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, August 4, 2017

The Blue Whale and Evolution

Kind of hard to believe that such a huge critter like the blue whale eats little shrimp-like creatures called krill, and they eat a lot of them every day. The whale does this like a giant scoop, swallowing enough water to fill a swimming pool, then closing their mouths under all that pressure. It blasts out the water through blowholes. Whales are mammals that breathe air, so they come up to the surface for that as well as blowing out the sea water. This made them targets for whalers, who brought them to the brink of extinction in days gone by.


Blue whale puzzles evolutionists, testifies of Creator's work
Credit: NOAA Fisheries / Southwest Fisheries Science Center
James W. Gilpatrick, Jr. and Morgan S. Lynn
Usage does not imply endorsement
According to evolutionary mythology, life went from the sea to land, and mammals like this went back to the sea. The Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring© inadvertently reveals that this is strictly guesswork based on evolutionary presuppositions; they do not have evidence for this process. They also have a very loud sound that puzzles scientists, since they can't find the mechanism for vocalization. Don't be expecting to hear it, because it's usually below human range. Going further, there are many specialized mechanisms for the whale's survival (including the one to close its mouth while scooping a watery lunch) that defy explanation through mutations, time, chance, natural selection, and so forth. No, this is yet another example of the Creator's design in action.
What is the largest animal of all time—even larger than the most massive dinosaurs? The answer is the blue whale. These giants average about 70 feet in length, although some were reportedly more than 100 feet long during the whaling era. That’s about the length of three school buses! While some dinosaurs were longer from nose to tail, the blue whale still tops them in sheer bulk. Blues weigh around 200,000 pounds (100 tons), while the largest land mammal today is the African bull elephant, which may weigh eight tons. If the blue whale lived on land, its skeleton would collapse under its weight. But the blue whale’s home is the vast ocean expanse, where the water’s buoyant force supports its bulk.
To finish reading, click on "Blue Whale: The Mammoth of the Sea". You may also like this article on fanciful stories falsely presented as science, "Whale of a Tail Tale".




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

Thursday, August 3, 2017

Oceans on Mars?

The search for signs of life on Mars continues, partly motivated by the hope of secularists to justify their faith in molecules-to-Martian evolution and abiogenesis, and from there, deny the Creator. Before that, however, secularists desire to find water on Mars. It appears that water was indeed there in the past as the signs are quite distinct, though not all scientists are convinced.

Water on Mars speculations raise serious, unanswered questions
Speculative image of an ocean on Mars, credit: NASA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Some scientists are saying that billions of Darwin years ago, Mars was a mighty fine place that even had oceans. Conjectures and models about what happened in the unobserved past can be useful, but they need to deal with evidence. Questions are raised, such as how Mars got water in the first place, where it went, conditions that would allow such vast quantities of water, the "faint young sun paradox", and more. Interesting that these owlhoots are willing to consider huge amounts of water out yonder despite lack of evidence, but deny the abundant evidence of the global Genesis Flood right here on our turf that is mostly covered by water.
Mars has no liquid water today, but water must have covered much of the planet in the past. How? Nobody knows.
Look at the diagram of Mars the way some secular planetary scientists believe it looked in ancient times (Phys.org). It’s almost covered with water. How could that be? There’s no liquid water there today, and Mars lacks the atmosphere that could keep it liquid. It’s also too cold for liquid water most of the time, although some may be locked up as ice in the polar caps.
Scientists infer its presence by its effects. The surface of Mars today is covered with what look like drainage channels. A leading hypothesis is that liquid water carved them at some time in the unobservable past, perhaps about 3 billion years ago.
To finish reading, click on "Secularists Can Believe Mars Had a Global Flood". Below is a speculative video of conditions on Mars 4 billion imaginary years ago. Impressive animation!





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

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

The Appalachian Mountains "Problem"

Secular geologists have been troubled by inconsistencies in the Appalachian Mountains, distinct by the knickpoints (such as waterfalls) and erosion. In an earlier post, we looked at escarpments (steep cliffs along coasts). Those, too, have added to uniformitarian confusion. Using the magic of imagination, geologists came up with a supposed answer to the problem: an additional uplift, called a rejuvenation.
 
Cullasaja Falls and other knickpoints are problematic for secular geologists
Cullasaja Falls image credit: US Forestry Service

Usage does not imply endorsement
Part of their resolution looks good on paper. However, like many other supposed explanations that secular scientists offer to keep their old Earth paradigm, important details are not addressed. When the data are examined and interpreted through the Biblical Geological Model of the Genesis Flood, things make much more sense.
In the United States, most students learned in their grade school geography class that the Appalachian Mountains have the appearance of old age since they are rather rounded or ‘subdued’. They may have also learned the Appalachians are predominantly composed of Paleozoic sedimentary rock. However, there are places in the Appalachian Mountains that are rugged, indicative of recent uplift:
To finish reading this short but uplifting article, click on "The Appalachian Mountains are young".
  
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Time to Bury H. Naledi

This character called Homo naledi has been an annoyance from the get-go. Well, the annoyance has been from devotees in the Darwinian death cult who got all fired up and claimed that this was something to shove into the human lineage mythology. Hope we're finally done with this critter.


Homo naledi was no evolution ancestor, it was a dead end
Mostly made at Vukki
Evolutionists were yee haw boy howdy about the finds and issued sensationalistic press releases — as usual. Something I counsel people who ask, "Evidence for evolution. This can be refuted, right?" is to settle down and wait a spell. Likewise, creationists were also saying to wait, and the Institute for Creation Research had the zivilcourage to predict that H. naledi would be another evolutionary failure. They were right.

The biggest problem for this alleged human ancestor is that the dates were wrong, even in evolutionary dating methods. In a welcome piece of honesty, the evolutionists overturned their own claims. They wouldn't be having these problems if they realized that particles-to-paleontologist evolution didn't happen, and the true record of origins is found in the creation account of Genesis.
Homo naledi skyrocketed to international fame in 2015 as a claimed ape-like ancestor of man that fit the story of human evolution. Discoverer and promoter Lee Berger published hasty reports and then toured the world with dynamic, media-packed presentations. Back then, the Associated Press wrote that scientists had “discovered a new member of the human family tree” in the odd-looking fossil assembly.
To continue reading the article that hopefully puts this thing to rest, click on "Another Evolutionary Ancestor Gets Nixed". Additionally, "Is Homo naledi a New Species of Human Ancestor?" Also, see "Homo naledi, a New Human Ancestor?", which has some points of disagreement with the AiG article in the link immediately preceding which underscores the uncertainties in the discovery. Further, this next post links to a technical article: "More Confusion about H. Naledi".
  
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, July 31, 2017

Genesis and Ancient Mythologies

There's a prairie schooner-full of legends about creation, the global deluge, humanity's dispersal, and a heap of other things. Skeptical scholars tend to presuppose that the Biblical record of history, especially the early chapters of Genesis, is not the written Word of God. To do this, they need to make a number of assumptions and ignore important details.

Bible accounts of the global deluge were not copied from pagan myths

Something I reckon is a big stumbling block is the dating of the manuscripts. Some tinhorns will be on the prod and say, "Those ancient documents were dated as being hundreds of years older than Moses supposedly lived". We've seen how dating methods can be inaccurate, and it also raises questions regarding which manuscripts were dated, and what dating procedures were used.

People will also look at the similarities of the documents and, based on their presumptions and biases against the biblical manuscripts, assume that Genesis was copied by the Hebrews from other peoples' myths. Something they need to consider is the differences between Genesis and the ancient tales — something we considered in "Adam was a Man, not a Myth". The Epic of Gilgamesh contained a global deluge story, but it has many significant differences from the Genesis Flood account that are neglected by many scholars. Pagan gods and people are capricious and immoral, making the claim of Hebrew copying ridiculous.

