin years ago.

This is where the scientific principle of Making Things Up™ comes into play. In 1932, Ernst Öpik said, "Hey, I got this!" and proposed a rescuing device, which Jan Oort agreed with in 1950. The excuse usually bears the name of the latter: the Oort cloud. Way, way out yonder, beyond Neptune's orbit and the Kuiper belt, a fantastical cloud of clutter repopulates the comets. Story goes, this happens when something kicks around some of the contents and they go into their odd orbits. Voila, comets still exist! This cloud is alleged to be a huge bubble-like thing with two chambers.

The Oort cloud is a deep-time rescuing device that has no scientific evidence
Credit: NASA / JPL, based on illustration by Donald K. Yeoman
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The Oort cloud is convenient, and invoked when comets are discovered, which smacks of confirmation bias. Interestingly, even the heavily-biased Wikipedia admits that the Oort cloud is theoretical. Take a look-see at this short children's indoctrination piece from NASA, and note how many "facts" are asserted, even though they have no verifiable scientific evidence:

Remember, kids, having faith in something even though you know it isn't true (to repurpose a quote from Samuel Clemens) is science. Secularists resort to some desperate measures to deny recent creation, and indeed, the Creator himself. Dreaming up things such as the Oort cloud, dark matter, space aliens, the Big Bang, or the giant ice wall surrounding the flat earth can seem plausible. However, scientists supposedly rely on empirical data. Guess that's changed. Interesting that they believe in fictions that they willingly fabricated, but deny the evidence for and testimony of God.
When I was growing up, the definition of science was simple: “the study of the natural world using the five senses.” This definition placed some limits upon science. For instance, science was restricted to the study of the natural world, so anything supernatural was out of bounds to science. Supernatural things include miracles, angels, souls, and God. Even if something is part of the natural world, it wasn’t considered scientific unless we could detect it with our five senses.

Over the years, however, many scientists found this definition too confining. So they gradually redefined science as “the search for natural explanations.” This newfangled view of “science” studies things we can’t even detect. The Oort cloud is a good example. It was included among the “11 Scientific Wonders We Know Exist—but We’ve Never Seen” featured in a cover article in New Scientist last year [March 2016].
To read the rest or download the MP3 version, click on "Oort Cloud—No Evidence Required". Also, for more about comets and recent discoveries, click on "Comets - Their Silent Testimony".

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

Saturday, November 11, 2017

Evolutionists Censoring Biological Truth

Advocates of minerals-to-microbiologist evolution are none to fond of information that contravenes their worldview. One way they do this is through outright censorship of creationary evidence. Another is to pile on misrepresentations, logical fallacies, and outright falsehoods. When caught lying, keep on lying. It's what they do. For that matter, I am convinced that many atheists and other evolutionists are afraid of creationary material, so they won't read it; some are so determined to contradict us that they will ridicule material based on a title or introduction alone — and have humiliated themselves by contradicting the evolutionary scientists they adore!

CSIRO scientist sequencing DNA credit: CSIRO / Health Sciences and Nutrition
Another tactic, frequently observed in leftist news media, is to ignore inconvenient truths and pretend that they do not exist. Darwin's Flying Monkeys© on the internet and other places bombard evolution skeptics with "mountains of evidence for evolution" that are actually untrue. Some of their "facts" are based on faulty and incomplete research, stories that were popular in science news and in textbooks that have been rejected, and so on. Biblical creationists attempt to present information that they did not know or possibly have not carefully examined. We hope that they will question evolution, and eventually come to know the Creator in a personal way. The article featured below emphasizes biological truth; evolutionists think that genetic research is friendly to their paradigm, but that is the opposite of the truth.
DNA is a supernaturally created and designed medium containing living information. Overlapping parts of the same nucleotide sequence along the DNA code are used to produce completely different protein molecules. Studies have shown that DNA nucleotide sequences can produce different proteins if read forward versus being decoded from the same area backward. “This is similar to a book in which the same sentences can be read in completely different languages, read forward or backwards, and give different yet completely clear meanings.”1 As we begin to understand the complexity of the DNA code, or even the simplest living cell, it is simply impossible for random chance processes, i.e., mutations, to achieve such level of complexity.
To finish reading, click on "Censored Biology".

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

Saturday, November 4, 2017

A Comparison of Evolution and Creation Science

Proponents of atoms-to-astronomer evolution often tell the world that there are "mountains of evidence" for their interpretations of scientific evidence. Those of us who believe in biblical creation science know that those mountains are molehills, and the evidence not only refutes evolution, but supports creation.

Government indoctrination centers (also called "schools") and other sources of information saddle people with the idea that we are the products of time, chance, random processes, mutations, and the like. Live has no meaning, there is no ultimate justice, and when you die, you're worm food. This materialistic worldview actively rejects the Creator, who gives us meaning, there is ultimate justice and Judgment. Logic and science are impossible in a materialistic worldview, and only the biblical worldview makes sense of life, and makes logic, science, love, and other intangible aspects of our daily lives possible. Taking an honest look at the facts shows us that the evolutionary view is intellectually bankrupt, and the evidence supports special creation.
One of the key issues in the creation-evolution debate is the origin of humans, Homo sapiens.
What we think about the origin of our own species has a dramatic impact on our morality and worldview because it answers the questions of who and what we are and why we exist. The secular and biblical views of our origins are diametrically opposed and must come to totally different conclusions about our place in the universe. Secular scientists tell us that the evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor with primates is “overwhelming.” But just how good is that evidence? The Bible teaches we were made in God’s image and designed to have fellowship with Him both now and forever. Recent results in the field of genetics have been remarkably in accord with the biblical model for human origins and inimical to evolutionary scenarios. Here we will compare the biblical and secular models for human origins and discuss recent science that supports the biblical view and/or discredits the evolutionary view. Specifically, we will discuss “junk DNA” as “evidence” for common ancestry, the real percent similarity of the human and chimpanzee genomes, the alleged historical fusion of two primate chromosomes that “prove” humans share common ancestry with primates, genetic evidence that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals interbred and were hence the same species, and genetic evidence that is consistent with Adam and Eve as well as Noah and his family.
To read the rest, click this link: "On the Origin of Humans".

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

Saturday, October 28, 2017

Science and Bible Interpretation

As Christians who believe the Bible and also use science, creationists are often challenged by mockers to explain biblical passages that appear to deny established scientific facts. Scripture does not contain anything that actually defies scientific facts, and it certainly does not call on us to deny observable science. Dishonest atheists often use the logical fallacy of conflation, saying that since we deny evolution, we deny science. Evolution is historical in nature, and has numerous flaws; it is not a scientific fact. Still, the question remains: how do we deal with apparent conflicts between science and the Bible? 

Geocentric view not found in Bible
Planetary Orbits, Andreas Cellanius, 1660
The same owlhoots that call creationists "science deniers" for rejecting evolution also go to the stables and saddle up the old swayback of a falsehood that Christians persecuted Galileo because he taught true science (the heliocentric view, Earth moves around the sun), which supposedly conflicted with what the Bible teaches (the geocentric view that Earth is stationary). This claim about Galileo is false, his main conflicts were with the prevailing science of the day, as well as personal. 

It is possible to get a geocentric view from Scripture, but it requires reading into the text, ignoring the contexts of culture, time, linguistics, immediate context, genre, and so on. In reality, there is no biblical substance for a geocentric view.
Modern science was founded by Christians who believed that a reasonable and consistent Creator designed a world that was itself intelligible and reasonable. Apparent conflicts between operational science and scripture are rare. In those rare cases where there is a dispute, both our understanding of scripture and the scientific results must be reviewed. Since God is the author of scripture and nature, a harmonious understanding that aligns with both operational science and scripture without compromising the integrity of either must exist and can usually be found.
On the other hand there is historical or forensic science. Here we are usually dealing with unrepeatable past events like the creation of the universe, the origin of life, or Noah’s Flood. We are not able to experiment directly with the event in question. Hence this type of science gathers all the relevant information in the present and then makes an inference to the best explanation. This type of science is not as reliable as operational science in discerning truth. This is especially true when the scientist involved disallows the best data available, the historical record of the Bible.
To read the entire article, click on "Creation Hermeneutics: The Role of Science".

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

Thursday, October 19, 2017

Unconformities Not Conforming to Secular Geological Views

So, when rock layers that have assigned ages are separated by non-depositional or erosional surface, that surface is called an unconformity. There are four of them, with words that are unlikely to be found in casual conversation: nonconformity, angular unconformity, disconformity, and paraconformity. The last is the most troubling for uniformitarian geologists.

