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, October 28, 2011

Decay of Mercury's Magnetic Field Supports Creation

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys used the creation model and embarrassed evolutionists by accurately predicting the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune. His prediction for the magnetic field of Mercury was also correct.
Planets, including the earth, generate magnetic fields that encompass the space around them. Observations have shown that, like earth's, the planet Mercury's magnetic field is rapidly breaking down, and NASA's Messenger spacecraft confirmed that again earlier this year. 
If the planets in the solar system are billions of years old, why do these magnetic fields still exist? 
In 1974 and 1975, the Mariner 10 spacecraft measured Mercury's magnetic field strength with its onboard magnetometer and sent the data to earth. The astronomers analyzing the data at the time found that the average field strength was 4.8 x 1022 gauss cm3, which "is about 1% that of the Earth."
A decade later, creation physicist D. Russell Humphreys published a magnetic field model based on clues from the Bible. He reasoned that earth and the planets all shared a watery beginning, in accord with Genesis 1 and 2 Peter 3:5. He calculated what the magnetic field strength would have been at the creation by using a mass of aligned water molecules equal to the masses of each planet.
Read the rest of "Mercury's Fading Magnetic Field Fits Creation Model" here.

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

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Unexpected Activity on the Planet Mercury

Mercury is supposed to be a dead rock orbiting the sun. There should not be any activity there, no surface features forming, no outgassing of volatile materials, right? Well...
NASA's Messenger spacecraft mission to Mercury has given scientists the opportunity to learn more about the properties of the solar system's innermost planet. After supposedly billions of years since its formation, the planet should be dead, or geologically inactive. New data from Messenger, however, show that Mercury remains active and is still generating surface features. 
Before the Messenger data acquisition, astronomers observed that the sunny side of Mercury is hot enough to melt lead, and like other rocky objects in the solar system, many craters pockmark the planet's surface. In early 2011, Messenger carefully maneuvered into orbit and took photographs with unprecedented detail. 
Images of the planet's surface revealed unusual, irregularly shaped hollows or depressions with rounded edges that were comprised of material so bright that many showed "high reflectance halos." Researchers hadn't expected to find such highly reflective features, which "appear fresh and lack superposed impact craters, implying that they are relatively young," according to the report published in Science.
 Read the rest of "Mercury's Surface Looks Young" here.

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

Monday, October 24, 2011

Darwinism and the Law

Your worldview (philosophy of life) influences your perceptions, beliefs and actions. That should be a "given". Darwinism has influenced many areas of society and culture, including our perceptions of the law.
How one defines law depends greatly on what one believes. The definition of law varies from culture to culture, religion to religion, and from philosophy to philosophy. It is important therefore to consider how different worldviews affect the way people think about law. Darwin’s theory of evolution is said to have generated a materialistic worldview that has had a significant impact on Western conceptions of law. Under the direct influence of Darwinism a profound transformation of legal studies took place in the nineteenth century. It is the main purpose of this article to reveal some of the philosophical implications of Darwinism and to explore how this particular worldview affected the general perception of law in Western societies. In so doing, this article focuses on legal theory and cultural conceptions of law, rather than on specific laws and rules.
Click here for the rest of "Evolutionary legal theories—the impact of Darwinism on western conceptions of law".

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

Friday, October 21, 2011

Astronomy and Conjuring

It is commonplace, and even expected, for evolutionists to hide behind their lack of knowledge with "Science of the Gaps" (where maybe someday, "science" will find the answer, but we'll just keep on believing anyway), or the explanations that contain words like "maybe", "perhaps", "scientists think", "scientists speculate", "it could be" &c.

However, it is more difficult to accept the use of a more complex explanation known by scientists as "making stuff up". When it comes to astronomy, the sky's the limit (heh!).
It has always been impossibly difficult for astronomers to realistically explain how galaxies, stars, and planets might have formed through natural processes. To prop up their naturalistic theories, they will sometimes invent unobserved structures, such as the Oort cloud for comets.
More recently, astronomers conjured an unknown massive planet that was supposedly responsible for placing Uranus and Neptune in their unique paths around the sun. However, the fictional planet is still a woefully insufficient cause for today's planetary orbits. 
The extra planet was proposed because cosmologists have had a miserable time trying to model the evolution of the solar system's four gas giant planets from a huge, unorganized dust disc. The recent modeling effort, partly funded by the National Science Foundation, defined a "successful" attempt very loosely.
You can finish reading "Mythical Planet Doesn't Solve Orbit Origins" here.