The biblical account of the Genesis Flood and other events have internal consistency and integrity. Instead of thinking that Genesis took elements from other people, it's the other way around: the biblical accounts are accurate, and the pagan myths are copies that became corrupted over time and by cultures.
When faced with the question as to whether the Bible accurately records ancient history in Genesis 1–11 or was derived from some other “ancient” document, we first need to apply a solemn reminder. God’s Word has made the ultimate and justifiable claim for itself that none of these other ancient texts has made. The Bible repeatedly asserts to be the perfect Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21; Psalm 19:7; 119:160). If the Bible borrowed from ancient mythologies, this claim would be called into question.
To read the rest of this very interesting article, click on "Is Genesis 1–11 a Derivation from Ancient Myths?" For some additional material, I recommend two other articles, "Are Biblical accounts copied from pagan religions? Part 1. The God of Creation" and "Are Biblical accounts copied from pagan religions? Part 2. The Resurrection".
 
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, July 29, 2017

How Do You Know It Is True?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The title brings to mind a roomful of intellectuals discussing Kant, Hegel, Descartes, Voltaire, and arguing until they're blue in their mouths. While this article deals with philosophy, it is not highfalutin, impractical stuff. It's because I have learned some important things and want to pass them along, and they're very useful for reasoning. Also, I hope the programming on this site is going to deliver on its "promises" and doesn't distract from the content.



How you know that something is true is actually a very important question
Made at RedKid.net, with the text on concrete done using Paint.NET

Don't Let the Big Word Bother You


People who have read my material before probably know that I get to gnawing on that worldviews bone after a hearty helping of presupposition, as in presuppositional apologetics (a.k.a. transcendental apologetics). That is, everyone has a worldview, which is just as it seems: a way of looking at the world, our experiences, beliefs, assumptions, and so on. Presuppositions are those things we assume are true, but have not necessarily examined and tested.  Apologetics is a method of defending and presenting the truth of the Bible — and as Christians, we need to know what and why we believe. We all have our ultimate starting points. For the Christian, it should be the infallible Word of God. Other people have various fallible philosophies and opinions.


With me so far? Good.


I'm not going to load you up with a whole heap of big words, but there's one more we need so this article can be useful. That word is epistemology, and it means knowledge. Well, the -ology part means "the study of", so it's the study of knowledge. Don't run off just yet, it's not that hard to catch hold of. Epistemology is how we know something, and if it is true. Also important is the way certain terms are defined, so you really have to watch that in many discussions. If the basis for our knowledge is fundamentally flawed, we could be wrong about many things and end up where we don't want to be. See how that works? Since this article relies on the understanding and use of logic (no, you don't need to have an advanced degree in it), I suggest that you read "How should a Christian view logic?"



Knowing What You Know


Not  very many people make a point of examining and comprehensively defining their worldviews, presuppositions, and theory of knowledge. They have their opinions and "know" certain things, but are unaware of the hows and whys of what they claim to know. For most of us, our worldview grows over time, and is seldom consciously processed. One aspect of presuppositional apologetics is to give an internal critique of non-biblical worldviews. This includes asking questions about how people reached their conclusions, and how they know their starting points are accurate. Sometimes the in-between stuff, too.


It's interesting that, no matter what the subject, people will argue from what they've been told. Christians do this, especially when a celebrity or teacher they like makes a statement, and their epistemology stops with the authority or personality of that person. How do you know the claim is true? That person who told you — how does he or she know something is true? (I've embarrassed myself by relaying incorrect information from unchecked sources, now I tend to be more circumspect.) Atheists and evolutionists believe what they've been told about Christians and creationists, but their epistemology generally stops at misotheist sites and the statements of friends. Their epistemology seldom involves actual source material. 


Professing atheists are far more willing to pass along negative material that they know is untrue — which is something I've seen done. You'll find atheo-fascists that seek out their fellow travelers who will "refute" evidence against evolution with "arguments" that amount to, "That's not true!" Then they feel better about themselves and their erroneous worldview. I recommend that professing atheists and agnostics ask themselves why they believe all sorts of negative things about the Bible, Christians, God, creation science, and so on. Perhaps they are simply following a leader, or trying to gain the approval of others. According to the Bible, they are attempting to justify their rebellion against God.


People like this have an a priori definition of reality as atheistic materialism: God and miracles do not exist, Genesis is false, nothing exists except the material world, and so on. They consider Christians and biblical creationists to be "reality deniers" because we do not kowtow to their assertions.  They get ornery, ridiculing us for using our own starting point: the revelation of God's Word. Ridicule is one of the manipulative tactics use to control a discussion. 


Related to that is how atheists get on the prod when Bible-believing Christians will not appeal to their pride by letting them decide whether or not God exists, and argue on neutral ground. No, there is no "neutral ground": we believe the Bible, and it says they know that God exists, but suppress the truth (Rom 1:18). I have to add that demanding of material proof for the existence of God is a logical fallacy called the category error. This is ironic, since they claim to uphold science, logic, and reason. (Note to apologists who use evidence only: evidence does not save anyone, nor will someone's brilliant arguments. That is the work of the Holy Spirit, see 1 Cor. 2:1-5. Also remember that we must be honoring to God in our apologetic methods.). Another irony is that such questions are theological and philosophical, not scientific. By the way, what tinhorn made science the pope of truth?



Examples to Ponder


"Reality doesn't work by perspectives. Things are objectively true whether you accept them or not". Sounds good on the surface, almost intellectual. You can take someone like this back to square one and ask him how he defines reality. Also, ask if he can he defend his position that things are "objectively true", and how he reached that conclusion. Actually, it is an arbitrary assertion. (I happen to know that this particular atheopath is a materialistic atheist and evolutionist. A very bitter one, too.) Arbitrariness is irrational, and is devastating to a worldview because it has no basis. It also leads to bullying and pejoratives like we saw in the example.

"Calling a creationist scientifically illiterate is dead on".
This, too, is based on evolutionary materialism, and is obviously bigoted. How does he know that creationists are "scientifically illiterate"? The claim requires knowledge beyond the capabilities of the one making the comment. His statement is also a lie that has been handily refuted many times. Related to this, "Creationism is more scientifically illiterate than flat earth, so no scientist can be a creationist." How would this jasper know that "creationism is more scientifically illiterate than flat earth"? This bigoted claim was made on a post that listed creationary scientists, so it is another falsehood based on arbitrary assertions, prejudicial conjecture, unargued assumptions, and an invalid comparison. Too illogical to warrant a prolonged discussion.


Also, notice that assumptions of superior atheistic "morality" gives some folks an imaginary license to lie, use multiple false accounts, deception, ridicule, and so on. When queried, some respond that creationists deserve ridicule and deceit. Really? Upon what basis? Do the critics use the same criteria for other people? It turns out that their erroneous epistemology gives them the "knowledge" and a right to ridicule those who do not hold to naturalistic presuppositions; they claim to have the greater good The end justifies the means, mein Schatzi


Normally, I try to do posts and articles several days in advance, and then schedule them to post. This article was several days in the making, and I actually finished it on the day I wanted it to publish. How do I know that it will publish? Because the software has been reliable before, according to my memory. Mostly reliable. My epistemology shows me that it's best to check and see that the software did not fail me, both here and sharing to social media.



Short-Form Summaries


The starting points for many people are based on opinions without knowledge (that is, poor epistemology), and can be summed up:


"There was no Genesis Flood, that is fiction!"


Why?


"Because atheism!"


Someone like that just disqualified himself from rational discussion and lost credibility. For one thing, it is not a science statement, it is his or her personal philosophy.


Here's another:


"You don't pick at flaws in evolutionary theory, namely because there are no such flaws."


How do you know this?


"Because evolution!"


That is, there are fundamentalist evolutionists who are compelled by blind faith to prop up Darwin at all costs — including contradicting evolutionary scientists who admit to flaws in evolution. They can not admit that a creationist is right in anything of consequence. In fact, we must be slapped down, even in small things.



Atheism and Evolution Make Science Logically Impossible


The epistemology of atheists and evolutionists relies on their ability to use reason. How do they know their ability to reason, their perceptions, their memories, are reliable? One atheopath said, "Presuppositional apologetics will always be self defeating. You always have to assume your brain is reliable a priori". 