Unconformities are explained by Genesis Flood models, not by uniformitarian geology
Angular conformity near Catskill, NY, about half an hour north of me (street view, I drove right by this)
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Michael C. Rygel (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Since geological activity happened in the past, it is history, and not strictly science, so there cannot be eyewitnesses. Scientists have speculations, reasoning, models, and so forth based on the presumption of an old earth. Errors are made, and some facts are neglected. What we really have is geology that is best explained by the rapidly-flowing water and catastrophic tectonics of the Genesis Flood.
What are unconformities and what do they mean to young-earth, biblical creationists? The simple definition is that they are surfaces, usually seen as a linear contact in a vertical rock outcrop or exposure, that separate younger overlying rock strata or layers from the older strata below. They are interpreted by uniformitarian (evolutionist and “old-earth creationist”) geologists as gaps in the record, each gap representing missing time and sediments. But is this interpretation warranted by the field evidence?
To read the rest, click on "Geological Unconformities: What Are They and How Much Time Do They Represent?"

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

Friday, October 13, 2017

Conspiracy of Hidden Fossils?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

"I spy with my little eye...something beginning with F."


"Right. How did you guess so fast?"

"Because we're in the fossil section of the natural history museum, doofus. So which fossil?"

"That one — hey, it's gone! Those people are taking it away!"

"Bad luck, pal."

Hidden in the Museum

It is a fact that museums have much more in their collections than are visible to the public. This applies to archaeology, religious art, erotica, paleontology, and more [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. They are so secret, we can read about them on the web. Is there a conspiracy  here yet? Actually, some artifacts and such are hidden away for the safety of the items, additional research is needed, offensive nature of ancient art, to simply rotate the stock because they have so much to exhibit, and other reasons. In addition, some people who do not know how to handle things like fossils will ruin them or take them away to sell [9]. A few folks believe that evidence for giant humans, items refuting evolution, and the like are hidden away in museums because they don't want us to see them.

Inconvenient Photos

What about all those photos of giant humans? People saddle up, ride out, and lasso photos to put in their corral of "evidence" for huge ancient humans. Many are hoaxes manufactured by trimming away the credits from Photoshop contest sites [10] or other digital manipulations [11]. (I suspicion that some are so large, they would have to defy the laws of physics to move around.) Even so, fossil evidence clearly shows that many critters were much, much larger in those thrilling days of yesteryear. Were our ancestors supersized? Maybe some of those giant swords and stuff exist for novelty purposes or decorations instead of combat.

My wife obtained the giant fork and spoon at an archaeological dig and had to sneak them away.
Actually, she got them at a store in upstate New York for decorations.
Are they all fake? This gets me to cognating on UFO stories, videos, and photos. UFO researchers — believers and disbelievers alike — agree that the overwhelming majority are misidentified, photographic anomalies such as lens flares [12] [13] (I've seen videos of "spirit orbs" that were refuted as lens flares), and have other natural explanations.

Not all UFO images and stories are supposititious, leaving some objects that are genuinely unknown. Similarly, there are many stories, images, and so on about artifacts from paleontology and archaeology that seem to be inexplicable. It seems to me that they cannot all be fake or mistakes, and some need serious examination. Even if experts say, "We don't know what this is". Yeah, that'd be great.

Conspiracy Against Creationary Evidence?

It is true that creationary scientists are blackballed against presenting evidence for creation and against evolution in mainstream scientific journals [14]. Also, there is blatant discrimination against creationists [15], even when they are not actively promoting creation science, such as with Mark Armitage [16]. Further, there is abundant evidence that fraud is common in the promotion of Darwinian ideas [17], which is in keeping with their secular worldview [18]. Still, it's a mite too easy to say that the entire secular scientific community is suppressing physical evidence that conflicts with their views. But then, museums have used fake whale fossils [19].

Some items presented for creationary evidence are indeed questionable. How about the Ica stones of Peru? Those get scant mention in the major creation science sites, and I won't use them as evidence on my sites. While secular scientists dismiss them out of hand because some depict dinosaurs and humans living contemporaneously, there are other reasons to be suspicious: the originator says he faked them, no he didn't, yes he did out of fear of the authorities, and so on. Because of insufficient evidence, creationists should leave Ica stones alone [20]. I'd like to own a reproduction, though. Stones aside, there is a great deal of historical evidence that dinosaurs (dragons) lived with humans [21]. Is this evidence of a conspiracy? Well, it indicates bias against creationary evidence because of naturalistic presuppositions: there is no evidence that dinosaurs lived with humans, because evolution demands otherwise. That's how they work.

