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

Friday, December 2, 2016

Landslide Troubles for a Lawyer

While the word landslide is popular in elections, let's get more down to Earth (heh!) with the original meaning. Charles Lyell was a lawyer by trade and went into geology. His most famous book was Principles of Geology, which was published in three volumes in the early 1800s. It expanded on James Hutton's uniformitarianism (simplified as "the present is the key to the past"). Lyell, who lied about the recession rate of Niagara Falls, was a strong influence on Charles Darwin (whose only formal degree was in theology, not science), and Darwin read the first volume of Lyell's Principles on the voyage of the Beagle. Lyell's uniformitarianism was gleefully accepted by secular scientists as a means to deny the Genesis Flood, catastrophism, and the Creator God of the Bible. The fact that compromising Christians ceded science to secularists didn't help matters any.


Landslides can change the landscape in minutes, and this is not about politics. Catastrophic changes are yet another problem for uniformitarian geology.
2013 landslide in Colorado, image credit: US Geological Survey / Rex Baum, no endorsement of this site implied
Long-age dating techniques and assumptions are constantly being assaulted by hard evidence, and shown to be far less reliable than many scientists want to admit. Landslides catastrophically change the landscape and you can't expect much warning before one occurs. Some landslides that were dated to have happened in the distant past occurred much more recently. They can happen without warning, and some areas that were considered safe are not so safe after all. In addition, astronomers were surprised to find landslide occurrences way out yonder in our solar system. Major geological changes can happen in minutes, causing fits for Lyell and Darwin supporters because it means Earth may very well be younger than they thought, and evolution requires long ages according to their paradigm.
Landslides are turning geological votes away from Lyell’s uniformitarianism toward catastrophism.

Landslides can cause monumental changes in just minutes.
. . .
Two recent papers reveal some of the changes in geological thinking about landslides. They don’t necessarily need a high slope to get going. Long-runout slides can cover much more distance than previously believed. And dating landslides can be tricky business. The following observations underscore the catastrophic potential of sudden, large-scale events, in contrast to Charles Lyell’s picture of a world in slow and gradual “uniformitarian” change.
To finish reading, rock on over to "Lyell Loses in a Landslide". Also recommended, "Analogy and geology—the ‘science’ of Charles Lyell".



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

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Life Degraded to Mere Chemistry

Proponents of minerals-to-man evolution tend to take a reductionist approach and reduce all life to chemistry. This comes from their materialistic presuppositions including no God and that evolution is a given. This dehumanizing worldview affects both scientists and us regular folk, since evolution is viewed as a science and, therefore, truth, so it spills over into economics, religion, politics, abortion, "scientific" racism, and more.


Materialist evolutionists reduce and degrade life to mere chemistry, and biblical creationists know life is far more. It all comes down to worldviews.
Image credit: jk1991 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Materialism rules the scientific community, and data are interpreted through this view. Just follow the money, and you'll see that funding goes toward evolutionary goals. Scientists with a creationary worldview are not getting the grant money, no matter how good their credentials are. In fact, creationists are mostly blackballed.

Evolutionary owlhoots are intolerant of their own their own kind who don't absolutely toe the line. An author said that an old carving looked like a dinosaur, and secularists went ballistic. Authors of a paper in PLoS One dared to use the word "creator", and again, secularists were upset — they were offended at the "inappropriate language", demanding a retraction! Can't be having anyone plant seeds of doubt of the evolutionary faith, ya idjit!

Viewing life as just chemistry and that there is no Creator is dreadful for science and society as a whole. Interpretation of evidence is a matter of worldviews. You can tell this when scientists will try to prove the origin of life in the lab, get a few assorted amino acids, and say, "See? Evolution!" Not hardly. That's proof that educated scientists using high-tech lab equipment and reproducing assumed conditions got a few results that are not life. Nice try at the intelligent design, though.
Evolutionists and creationists seem to debate endlessly about everything. Complicated technical arguments about amino acids, nucleotides, meteorites, thermodynamics, and biological mechanisms may come across as disconnected and irrelevant to daily life, but these seemingly trivial debates are like two opposing football players’ mini-battle. Understanding how everything fits together is easier if a person can see the bigger picture.

Therefore, taking one step back from amino acid debates reveals that their context is a widespread provocative claim that “life is only chemistry.” For instance, two evolutionary authorities recently said, “Indeed, as van Helmont concluded in 1648, and as is even today the rallying cry at conferences on the origin and evolution of life, it seems quite clear that ‘all life is chemistry.’” Whether that is true or not may affect daily life in areas as diverse as health care policies, religion, or the wisdom of tax expenditures on projects searching for aliens.

Evidence shows that evolutionary assertions that life is only chemistry constitute another major blunder. While significant, that lesson is secondary. More important is how a “life is chemistry” declaration illustrates that quarrels over details are truly significant when they are recognized as being nested in opposing worldviews that claim to be truth. Discovering the concealed links between basic research and a worldview is a fascinating exercise.
To read the rest, click on "Major Evolutionary Blunders: Imagining That Life Is Only Chemistry". 