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

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Evolution, a Pseudoscience

That's right, you heard it! Evolution is a pseudoscience.

"How can you say that, Cowboy Bob?"

Take a look-see: "Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it."[1] 

Made at Hetemeel.com
Another definition says, "Science is a way of understanding the world, not a mountain of facts. Before anyone can truly understand scientific information, they must know how science works. Science does not prove anything absolutely — all scientific ideas are open to revision in the light of new evidence. The process of science, therefore, involves making educated guesses (hypotheses) that are then rigorously and repeatedly tested."[2] Nice escape hatch to say that "science does not prove anything absolutely", huh? That can be brought into play when discussing flaws in evolution and when someone insists that evolution is a "fact"!

Evolution does not fit the real definitions of science. It cannot be tested, repeated, observed, measured or falsified. It is a belief system about the past, attempting to use science to support conclusions. Surprisingly to some Christians, creation science is the same in that regard, but with better science. Fundamentalist evolutionists sure do have a great deal of faith.
The Skeptic’s Dictionary contains an entry on ‘pseudoscience’ that includes ten characteristic fallacies of pseudoscientific theories. The list’s compiler clearly did not have evolution in mind, as the very first group the article identifies as pseudoscientific is ‘creationists’. Ironically, evolution has almost every characteristic on this list. Let’s look at how evolution exhibits the fallacies listed by these self-proclaimed skeptics, with just one example of each.
Let's find out about those ten characteristic fallacies of pseudoscientific theories, shall we? To read the rest of "Is Evolution Pseudoscience?", click here.

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

Monday, October 17, 2011

Hobbits and (Still) Missing Links

Try as they might, evolutionists still fail with trying to force-fit "missing links" into the parade of human "ancestors".
The tale of the hobbit begins with a strange hominid skull found in 2004 in a cave on the island of Flores, part of Indonesia. Although otherwise appearing human, the skull, like other bones found nearby, was diminutive—hence the appellation “hobbit” to the finds. But since then, scientists have been divided: was this hobbit (and its kin) fully human, on the whole—or do the bones represent a separate species (dubbed Homo floresiensis)?
Now, scientists Robert Eckhardt of Pennsylvania State University and Maciej Henneberg of the University of Adelaide have released a new defense of the idea that the hobbit skull was actually from an abnormal Homo sapiens. The work appears in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.
Read the rest of the story of the Bagginses here.

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

Friday, October 14, 2011

Another "Transitional Form" Bites the Dust

One of the most basic points against evolution is the scarcity of "transitional forms" (something in process of evolving into something else). When queried, fundamentalist evolutionsts exclaim, "The fossil record is full of transitional forms!"

Actually, no.

When something is found that can be considered a transitional form, it makes the news. Why? Because they are so scarce! Just like archaeopteryx was reclassified as a true bird (again), Tiktaalik is also a disappointment for the faith-based, no evidence religion called evolution.
Tracks of footprints found in a quarry in Poland have turned the palaeontological world upside down. For years there has been a neat evolutionary story about how fish evolved four legs and came out of the ocean onto the land. Probably the most famous fossil in this sea-to-land icon of evolution is Tiktaalik roseae, a fish with fins that was claimed to have had features intermediate between fish and tetrapods.

Creationists consistently rejected the evolutionary spin put on the fossil and showed that it had nothing to do with any alleged sea-to-land transition. All the same, evolutionists promoted Tiktaalik relentlessly. It has its own website, features in evolutionary diagrams, stars on the covers of books about evolution and was even the theme of a song to promote evolution. Richard Dawkins, in his latest book The Greatest Show on Earth, claims “Tiktaalik is the perfect missing link—perfect, because it almost exactly splits the difference between fish and amphibian, and perfect because it is missing no longer.” (See Jonathan Sarfati’s refutation of this book, The Greatest Hoax on Earth?)

But now this footprint evidence from Poland consigns Tiktaalik and all its companion fossils onto the garbage heap. From being stars of the show they have suddenly become an evolutionary dead-end. So the creationists were right all along.
Read the rest of "Tiktaalik Finished" here.

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

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Evolutionist Quote

"For the past five years, I have closely followed creationist literature and have attended lectures and debates on related issues.... based solely on the scientific arguments pro and con, I have been forced to conclude that scientific creationism is not only a viable theory, but that it has achieved parity with (if not superiority over) the normative theory of biological evolution

That this should now be the case is somewhat surprising, particularly in view of what most of us were taught in primary and secondary school.

In practical terms, the past decade of intense activity by scientific creationists has left most evolutionist professors unwilling to debate the creationist professors. Too many of the evolutionists have been publicly humiliated in such debates by their own lack of erudition and by the weaknesses of their theory."

Robert F. Smith, "Origins and Civil Liberties," Creation Social Science and Humanities Quarterly, 3 (Winter 1980): 23-24.

"Origins and Civil Liberties," by Robert E. Smith as quoted in Creation Social Sciences and Humanities Quarterly, 3 (Winter 1980): 23-24.

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

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Land Surfaces are Evidence for the Genesis Flood

Uniformitarianism simply fails to explain what is observed not only in the fossil record, but the landscapes of the world. Here is an article that emphasizes how the flat land surfaces testify to the global flood.

The globe we call home is adorned with beautiful snow-capped mountain ranges and lush, wide valleys. Plains and plateaus are common. Have you ever wondered how these landscapes formed?

Most scientists who study landforms (i.e. geomorphologists) believe the landscape was carved slowly by the same erosion processes that they observe today. This idea, that the ‘present is the key to the past’, is called uniformitarianism.
Starting with this belief, scientists try to imagine how rain, snow, ice and water eroded the rock bit by bit over millions of years. Increasingly, how­ever, these scientists are finding that there are many landscapes on the earth that they cannot explain this way.
Read the rest of "It's Plain to See" here.

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

Friday, October 7, 2011

Video - 15 Questions for Evolutionists

Addendum: Some people are unclear on the concept. This video is not the be-all and end-all of creationist teachings! Rather, it is a starting point. There are links referenced in the video for you to further your studies.

For the guy who insisted on creating his own rules and definitions, he lost me when he said that "evolutionist" is not a real word. Well, do a search and find out otherwise. Here, let me help, herehere and here...Oh, I see he got the message and changed his post. Types like that will never admit that they're wrong about anything.

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

Creationist Roots of Biology

The following article will rankle fundamentalist evolutionists to no end. They conveniently ignore the facts that founders of modern science were "believers", and that Francis Bacon developed the scientific method. Worse for the emotional types, biology is rooted in the Doctrine of Creation.
The popular science press may be on the cutting edge for bringing us the latest and greatest news from laboratories around the world, but when it comes to integrating historical and philosophical ideas into our modern conversations, it is woefully shallow. 
Of particular note is the venom afforded to the doctrine of creation in modern biological thought. The doctrine of creation is represented by a number of different groups in modern America, including young-earth creationists, old-earth creationists, and Intelligent Design proponents. Each of these groups includes top-notch scientists, yet the popular science press pretends that they are non-existent.
Michael Zimmerman, for instance, wrote in the Huffington Post that the notion that there are scientific challenges to evolution is "utter garbage.” He says that the idea of Intelligent Design is "scientifically and religiously bankrupt,” which is an interesting assertion coming from an atheist. Paul Hanle, writing in the Washington Post, says, "Proponents of 'intelligent design' in the United States are waging a war against teaching science.” Lawrence Krauss, writing in the New York Times, compared belief in the doctrine of creation to belief in UFOs.
Contrary to popular opinion, the doctrine of creation is not antiscientific. It is not a recent invention of fundamentalists to try to remove evolution from public school systems. It does not put modern science education at risk in any way. In fact, the doctrine of creation has been fundamental to the development of many of the most important branches of modern biology.
Read the rest of "The Doctrine of Creation and the Making of Modern Biology" here.

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

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Particles May Move Faster Than Light

The OPERA detector at CERN (Wikipedia)
The science media is abuzz with claims that scientists at the world’s largest particle physics lab (CERN) have observed subatomic particles traveling faster than the speed of light. If this observation is confirmed, it could deal a severe blow to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, which has an enormous amount of experimental confirmation. However, the first part of that previous statement is really, really important. These results need to be confirmed, and I am rather skeptical that they will be. Even if they are confirmed, however, they don’t necessarily mean that special relativity is incorrect. That’s probably the most overlooked part of the story!
Find out more about the question, "Particles Traveling Faster Than The Speed of Light?" here.