Actually, the opposite is true. Important aspects of science are uniformity of nature, repeatability, and consistency. God is the author of logic, and upholds the universe (Heb. 1:3), so we know that the laws of logic and science will be the same tomorrow. Universal common ancestor evolution relies on chance, uncountable random mutations that somehow improve organisms, and a whole heap of time. According to atheism and evolution, we are simply bundles of chemicals responding to their reactions — we cannot trust our thoughts and memories. How can you trust your evolved-by-chance brain to give you reliable information? Not happening, pilgrim. 


By using logic and science, atheists and evolutionists are actually denying their own epistemology and worldview, and standing on the biblical worldview! They cannot explain science, logic, or anything else regarding the preconditions of human experience in their own worldview.



Finding Logical Fallacies


My regular readers probably knew I was going to bring this up. Because of their erroneous epistemology, atheists and evolutionists make numerous errors in reasoning — especially those that frequent the internet. Like the big words in this article, the term logical fallacies may seem intimidating, but those fallacies are often easy to spot. (They are fun when bundled. I've seen three or more fallacies in one sentence.) It's mighty difficult to build a rational, persuasive argument when using bad reasoning. Knowing about these errors not only helps us when Darwin's disciples attack, but helps us to reduce our own errors when presenting our reasons for believing. One place to start is my list of "Logic Lessons" and resources listed there.




Bringing It Together


The main word here is epistemology, which is the study of knowledge. How do you know what you know, and how do you know it's true? We all have an epistemology, but few people have actually given theirs a detailed analysis. We build our presuppositions on things we believe are true, and from there, we build our worldviews. The whole shootin' match is often done a piece at a time.

Atheists have an irrational and incoherent epistemology that is internally inconsistent. Logic and science are impossible according to a materialistic, atheistic worldview, so they indirectly admit that their belief system is incoherent, and stand on the biblical worldview. Likewise, evolution is scientifically impossible, since it relies on illogical things. 

Biblical creationists rely on the Word of God. It is internally consistent, and contains the answers necessary for human experience: where we came from, where we're going, and how we get there. Atheists hate presuppositional apologetics because those of us who use it will not appeal to their egos, and we will not compromise on the Bible. Further, we use this apologetic method to show that atheism and evolutionism are incoherent, internally inconsistent, and that Scripture contains the truth that they lack. Our epistemology is certain.

For further reading in addition to links used above, I highly recommend two articles that spurred me on to write this article. First, Dr. Jason Lisle's "Are You Epistemologically Self-Conscious?". Second and a bit deeper is Dr. Dave Greear's "The Role of Presuppositions and Worldviews in the Creation-Evolution Debate".

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

Friday, July 28, 2017

Nodosaur News is Good News

Shawn Funk had an interesting day on March 21, 2011 while working for Suncor Energy in Alberta, Canada. Excavation work had to be done (he's a miner, they do that kind of thing). Bet he didn't expect to make a bit of history by finding what is considered the best-preserved nodosaur (a type of armored dinosaur) fossil. 

Nodosaur fossil defies evolutionary assumptions and supports the Genesis Flood
Suncor nodosaur fossil photo credit: Wikimedia Commons / Machairo / CC BY-SA 4.0
Despite failed, hoary tales of Darwinists and old Earth geologists (such as dying, getting swept out to sea, then becoming preserved instead of scavenger chow), this critter had evidence to present supporting the Genesis Flood and a young Earth. Sure, they wouldn't be so surprised to find a marine creature in that area, but a land dweller? That's the first clue that something unusual happened. Preserved skin remnants were found as well. The whole thing is well-preserved and is expected to yield a whole passel of information, and it would be mighty helpful if the scientists dropped their evolutionary presuppositions so they could do actual sciencey stuff.
Nodosaurs were tank-like dinosaurs, similar to ankylosaurs, covered with spiky scales and a pair of two-foot-long spikes—one protruding from each shoulder. Miner S[h]awn Funk encountered one during 2011 in Alberta’s Millennium Mine. The fossil turned out to be the best of its kind.

No technical reports yet describe the specimen, but researchers have learned enough during the past six years of its painstaking preparation to suggest that it holds plenty of secrets about dinosaur life, death, and preservation.
To read the rest of the article, click on "Secrets from the World's Best-Preserved Nodosaur".
 
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels