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

Monday, January 30, 2012

Paleoenvironments and Worldviews

Creationists are accused of being biased when interpreting data. Surprise! So are secular scientists. Since I learned that no scientist is completely neutral and objective (being human and all that), I see this basic fact reinforced over and over. Here is an example:
Dr Kathleen Benison, geologist at Central Michigan University, USA, writes in response to Michael Oard’s article Beware of paleoenvironmental deductions (1999). Dr Benison was the principal author of the study that Michael Oard was commenting on, and this exchange presents a penetrating look at the influence of worldview on how geology is interpreted.
Dr Benison writes:
No, to see what Dr. Benison writes, and Dr. Oard's response, read the rest of "Paleoenvironments and the Bible, The role of assumptions and worldview in geological interpretation" here.

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

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

More Peer Review Club Action

"Peer Review", the convenient cop-out for evolutionists to dodge actually examining the evidence for creation and Intelligent Design. Sure, let's submit creationist material to evolutionists for their opinions. Makes perfect sense. Yes, the biased "good old boys" club that promotes favorites and suppresses those who are not exactly on the inside track.

Bad news, Buford: Non-evolutionists have peer review as well. But it does not meet your presuppositions. Hey, want an example of what happens when...?
What happens when an editor of a technical biology journal decides, along with others, to publish the first peer-reviewed technical article that casts doubt on Darwin and lays out the evidence for an intelligent designer? 
In the case of Richard Sternberg, a Smithsonian research associate and former managing editor of the independent journal called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, it meant being cast out of the prestigious Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Shortly after publishing the article ‘The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,’ senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution lashed out at Sternberg, calling him a ‘shoddy scientist’ and a ‘closet Bible thumper,’ according to a Washington Post article (August 19). 
In August 2004, news agencies around the world reported on the controversy as Sternberg came under intense scrutiny and even persecution for publishing the article written by Stephen Meyer, a Discovery Institute fellow.
If you have the nerve, you can read the rest of "The Smithsonian / Sternberg controversy: Cast doubt on Darwin, get cast out" here.

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

Monday, January 23, 2012

Evolution Discussions

For about two years now (or thereabouts), I have been listening to many podcasts for Christian apologetics. One of those is a radio show and podcast in southern New Jersey called "Evidence for Faith". Keith Kendrix and Kirk Hastings have discussions on various topics and conduct the occasional interview as well.
I have "participated" by writing the occasional letter, and they have read portions of the letters on the air. (Keep your ego in check there, Cowboy...) Since then, we have had some good communication, and I have even reviewed and recommended a book by Kirk Hastings called What Is Truth? (On a side note, one of my more vituperative atheist "haters" sent them a letter, telling them what a bad man I am. This was revealed to me in a telephone conversation with Keith, who thought it was without merit.) By the way, they gave a shout out for "Question Evolution Day / Academic Freedom Day — February 12". Thanks, guys!
So anyway. The show has had several discussions about the scientific problems with evolution. If you go to the Evidence for Faith site, you can click on the "Podcasts" button. There are several talks interspersed, but I suggest that you check out "Problems with Evolution" (October 23, 2011), "Limits of Genetic Change" (November 6, 2011), "Common Ancestry" (November 13, 2011), "Human/Chimp Similarities (November 27, 2011), "Email Debate on Evolution (December 11, 2011), "Email Debate on Evolution 2" (January 1, 2012), "Email Debate on Evolution 3" (January 8, 2012). 

Note: If you have difficulty working the controller on the page, click on the "Subscribe" button for the podcasts and listen to them in Google Reader, Thunderbird or whatever.

There is some useful information here that orthodox evolutionists do not make public, and true science does not suppress contrary evidence such as this.

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

Friday, January 20, 2012

Wilfull Ignorance Is Not Science

Time and again, I get hit with the plaintive bleating of fundamentalist evolutionists that, "All the facts support evolution", "Creation and Intelligent Design do not have facts", "There are no facts for creation" and similar nonsense. News flash: It is not a case of "my facts are better than your facts" because nobody owns the facts. A fact is a fact, evidence is evidence. It is the interpretation of the facts that are at issue. For that matter (brace yourselves now), goo-to-you macroevolution and creation are equally religious and equally scientific. They are both belief systems about the past, interpreted through science frameworks based on worldviews.

When evolutionists insist that "scientists start with the facts and follow where the evidence leads", they are either misled or dishonest; nobody is unbiased. That flies in the face of human nature, Nellie.
Phylogenetic Tree (modified)

However, evolutionists are so passionate about being "right", they are threatened by honest inquiries and disagreements about their interpretations of the evidence (such as "Question Evolution Day"). I do not know if actual scientists in the field resort to this behavior, but uninformed, undereducated troll-thugs will call someone a "liar" who dares to question the "fact" of evolution — especially the alleged proofs.

Many of these proofs are fundamentally flawed, with glaring, stupid mistakes as well as outright fraud [1, 2]; perhaps they use fakery because they do not have real evidence? Bad ideologies need bad "evidence" to support them, while true science is willing to examine the evidence.

If you had asked me during my years studying science at Berkeley whether or not I believed what I read in my science textbooks, I would have responded much as any of my fellow students: puzzled that such a question would be asked in the first place. One might find tiny errors, of course, typos and misprints. And science is always discovering new things. But I believed — took it as a given — that my science textbooks represented the best scientific knowledge available at that time.
It was only when I was finishing my Ph.D. in cell and development biology, however, that I noticed what at first I took to be a strange anomaly. The textbook I was using prominently featured drawings of vertebrate embryos — fish, chickens, humans, etc. — where similarities were presented as evidence for descent from a common ancestor. Indeed, the drawings did appear very similar. But I’d been studying embryos for some time, looking at them under a microscope. And I knew that the drawings were just plain wrong.
I re-checked all my other textbooks. They all had similar drawings, and they were all obviously wrong. Not only did they distort the embryos they pictured; they omitted earlier stages in which the embryos look very different from one another.
Dare to read the rest of "Survival of the Fakest" here, and download the PDF for a more colorful presentation.

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

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Monday, January 16, 2012

Friday, January 13, 2012

Look Up Your Family Tree

A term given to evolutionary wishful thinking is "missing links". These things are supposed to be linking modern humans to our alleged simian ancestry. Since there are no actual links, they are presumed "missing" because of the faith-based claims that they do exist after all. (Sort of like my "Evolution Breakfast", where I have pancakes and bacon, but the sausage links are missing.)

So, gleeful evolutionists find the occasional bone fragments and construct these simian ancestors. The process goes something like this:

The term "suspension of disbelief" is applied to literary and cinematic offerings that stretch credulity. However, to appreciate the story, people are expected to ignore common sense and rational thought for the sake of appreciating the story. This also happens when listening to "explanations" offered by evolutionists.

Apemen have long been the stuff of science fiction. For example, in 1912, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote The Lost World, a novel in which four male explorers search for dinosaurs in the Amazon valley and find a whole tribe of apemen/missing links. In 2001–2002, the BBC’s adaptation of this, with computer-generated dinosaurs and a star cast, was shown on TV screens around the world.
In an apparent attempt to vilify Biblical belief, the BBC added a mad priest (played by Peter Falk) to the explorers’ team; also his nubile niece (for romantic interest). Falk’s character tries to kill the explorers to stop them taking news of the apemen back to the world, lest this discovery destroy faith in the Genesis account of Creation! 
So what is the truth about so-called ‘apemen’?
To learn the truth and discover where you've been deceived, read the rest of "Are there apemen in your ancestry?" here.

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

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Everything from Nothing

Fundamentalist evolutionists get angry when we point out that they have faith that everything came from nothing. "Nobody believes that!", they falsely claim. There is more evidence that the religious nature of evolution holds to that belief.
Evolution professor Lawrence Krauss is now saying that the universe, and everything in it, came from nothing. Not only that, but there are probably billions and billions of universes that have spontaneously arisen. Occasionally a universe happens to have all the right properties for life to arise spontaneously within it, and that would be us.

Krauss, a theoretical physicist and head of The Origins Project at Arizona State University, is not the first evolutionist to defy the age-old wisdom that something does not come from nothing. World-famous physicist Stephen Hawking popularized the idea in a recent book he co-authored entitled The Grand Design.

Krauss and Hawking use gravitational theory and quantum mechanics to argue that, in fact, such spontaneous creation is all but inevitable. Their narratives appeal to graduate-level physics which most people do not understand, but the basic idea of a strictly naturalistic creation story goes back centuries.
Read the rest of "This Just In: Everything Came From Nothing and if You Don’t Agree You Know Nothing" here.

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

Monday, January 9, 2012

Presuppositional Atheism and Evolutionism, Plus the Human Genome

Today you are getting a 2-in-1.

First, I am going to discuss the fact atheists and evolutionists (I am making a distinction because not all evolutionists are atheists) have their own presuppositions and biases. These are rooted in logical fallacies that attempt to distort honest evaluation of the evidence. Essentially, atheists are right and theists are wrong because the atheists said so. Similarly, evolutionists are right — well, same thing. In addition, they are full of statements of faith, such as, "Evolution is a proven fact", and, "Religious people are full of biases, but scientists simply examine the facts and make conclusions." Sorry to break this to you, but nobody is unbiased.

Further false presuppositions include:
  • Creationists are not scientists
  • Creationism is simple: "Goddidit"
  • Atheists are automatically more intelligent than theists by virtue of being atheists
  • Anyone who denies the proven fact of evolution is a liar
  • Fossils prove evolution
  • Evolutionists have all the evidence
  • Evolutionists are intellectually honest enough to modify their theories when evidence compels them
  • Despite contrary evidence, the DNA molecule did happen by time, chance and mutations
While it would be interesting to dismantle some of the dishonest, emotionally-charged presuppositions of atheists and evolutionists,  I will let you check out the logical fallacies yourselves. Pay particular attention to ad hominem, Red Herring, Poisoning the Well and the Genetic Fallacy. The appeals to emotion are quite evident.

It would be great if disbelievers could set aside their presuppositions, rescuing devices and excuses long enough to hear what creationists and ID proponents are actually saying.

Now things might become a bit confusing. I am going to link to an article that deals with a letter to an organization's site. The letter involves the human genome, and then it goes on to discuss the presuppositions of evolutionists. So, click here to read "Presuppositionalism vs evidentialism, and is the human genome simple?"

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

Friday, January 6, 2012

Evolution and Willing Deception

Laypeople who are devout evolutionists are a gullible lot. That's right, I said it! Especially the ones who troll the Internet, looking to harass non-believers. Their sources of information include outdated textbooks (where the alleged "ancestors" of man that have been discredited, reclassified, revealed as outright fakes and so forth), popular evolutionary propaganda sites and publications that only reveal the acceptable side, as well as their own willingness to be deceived.

I have received comments about this site being "wrong". Why is it wrong? Because some wandering evolutionist fundamentalist said so. (Even more interesting is when a fellow told me that the article that I linked was completely wrong. It turns out the link was broken; he had never read it! On Twitter, this is an example of #Liar4Darwin.) Most of the time, these pop evolution propaganda readers only bolster their emotional reactions and enthusiasm, but not actual science learning. They certainly do not know facts contrary to evolution.

We all have the same facts, the same evidence. But we also have our worldviews by which we interpret the evidence. That is why it is so difficult to convince an evolutionist of anything, because his or her mind is already closed and unwilling to rearrange a belief system.
(Click for larger)
They are willingly deceived. Why? They haven't bothered to examine actual evidence against evolution and for creation, evolutionism is their religion, evolution is the cornerstone of the religion of atheism, emotional attachments, intellectual laziness, intellectual dishonesty — all kinds of possibilities. At any rate, they feel threatened by the truth (hence the pa-TROLL-ing of the Internet and the anti-creation and anti-Christian action campaigns).

What is this evolution doctrine which inspires so much faith in its disciples? How has it turned great scientists into dogmatic opponents of any other viewpoint? Many evolutionary scientists have united their professional influence to forbid any classroom instruction contrary to their own views. Does the theory of evolution merit this kind of fanatical support, which would silence all opposing ideas? When religious people take such a position, they are called bigots, but scientists seem to escape that charge. In February of 1977, nearly 200 members of the nation's academic community sent letters to school boards across the United States, urging that no alternate ideas on origins be permitted in classrooms. 
This indicates that the evolutionists are feeling the threat of a rising revolt against the stereotyped, contradictory versions of their theory. Many students are looking for honest answers to their questions about the origin and purpose of life. For the first time, the stale traditions of evolution are having to go on the defensive. But let's take a look at what they have to defend. Then you will understand why these evolutionary scientists are people of such extraordinary faith, and why they are so fearful of facing competition at the school level.

Read the rest of "Evolution — Scientific Deception" here.

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

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth

People have their presuppositions and do not like to have their faith threatened. One of those presuppositions is that radiometric dating proves the age of the Earth. As a matter of fact, radiometric dating contains presuppositions of its own. Take a look at the following article — all of it — and see what I am talking about.
The presupposition of long ages is an icon and foundational to the evolutionary model. Nearly every textbook and media journal teaches that the earth is billions of years old.
Using radioactive dating, scientists have determined that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, ancient enough for all species to have been formed through evolution.
The earth is now regarded as between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years old.
The primary dating method scientists use for determining the age of the earth is radioisotope dating. Proponents of evolution publicize radioisotope dating as a reliable and consistent method for obtaining absolute ages of rocks and the age of the earth. This apparent consistency in textbooks and the media has convinced many Christians to accept an old earth (4.6 billion years old).
I hope that the intellectually honest among my readers will continue reading "Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth is Old?" here.

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

Monday, January 2, 2012

It's Evolving Too Fast!

The selective citing of data for the "proof" of evolution is readily evident with the Galapagos finches. As Ken Ham point out so succinctly, Darwin found big finches, little finches, big beaks, little beaks. What do we find today? Big finches, little finches, big beaks, little beaks. But they are all still finches. Nothing is changing into something else. In fact, quite the opposite is true. 

Unless you subscribe to the "Hopeful Monster" (a.k.a. "Punctuated Equilibrium") "theory" of evolution, orthodox Darwinism requires long periods of time. Birds change rapidly, but do not cooperate with evolutionary precepts.

Biologists recently found that feather colors and songs vary among some species within the South American genus Sporophila, also known as seedeater birds. But strangely, they did not find any genetic differences in the form of species-specific DNA markers. Do these variations fit any evolutionary pattern? 
The researchers published their species comparisons in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. In their report, they wrote, "Taken together, we suggest that this is a compelling example of an extremely rapid, recent and ongoing continental radiation, with species diverging in male plumage [feather] coloration patterns and song."
To read the rest of "Study Shows Bird Species Change Fast", you can fly over here.

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