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

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Defense and the Ruffed Grouse

First, a story. Way back when I was much younger and James Madison was President, we were visiting my grandmother in the northern part of Michigan, in the lower peninsula. It was a small town (still is), and there was a parcel of land behind the house, just a field. This bored child went a-wandering. There was some activity from a killdeer, making all sorts of racket and playing at having a broken wing. I'd heard of such shenanigans to protect the young'uns, so I went in the opposite direction. I could imagine the call of the killdeer as saying, "Fleeee, baby!, and I found the little ones in the tall grass. Had sense enough to leave them alone.


Man and beast consider the ruffed grouse to be mighty tasty. So how did the Creator equip it to keep from going extinct in a hurry?
Ruffed Grouse, John James Audubon
Other birds that lay eggs on the ground do this broken wing business as well, including the star of today's show, the ruffed grouse. They're not very big, and both man and beast consider them good eatin'. How can they keep from going extinct in a hurry? The Creator gave them several ways to stay alive, including laying a passel of eggs, the broken wing trick, warning sounds, and other methods.
The North American ruffed grouse (Bonasaumbellus) is common to northern USA, southern Canada, and central Alaska. Bonasa is Latin for ox (cf. Bison bonasus, the European bison). Some writers feel that the term refers to the drumming sound the bird makes which, to some, might sound like a bellowing, or even stampeding, bison. Others have suggested a resemblance of the startled grouse’s wild initial flight to the action of a charging buffalo.

The species name, umbellus, means something that shades (e.g. an umbrella). During the courtship display, the male raises his beautifully banded, 18-feather tail and forms it into a fan. At the same time, he elevates the feathers around his neck, making them look like a collar (or ruff).
Don't grouse, you can read the full article in context by clicking on "The remarkable ruffed grouse".

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

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Cave Wall Animation?

Video action is commonplace today, and we can pull out a camera, phone, or other device and record something that we can view instantly. (I marvel at how people can have a live video broadcast that is also being uploaded to places like YouTube, free, and I've never bothered to use the tools at my disposal to do it.) Technology can be fun!

Step back a ways, and many of us remember watching movies that were on film, whether in the cinema or in school. Those kinds of movies were actually optical illusions, relying on the brain, film speed, and persistence of vision so we would not see the individual frames, but perceive actual motion. Movies on film that lasted a long time. What happened before? One gadget was Thomas Edison's kinetoscope, using film and that optical illusion thing. (A short video about the kinetoscope is here, and a kind of tour of the machine is here.) The earliest Western films were on the kinetoscope as well.

Before that, there was a toy called the thaumatrope, where a card or disk was given drawings on each side and it was twirled on a string. There could be a bird on one side, a cage on the other, and twirling gave the viewer the image of a bird in a cage. So, that's the beginning of animation history, right?

Not exactly.

We have convenient video-making capabilities today. A forerunner of animation technology was discovered on cave walls!
Rhinos in Chauvet Cave, public domain via Wikimedia Commons
Before I commence to telling you something even more fascinating, we need to discuss the Chauvet Cave paintings. Evolutionary anthropologists have marveled at their skill, arguing from faulty presuppositions that humans had not evolved enough to have such abilities. Biblical creationists know that humans were intelligent from the beginning of creation, so we're not surprised at their skill. Admire it, yes, but not surprised that they have it.

Due to a bit of observant happenstance, burning torches flickered on the cave walls with paintings in Lascaux, and animation effects were observed. Sure does look like ancient humans were using some very advanced techniques indeed!
Fred Flintstone may have been able to go to the movies after all if researchers are right in their observations that so-called Stone-Age man used animation effects.

Cave paintings that archaeologist Marc Azéma, of the University of Toulouse–Le Mirail in France, and artist Florent Rivère studied are a fascinating insight into the technical knowledge ancient man possessed.

. . .

They say ancient man drew multiple images of the same animal with what they described as cartoon–like techniques to create the effect of movement across cave walls. The cinematic effects were revealed by the flickering light of burning torches.
To read the entire short article, click on "Movie-making an off-the-wall idea". Also, a pretty good student report on the thaumatrope is below.




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

Monday, November 28, 2016

Evolution, Aliens, Religion — Wackiness Ensues

If you study on it for a spell, you'll notice that secularists have double standards, especially related to anything Christian or creationist:

  • When we teach our children about biblical creation, we're "indoctrinating" them. When government-run secularist education centers give them materialistic and evolutionary material for several hours a day over a period of years, they're "educating" them.
  • When evolutionists disagree about hypotheses and models, it's good for science. When creationary scientists disagree with each other or offer other possible interpretations of evidence, well, creationists cannot get along with each other.
  • When atheists and evolutionists attack Christians and creationists, they're being "rational". When creationists present evidence and refute the attacks, we're "right wing extremists" and "science deniers".
  • When using quotes of evolutionists admitting they have problems, it's "quote mining". When taking creationists out of context and misrepresenting them, that is acceptable for anti-creationists.
  • When evolutionists speculate, it's "science", and the obligatory denigration of anything biblical (using remarks like "a fictional worldwide flood" to dismiss Genesis Flood geology) can be included. When creationists speculate, it's the ravings of incompetent lying ideologues.
  • Similar to the point above, when creationary evidence is rejected out of hand without even considering its merit because it's "religious". When secular scientists present faith-based statements, they are worthy of serious consideration in scientific journals, even though no evidence is provided.
I could continue, but you get the idea. Let's focus on faith-based speculations as science. In this case, it's about communicating with extraterrestrial life.

Double standards. Secularists reject creation evidence as "religious", and yet they give wild, faith-based speculations about extraterrestrials scientific credence.
Image credit: Pixabay / Cornfreak
Searching for signs of extraterrestrial life way out yonder generally receives its impetus from the presupposition that algae-to-architect evolution is true; if it happened here, then it happened out there. Quite a bit of work these owlhoots indulge in to deny the Creator, isn't it?

Saying that bursts of radio waves are examples of aliens trying to tell us something (but that's faith-based assumptions without evidence or logic). Based on how evolution allegedly works, it may be a good idea to not contact them. Wait, there's more! Aliens changed so much, they've become the laws of nature — they're in us, we're in them, and we are all together, goo goo g' joob. Or how about how the aliens we meet will be super-intelligent machines? 

This wacky religion stuff about aliens gets serious consideration, but if a creationists offer something, they're told to get out of Dodge. Two articles on these subjects are submitted for your approval. First, "Alien Religion Unrebuked", and then, "The End of SETI". ADDENDUM: CMI published an article that deals extensively with one of the sections in "Alien Religion Unrebuked", where a professor has some very strange views. See "Aliens are all around us?".

 

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

Saturday, November 26, 2016

The Quantum Soul?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The soul has been a source of controversy for a mighty long time. What is it? Where does it reside? Is there a difference between soul and spirit? Some Christians believe that humans are sort of triune, saying something to the effect of, "You are a soul, you have a spirit, and you live in a body". This may reflect the Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Others believe in only two aspects, with soul and spirit being interchangeable.

Secularists contradict their naturalistic views by searching for the location of the soul. One says the answer is in quantum physics, but this is logically fallacious.
Image credit: dan at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Secular scientists with their materialistic (often reductionist) worldviews contradict themselves. They use the laws of logic, but those are not material things. For that matter, some consider mathematics to be something pure, but numbers are also immaterial. The secular worldview precludes the existence of God and spirits, and yet, scientists search for the location of free will, which indicates that they believe there is a soul (or consciousness, if you will) after all. And yet, they believe that naturalistic evolutionism can explain what is experienced.

Looking for the immaterial spirit/soul/consciousness is pretty close to the logical fallacy called the category error, using material means to search for something that is not material. Atheists make that error when they demand scientific proof of God, who is not confined to the space-time limits of his creation, and is a spirit.

Now, I don't cotton to near-death experiences (NDEs) as being conclusive evidence of life after death. However, a neurosurgeon makes a compelling case that the soul is independent of the brain, and only uses the brain as a vehicle. He believes that this is a truth that needs to be pursued.

Some scientists, such as physicist Roger Penrose (who rejects the concept of cosmic inflation), believe that there is evidence that the soul lives on after death, and have reduced the soul to information stored at the quantum level. One of the main problems with reductionism is that this philosophy is dehumanizing and sterile. 

Although secularists in general deny the Bible, the truth is there. We have souls, and will be judged by God our Creator. Are you prepared for where you will spend eternity? 
 


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

Friday, November 25, 2016

Constellations and the Genesis Dispersal

For me, stargazing is a wondrous thing, but I'm not good with constellations. F'rinstance, I don't get seeing Cassiopeia on her throne, just a kind of W shape. That one over there, a scorpion, you say? Not happening for this child, sorry. Odd that I can see figures in clouds but not in constellations. Especially on a clear night, there's all kinds of other stars making it hard to pick out the ones in the constellation. Big dipper (or "plough")? Yes, I can see that. And the little one, too. No, I don't see the Great Bear in it. Oh look, a shooting star!

Ancient stories related to constellations can be found in diverse areas and cultures around the world. The may help support the Genesis dispersal timeline.
Starry Night over the Rhone, Vincent van Gogh, 1888
Those constellations have some mighty fanciful tales associated with them, don't they? What people may not know is that the same basic story is found in diverse areas of the globe, in different cultures. How is that? Getting into the history of constellations, star maps, and the biblical timeline, looks like this may help support the Genesis dispersal.
Do you remember as a child looking into the sky to find shapes in cotton-ball clouds? How often did you see the same shape as someone else? For my family, we saw very different animals or objects, and it was only when we specifically pointed out distinct features that we could agree on a shape.

Similarly, how likely is it for cultures scattered across the globe to see the same shapes in the stars? Ursa Major and Ursa Minor, the Big and Little Bears with distorted tails, are well-known constellations in today’s world because they are easy to spot, hold the asterisms we know as the Big Dipper and Little Dipper, and are important for finding the North Star. Even though these bears have long tails unlike any bear we know today, they caught the attention of the Ancient World as well.
To finish reading, click on "Do the Big and Little Dipper Support the Bible’s Timeline?
 
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels