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
A university science project had a good start but was very incomplete. The students wanted to study awe. Different people have a sense of awe in different ways. Saddle up and ride over to the Grand Canyon in Arizona, or maybe venture to Victoria Falls on the Zambezi River. Perhaps kayaking in Norway will do it for you. I get a sense of awe looking up at the night sky and thinking about our Creator's handiwork. But how can someone measure awe?
The university study looked good at first, but there were many variables that needed to be included. In addition, psychology is by its nature evolutionary, atheistic, and materialistic , so the research was biased in that direction. Also, it can be debated whether or not psychology as a whole is a science. Worse, psychologists attempt to replace Christianity and creation with a false religion. Awe can best be experienced by getting in touch with the Creator and praising his work.
Psychologists get their hands into everything, but the objectivity of their science is questionable.
People are complex beings. They can be manipulated, but they can also resist manipulation. It’s impossible to know all the background factors and variables they may exhibit in certain situations. Let’s see how well science can measure “awe” – which psychologists at the University of Buffalo took on as a science project. Did they gather true knowledge, or just buffalo their readers?
Most of us have probably had the experience of approaching a group of people that are raving about how something is so cute and adorable. They are often excited about a baby, whether human or otherwise, or a pet. Those adjectives are subjective; cutness is often in the eye of the beholder. However, we seem to have an innate reaction to young'uns. Part of this may be a reaction to their helplessness.
Basement Cat is "cute-ing", as I call it. Cat experts claim that laying on the back like this is a sign of trust and contentment.
Aside from making with the cooing sounds, responding to something we find as cute actually has an emotionar reaction within us to protect, and also releases the hormone oxytocin, which is good for us. Proponents of universal common ancestor evolution basically say EvolutionDidIt in their homage to Darwin, but they really have no idea why we react to cuteness.
Biblical creationists have a far different take on our reactions. Before I continue, I want to mention that when I submitted an article, I was cautioned against asserting that a benefit (in this case, our response to cuteness) is really the result of the Master Engineer's design. We can infer and draw from other lines of reasoning, but should be careful about asserting too forcefully. That said, there are indications that our Creator did indeed have a purpose for our responses. One of these is that he facilitates relationships, and wants us to have empathy for creatures under our care.
How did you respond the last time you saw an adorable bunny, a rambunctious kitty, a big-eyed bear cub, or a delightful puppy? Your warm feelings are no accident. Scientists are discovering that everyone (or nearly everyone) has them. . . . Meanwhile, the pet industry is booming. Other organizations are dedicated entirely to rescuing abused animals. Commercials tug at our heart-strings and provoke outrage simply by showing a needy animal. . . . Have you ever wondered why we find certain animals so adorable? Interestingly, this question has spurred much curiosity in both the creation and evolution communities. The evolutionist wonders what survival benefits “adorable” imparts to an organism. A creationist wonders if the Creator intentionally included cute in His plan for creation.
To read the entire article or download the audio version, click on "The Science of Adorable".
Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!
Once again, the hands at the Darwin Ranch over at Deception Pass have been gnawing on the peyote buttons. Huge amounts of money are being spent on SETI and other efforts to find their imaginary friends: space aliens. They reckon that if intelligent life is out there, wants to be found, and has a hankering to talk with us, that would justify their faith in evolution and rejection of the Creator.
Background image furnished by Why?Outreach (click for larger)
After all, since life cannot happen by chance here, so it must have happened out there and made its way here later. That does not solve the abiogenesis problem. I heard a phrase that applies: they're just kicking the can down the road. The SETI people are acting like a cult, using intelligently-designed equipment to search for signs of intelligence from creatures that were supposedly not formed by intelligence. A "study" suggests that aliens might be purple. Why is that? What is the evidence, since nobody has actually had one come up and say, "Howdy! I'm not from around these parts, I'm from way far away up yonder." The MeerKAT radio telescope array is going to be more accurate in searching for — they don't rightly know. No, wait! Dark matter and dark energy (occult forces of physics that have never been seen) may have the answer. Some French folks say that just because we don't find aliens, that doesn't mean they aren't there. Funny how ghost searchers can't use that logic, or if we use it on atheists who reject evidence for God, they ridicule the statement. That interstellar asteroid ‘Oumuamua cruised within telescope range and then took off for parts unknown. Scientists still do not know what it is, especially since it didn't move in an expected manner. Is it an asteroid? A comet? Maybe it's an alien probe that's just passing through. Or a different kind of alien spacecraft that was using a kind of sail technology. Could it be a probe using a sail? You can read about these items and more by clicking on "SETI: A Fact-Free Occult Cult with Money". Also recommended: "The Origin of Life Circus Adds Old and New Acts". Remember, people get paid for making unsupportable statements and calling them "science", especially when it promotes the Bearded Buddha.
Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen When people use the word evil, it can have different meanings. Angry atheists can call Christians evil for exposing their bad logic. Sometimes, people are referred to as evil simply because they do not like someone else. If you think on it, such casual references take away from what can be considered as genuinely evil. Today we are going to look at two kinds of evil in California — one is moral, the other is natural.
Credit: NOAA Environmental Visualization Laboratory (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
First, there is the murderous rampage in Thousand Oaks. As of this writing (you may want to search for updates as information is gathered), a shooter planned his murderous attack where he killed twelve people before killing himself. Most people will not have a problem referring to this as evil. The next item to be referred to as evil is the abundance of fast-moving wildfires. News reports include words like "ruthless" and "furious". Those are inaccurate words to use, because they commit the fallacy of reification, where non-entities (the fires) are given human characteristics, such as volition. In an atheistic evolutionary worldview, to call such things evil is inconsistent. The murders are simply a human bundle of chemicals acting on its impulses, and there should be no judgment of right or wrong. In the second, this universe is here by accident anyway, and stuff happens. The world keeps on turning. However, the biblical worldview is consistent and we are justified by responding with outrage at murder, and compassion. We care about people because we are created in God's image. Also, we care about wildlife and other aspects of God's creation in California. Only the Christian worldview has the necessary preconditions of intelligibility — beginning from the first verse of the Bible. Now I'd like to turn you over to Dr. Albert Mohler, who inspired this post. To hear the podcast or read the transcript, click on "Two stories about death and evil—one moral evil, one natural evil—dominate weekend headlines out of California".
Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!
On Saturday, October 20, I had just finished reading a Western novel, which I do from time to time to "decompress". Shortly after lights out, Steven J. Wright sent me a message that I discovered the next morning. He wondered if I would do a review of his new novel, Taking Up Space, which was going to be published very soon. (After all, I wrote about his novel The Deception back in twenty aught thirteen.) I warned him that I would have to mention things I did not care for as well as positive, and he was okay with that. This child saddled up with some free ebook reading material under no obligation to give a glowing review. So, that's the disclaimer as well as a personal anecdote.
Most folks don't know that I am writing up a review for a book, video, or whatever. This was an interesting experience. I was corresponding with Mr. Wright and giving him progress reports as well as some thoughts along the way.
Although you have seen some book reviews on this site, I actually read very little Christian fiction. Writers (and movie makers) tend to have stereotypical characters, get preachy, and give sappy endings. Not in this case. Mr. Wright did not write a "Christian" novel here. Instead, it is a novel from a Christian perspective about the sanctity of life. A couple of times (don't tell anyone this, it'll spoil my tough guy image), I was almost moved to tears — both of sadness and anger. There's your first indication that you get involved in the story.
It is not difficult to imagine a writer with a secular worldview adding graphic violence and excessive profanity. No profanity here, and most of the violence is short. This shows that a good story can be told without going into such things.
Some of the material was influenced by the author's experiences. Wright mentions a place called The Sinks in the Smoky Mountains, a place he has visited several times. An exceptionally evil character that is introduced early in the book has the nickname Black Dog, which came from one of the Bell Witch legends. Steven is acquainted with the Bell Witch tales. Part of the book deals with the elderly and infirm, and their quality of life. He works with the elderly and handicapped, so he has direct knowledge of some of these subjects.
I like short chapters, and Taking Up Space has 37. This not only helps busy readers have a place to put it down (if they can) but to advance storylines. Yes, there are several stories here. We are introduced to important characters in the early chapters as the book progresses. I still wondered, "Who are these people, and what are they doing in my story?" The threads come together for the most part, directly or indirectly.
We have an unwanted pregnancy, weaselly legal manipulation, two national crises (this was the big story), and a section on euthanizing the handicapped and infirm. Although Mr. Wright does not use the term, eugenics is involved. Eugenics is closely tied to abortion, rejecting the sanctity of life. This is what happens when people reject our Creator's plans values.
One bad habit I have when reading or watching a show is to try and predict what is going to happen. That did not work very often here. I would be thinking, "I know what's gonna happen", and be wrong. That's a good thing because I think predictability is good in science, but undesirable in novels, movies, and so on.
I suspect that we all know, or have been one ourselves, an "armchair quarterback". That is, someone with an opinion on how to solve problems for which he or has little or no real knowledge. (Sure, you've read the player's statistics, so you know that the coach fouled up by not putting in one player and removing the other. But you weren't there.) Likewise, some folks think they can solve problems their spouses have at their places of employment, or how the government can deal with healthcare. But "solving" one problem can create others.
There are many times where the answers are not easy, and additional problems remain unforeseen. Mr. Wright shows how some subjects are far more difficult than we may imagine. I could write articles on several aspects of Taking Up Space or maybe have discussions in forums. Perhaps a simpler thing to say: this book can make you think.
That said, I still recommend Taking Up Space because it is thought-provoking, gives a strong pro-life position, has believable characters (with faults as well as qualities), intriguing storylines, and more. It certainly is not boring! For that matter, you might want to have members of a group each get a copy and use it for discussions.
Taking Up Space is available in both paperback and Kindle versions. Hey, just in time for Christmas shopping!
Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!
Before we commence to showing how ichthyosaurs are frustrating for Darwin's disciples and deep time proponents, I found out that something useful has been reissued. My Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™ is kept in a glass case most of the time, but it shows signs of wear. Now trolls and other purveyors of evoporn can all have a new version!
Image furnished by Why?Outreach (click for larger)
Now, down to business. A somewhat baffling critter during dinosaur times was the ichthyosaur, which resembled dolphins and reptiles. There were several different kinds, and their name is Greek for "fish lizard". Dinosaurs had no evolutionary past, and their aquatic pals were also problematic, so instead of admitting that the logical explanation is recent special creation, evolutionists tried to come up with ancestors for ichthyosaurs. They failed, and not even their decoder rings could help. In reality, ichthyosaurs are examples of the design work of the Master Engineer with their fecundity as well as apparent swimming and hunting abilities.
These creatures were rapidly buried. Not in one or two instances, but in various parts of the world — some were buried in the process of giving birth! Yet another clear indication of the global Genesis Flood.
One of the earliest complete fossils discovered was Ichthyosaurus, discovered between 1809–1811 by a pair of children in England. While parts of other Ichthyosaurus skeletons had been discovered previously, the English find was the first complete specimen. Since then thousands of ichthyosaur skeletons have been discovered, including numerous complete specimens. These unique creatures have captivated paleontologists for two centuries. They are well studied, and research on their skeletons has provided evidence for incredible design and the global flood.
Mention a weevil to a farmer, and you are likely to hear about how certain kinds destroy grain. You may have had them in your stored food. Even so, studying science and creation can provide some amazing insights into the work of the Master Engineer, and the rainbow weevil of the Philippines even inspires imitation.
Because it displays all the colors of the visible rainbow in its spots, researchers want to examine it for applications (biomimetics) in areas that involve optics. These rainbow spots are the product of complex cell structures, which defy evolutionary explanations.
The beautiful glossy rainbow weevil from the Philippines is unique for the spectacular rainbow colored spots on its thorax and forewing. These circular spots produce all the colors, and in the same order, as those found in a rainbow in a series of successive rings. Many insects exhibit the ability to produce different types of colors, but it’s unusual for one to exhibit such a vast spectrum. Researchers are deeply interested in understanding and mimicking this amazing engineering for many types of advanced applications. One team just published a paper evaluating the weevil’s novel trait.