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

Monday, October 3, 2011

Good Science, Bad Science and Ugly Evolution

Lawrence Lerner is a skeptic and a retired professor of condensed matter physics. His recent report, supposedly on US State science teaching, has grabbed news headlines for its grades of all 50 state curricula. One would think that an assessment of ‘good science’ and ‘bad science’ would assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental biology, etc., on how effectively their important concepts were learnt by the student. But no, these ‘science teaching’ grades are based solely on how favourably each state deals with biological evolution in the curriculum guide.
Ten states scored ‘A’, meaning (in Lerner’s opinion) ‘Treatment of evolution is very good or excellent’; the grades drop as evolution is treated less dogmatically, while one state (Kansas) received an ‘F-’ for allegedly ‘removing all references to biological evolution’. As documented below, Lerner’s report contains much in the way of rhetoric and logical fallacies and little of real science of the type that put men on the moon, cures diseases, etc.

Definitions as slippery as eels

It is vitally important that words should be used accurately and consistently. Without this, any discussion is meaningless, so this must be addressed before anything else. And this is a major failing with Lerner’s paper — he never defines ‘evolution’ and he doesn’t use the term consistently.
The theory that Lerner and other materialists are really promoting, and which creationists oppose, is the idea that particles turned into people over time, without any need for an intelligent designer. This ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE) was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

However, many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part-way through an argument. A common tactic is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution’, then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and Creation disproven. For example, Lerner writes:
What does Lerner write? I'm not telling. You'll have to read the rest of "Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?" here.

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

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Evolution and Abortion

Darwin stood for me like a mighty doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe. I was intoxicated with his minute, precise, conscientious and at the same time powerful, thought. I was the more astonished when I read . . . that he had preserved his belief in God. I absolutely declined to understand how a theory of the origin of species by way of natural selection and sexual selection and a belief in God could find room in one and the same head.
— Leon Trotsky

Eugenics Congress logo
Stop and think about it for a few moments. Masquerading as "science" and "proven fact", the faith-based philosophy of evolution is used as a scientific justification for all kinds of evils in the world. Laissez-Faire Capitalism, Communism, Nazism's extermination of the "lesser races", eugenics and more all evolved from a common ancestor called Darwinism. After all, it's "survival of the fittest", isn't it? While wars, selfishness, hatred and all sorts of other evils exist apart from evolutionism, this "scientific theory" gives a pseudo-scientific excuse for them, and even increases all kinds of evils.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was an enthusiastic eugenicist and wanted to "exterminate the Negro population". Evolutionism is used as an excuse for abortion. Follow the excuses: There is no Creator. Life, the universe and everything all happened through chance. Everything came from nothing. You are the product of gradual change, mutations and accidents. There is no purpose, no meaning to your life. Do whatever you can get away with. You came from nothing, so you have nowhere to go. (Atheism has such a compelling message of hope!) Why not abort "that thing" growing inside of you because of that careless sexual adventure you had the other night? Or for guys, why not have her "take care of it" so you don't have to deal with your responsibilities?

Further, evolution tells us "that thing" in the womb is not even a baby. No, they say it's a "product of conception", "conceptus", "potential human" or "fetus". (Ironically, the word "fetus" means "offspring" or "bringing forth"; in other words, it means baby.) Those word games should not fool anyone except people who want to be fooled. After all, abortion is a highly profitable industry based on convenience, immorality and selfishness.

"But Cowboy Bob, what could possibly be wrong with aborting something growing in the womb if it is not even human yet? Science has shown that the fetus is simply going through the stages of evolutionary history; you're only killing a fish-like thing."

Here you go:

Haeckel's Embryo Drawing
Haeckel's faked drawings
In an evolutionary mindset, the unborn have been treated as though they are going through an “animal phase” and can simply be discarded.
Early evolutionist Ernst Haeckel first popularized the concept that babies in the womb are actually undergoing animal developmental stages, such as a fish stage and so on. This idea has come to be known as ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Haeckel even faked drawings of various animals’ embryos and had them next to drawn human embryos looking virtually identical. 
. . .

Through this deception, many women have been convinced that the babies they are carrying in their wombs are simply going through an animal phase and can be aborted. Author Ken Ham states:

In fact, some abortion clinics in America have taken women aside to explain to them that what is being aborted is just an embryo in the fish stage of evolution, and that the embryo must not be thought of as human. These women are being fed outright lies.
Evolutionary views have decreased the value of human life. Throughout the world the casualties of the war on children is staggering. Though deaths of children and the unborn did exist prior to the “evolution revolution,” they have increased exponentially as a result of Darwinian teachings. Source: "The Results of Evolution".
On the other hand, if evolutionism is false after all (and this site has plenty of evidence that it is, plus links to even more information discrediting evolution), you should seriously think about the implications: God is the Creator, he makes the rules, he loves you and you should find out what he has to say.

You have been given a great deal to think about. Here is a video to make you think some more. It takes about a half an hour:

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