A frequent question asked of creationists is, "Where are the human fossils?" After all, there were many humans that existed before the Genesis Flood. The human skeletons and fossils seem to be post-Flood. According to biblical creation science models, we should not expect to find pre-Flood skeletons (including giants that may or may not represent the Nephilim). Biblical creation science models tell us why not [22].

Not Helping Our Own Cause

Creationists, like other Christians, need to have healthy skepticism. This applies not only to the latest "evidence" given for fish-to-faker evolution, but some "evidence" affirming the Bible, such as put forth by the late Ron Wyatt [23]. Like evolutionists, some creationists are incautious — and even gullible. Don't do that. Settle down, think, do some research, and wait for information that supports or refutes...whatever claims were made. 

Also, keep a balance. We can accept or reject evidence without being hyper-suspicious. An example of this is when someone foolishly uses a fallacious argument from silence to imply that, since no dinosaur fossils have been discovered at the Grand Canyon, the Genesis Flood is false [24]. Someone like that needs to do some research instead of showing his ignorance of both creation and secular models [25]. Same with us.

Like Creation Ministries International [26], I am not a fan of conspiracy theories. I especially detest the anti-vaccination, 9-11 GovernmentDidIt "truther", moon landing fake, flat Earth [27], and other claims. Like some of the spurious evidences presented for God's existence [28], we can get our healthy skepticism ready when we have anonymous sources, a friend of a cousin of someone who worked at NASA told a guy under conditions of secrecy, sources that cite other sources that are selling natural food supplements instead of crediting verifiable sources, a whole heap of emotional appeal, and so on. When those red flags get waved, I often move on because I have better things to do.

Christians and creationists need to be wary and keep with the strongest evidence for our position. More importantly, we must use proper reasoning and be biblical in our approach.

Submitted for Your Approval — Or Not

I could have ended this article with the above paragraph, but I have a couple of things to offer. First, a creationary organization has given me some excellent information in the short time I've been aware of them, so the article that I'm linking below was a bit startling. There are several things to consider, and I think of points raised as, "On the other hand...but on the other hand...still, on the other hand..." and so on. It is about the suppression of evidence in museums against evolution. Some of the material raises those red flags found on conspiracy theorist sites and in social media posts. However, there are points raised that, conspiracist-sounding or not, should not be rejected out of hand. After all that, I refer you to "Missing Fossils and Fake Fossils", by David Plaisted, Ph.D. As you can see, I'm not enthusiastically endorsing the article, just presenting it to give you some things to spark some thinking in y'all.

Second, the Greater Ancestors World Museum has material to consider. There are subjects that are clearly true, and others where the proprietor may have been fooled by hucksters. You'll probably find a mix of truth and unintentional error.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get ready for the next passage of the planet Nibiru [29].

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

Saturday, October 7, 2017

Fossils Unfriendly to Evolution

Supporters of universal common ancestor evolution claim that the fossil record contains some of the strongest evidence for their belief system. Evolution requires huge amounts of time so things can go about the business of changing into other things, so there should be a multitude of transitional forms. Ain't happening, Zeke. 

"But we've got excuses because you're wrong because evolution!"

The hands at the Darwin Ranch have worked overtime down at the propaganda mill to cover the fact that there are no undisputed transitional forms. Sure, they cite propaganda mills like Wikipedia, propaganda.talk.origins, and so forth that state what they want to believe, but those shnooks are at odds with the experts.

The fossil record is hostile to evolution and supports the Genesis Flood
I'd like to see trilobites do a coelacanth trick and suddenly get discovered alive
Credit: Freeimages / Dave Dyet
Doesn't a proper scientific attitude require evidence before a hypothesis is formed? Darwin admitted in Origin of Species, "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” He expected the evidence to be found. That's not science, that's wishful thinking, Chuck.

There are numerous citations from evolutionists who have admitted over the years that there are still no transitional forms. They also admit that evolutionary paleontologists engage in circular reasoning. At this point, someone will get on the prod and want to slap leather, saying, "That there's quote mining, Mister! I'm calling you out!" But he's shooting blanks because we're not quote mining. As it was then, so it is today: paucity of transitional forms, and circular reasoning. The missing links will remain missing, and the transitional forms do not exist, because evolution did not happen. The evidence actually supports the global Genesis Flood.
How many of us have heard that evolution is supported by the evidence of the fossil record or that millions of fossils prove evolution had to have occurred? It has been assumed that as more research accumulated and more fossils were discovered, there would be increasing evidence to support the thesis of Darwin that evolution of species has occurred. In fact, it now seems to be popular to think that this has indeed occurred, and that new fossil evidence - including evidence of whale evolution, etc. - now has lent increased support to the theory of evolution. We will look at the results of the research in the years following Darwin. We will also examine claims or statements from scientists, including evolutionists, about this fossil evidence. Let’s look at this and see what the actual fossil evidence tells us!
To learn some interesting things about fossils, the absence of what evolutionists need, and evidence for the Flood, click on "Fossils"

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

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Carbon-14 and Dinosaur Bones

A prairie schooner-full of links to articles on dinosaur soft tissues can be found on this site alone, and there are many more on the web. Proponents of fish-to-farrier evolution find the subject distasteful, and I've even seen some outright deny the existence of dinosaur soft tissues! Others tried to downplay and ignore them, but they're here — and they're spoiling Darwin's party. It shouldn't be a surprise to learn that Darwin's disciples are loathe to have dinosaur fossil tissue tested for carbon-14. After all, that would mean their deep time presuppositions are wrong.

No soft tissues in this bad boy, he's entirely concrete.
Credit: Library of Congress / Carol M. Highsmith
Several years ago, radio host Bob Enyart offered to pay $23,000 USD to Jack Horner, the paleontologist without an earned degree, to test his T. rex fossil for C-14. He declined. Other evolutionists have resisted having specimens carbon-14 tested as well. If you dig out your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring©, you'll get, "We can't handle the truth!" That is, there would be further evidence that the world was created recently, and the Genesis Flood is by far the best explanation for discoveries in geology and paleontology. Well, despite the desire to protect evolutionism from science, C-14 testing was eventually done. The results were not good for the Darwin club. Yippie ky yay, secularists!
This article will explain how recent events, including the announcement of dinosaur soft tissue and carbon-14 (C-14) in the otherwise ordinary bones of major classes of dinosaurs collected from museum shelves and throughout the geological column, may have placed evolutionists in a zugzwang-like position with respect to their long-held beliefs concerning the origin of life. In other words, like a chess player in zugzwang, they will now be compelled to move (investigate dinosaur bones) in a manner that can only weaken their position.
To check out the rest of this article (and get an overview of carbon-14 as well), click on "Carbon-14 in Dinosaur Bones Challenges Evolution Theory and Supports Genesis Flood Account". Also, you may like the one-minute video below, courtesy of Creation Ministries International.

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

Friday, September 22, 2017

Design of the Ear

A favorite argument by biblical creationists and advocates of Intelligent Design against Darwinism is irreducible complexity. The simplified version is that everything must be in place at the same time, from the beginning, or nothing works or makes sense. This applies to the human eye and even down to the molecular level.

Papa Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” He also said that he could "find no such case". I reckon he didn't try to see the evidence, just like his disciples today — who have even less excuse because of advances in science and technology. Matthew 13:14 comes to mind.

Anti-creationists say that irreducible complexity "can be explained", but their arguments can be summed up as, "I found someone on teh interwebs that says irreducible complexity isn't so, and he says what I want to believe, so I'll reject science and reason because evolution. Well, yeah!" Their "explanations" can be answered. Another place irreducible complexity applies is regarding the human ear.

Specified, irreducible complexity of the human ear is a testimony of our Creator's skill, and a refutation of evolution
Highly modified from a Pixabay image by Anemone123
Your sense of herring hearing happens when sound waves reach your ear, then tiny bones help process them through fluid, vibrations undergo chemical activity, they reach the brain, then we can understand and respond to sounds. Pretty much an example of specified complexity is happening.

And what a variety of sounds! Other people speaking, Eleana's violin in the symphony orchestra, my wife hears the blue jays demanding their supply of peanuts, varieties of pet sounds, intruders skulking around outside, and so much more. We hear, and discern. Medical science has progressed to the point that some cases of encroaching deafness can be forestalled, such as the famous case of Rush Limbaugh's cochlear implant. A whole heap of research and learning went into understanding some of the complexities of the human hear and the intricacies of hearing. There's a great deal going on, put in place by our Creator, just to hear a pin drop, and it defies evolution. You listening?
I would like to take you through the ear and our ability to hear and interpret sound. As you consider the many mechanisms that work together so that we can hear music and voices and laughter, think about how it all came to be. As you are reading, it is not necessary to understand every part. Just understand how many different mechanisms are necessary in order for us to interpret vibrations as sound and think about the possibility that these mechanisms all could have arisen through a random nondirected process such as evolution.
To read the rest, click on "The Amazing Ear: Evidence for Design". 
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!