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

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Chasing a Comet With Rosetta

At this writing today is August 30, 2014 and the Rosetta spacecraft has entered orbit around Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenk. (It is an understatement to say that this is an ambitious undertaking, since the flight alone has taken ten years.) The Philae probe is expected to land on the comet in a few weeks, and several sites have been projected.

Comet on 23 August 2014 - NavCam / Copyright ESA / Rosetta / NAVCAM

And I thought the 1986 Vega probes that dealt with both Venus and Halley's Comet were big deals! Well, they were for that time. It's interesting to me that the Rosetta will be using outdated equipment, because a great deal has changed in the ten years since it was first launched. But "old" does not mean ineffective.

Secular scientists are starting with the presuppositions that comets are building blocks of the solar system. By rendezvousing with this comet, they hope to find secrets to the origins of many things, possibly even life itself.

Not hardly.

Instead of cooperating with "deep time" paradigms, the comet is actually testifying to the same old thing that baffles secular scientists: it "acts young", and not billions of years old. The secrets it yields may very well prove disappointing to their worldview.
After a ten-year-long flight, the European Space Agency's (ESA) Rosetta spacecraft entered into orbit around a comet. It will soon attempt to actually land a probe on the comet's surface. Though data-gathering has only just begun, the comet is already divulging secrets.

ESA's Director General Jean-Jacques Dordain told ESA, "Europe's Rosetta is now the first spacecraft in history to rendezvous with a comet, a major highlight in exploring our origins. Discoveries can start."

But the list of discoveries that the ESA expects may be too lofty for a lowly comet. Space.com quoted Mark McCaughrean, a senior scientific adviser for ESA, as saying during an August 6 webcast, "The really big questions here are, 'Where do we come from? Where does the solar system we live in come from? How was it put together? How was it assembled? How did the planets get built up individually, and how did water get to this planet that we live on?'"
Okay, Copernicus, to finish reading, navigate over to "European Spacecraft's Comet Close-up a World First". 

Friday, August 29, 2014

What Does Science Have to do With Sexual Activities?

Give us a kiss...

It is becoming more frequent when "science" is promoting an agenda — usually, a leftist agenda. Sure, science is great when discussing sex properly and scientists are actually doing real science. But when we have bad science and pseudoscience being used to ridicule traditional sexual values, promote promiscuity and abortion, get involved in government-mandated contraception, supporting gender confusion — the false researchers and the science press do not keep their own domain and abandon their proper abode, there is a problem. Especially since so many people will accept what "scientists say" without question, even when scientist say things that have nothing to do with science.
To what extent should scientists presume to offer advice about sexual matters?

Beyond providing descriptions of body parts and how they work, science exits its domain when telling people how they should behave or think about sex. Yet repeatedly, editorials in journals and articles on science news sites engage in advocacy about sexual morality. Except in rare cases, it’s usually slanted from a leftist, libertine viewpoint.
To finish reading, you can click on "Scientists as Sex Counselors". 

Thursday, August 28, 2014

You Are a Busy Place!

It has been made into a joke where royal persons referred to themselves in the plural, such as, "We are not amused". Although they had no way of knowing it, they were more correct than they knew — but for different reasons. We are not alone inside ourselves. There are billions of microorganisms living there, coexisting and even helping us thrive.

Naturally, evolutionists will assert that they gradually evolved along with us, but they do not offer models, believable explanations or anything other than assertions. In fact, to want us to believe such a thing is asking quite a bit. Further, they equivocate "evolution" with "adaptation", and make it sound like microbes-to-man evolution is realistic, but such a word game is disingenuous at best. It makes much more sense to believe that they are doing what they are designed to do from the beginning.
By learning more about “who” lives in you in sickness and in health and what they are doing, medical scientists hope to recruit microbial aid to help the body fight not just infections but also noninfectious diseases and conditions ranging from premature birth to cancer.
The human placenta, for instance, hosts an assortment of bacteria similar to those in the mouth. These may well contribute to the normal progress of pregnancy, provide useful metabolites to the fetus, influence the development of the fetal immune system, and either promote or prevent premature labor — depending on the composition of the bacterial population. Research in this area is ongoing, and Baylor College of Medicine maternal-fetal medicine specialist Dr. Kjersti Aagaard says, “These discoveries could lead to rapid breakthroughs in not only identifying women at risk for preterm birth, but developing new and worthwhile strategies to prevent preterm birth.”
You can read the rest, in context, by clicking on "The Wonderful World of Bacteria in Your Body". 

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Standing Firm for Creation Science Despite Opposition

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

When running this online creation science ministry, and being in contact with others who stand for biblical creation, we see some pretty vicious stuff from anti-creationists and misotheists. (When I say that I am a biblical creationist, I mean that I believe in a literal six-day recent creation as well as the global Flood, according to what the Bible teaches.) Evolution is a cornerstone for atheism and liberal Christianity (or a word I like to use for liberal religion, “churchianity”), and they detest those of us who will not compromise on what the Bible says.

Several creationist Pages on social media are what I consider "link mills", simply pasting links to creation science articles (sometimes sending them to sites that are, as a whole, opposed to our message even though the specific articles may be adequate). Some of us strive to aim higher, and are very selective in what links we post. In addition, we encourage people to learn how to think critically. When it comes to theological matters, we want to encourage people to think biblically, reasoning from the Scriptures.

I firmly believe that there are two things that prompt people to hate some creation science ministries more than others: The fact that we will put God's written Word first, and that we want people to think logically instead of with their emotions. Those two things are tremendous threats to anti-creationists. There are people who elevate current findings and interpretations of science above the Word of God. Most atheists have naturalistic presuppositions as a starting point to interpret evidence. Biblical creationists stand on the Bible as our starting point, and creation scientists propose models and make calculations based on recent creation. That's what scientist do, they start from their worldviews.

Evolution is crammed down our throats at every turn. It is asserted as unquestioned fact, usually without any contrary evidence offered. We present "our side of the story", and anti-creationists seek us out with vituperative attacks. (Unfortunately, many liberal Christians use the same naturalistic presuppositions as materialistic atheists, and actually side with them in attacking biblical creationists.) Many demand "equal time", but they already have the monopoly on origins information, and are actually seeking to suppress evidence that refutes evolution and affirms recent creation. Sometimes they seek to confuse people who are wanting to learn the creationist view of origins, Flood geology and so on.

Evolutionists have an advantage in that many Christians (along with too many people who have come out of government-run school systems) are unskilled at thinking critically. They will go after Christians with loaded questions, assertions, logical fallacies, ridicule and more (often taken from misotheist sites). Sometimes, they have legitimate questions. Unfortunately, there are Christians have not put much effort into learning how to think critically and to defending the faith. The disadvantages that the anti-creationists have include their own inability to think critically, that atheism is irrational and incoherent, and that evolutionism is loaded with assumptions, false assertions, fallacies and outright fraud. When Christians are actually equipped to challenge atheists and evolutionists, we stop them in their tracks because they are surprised to find people who have done their homework (unlike many atheists and evolutionists).

We try to be polite with atheists, but they detest having their wisdom and worldview challenged. When we stand up to them and show their errors, they resort to emotional reactions and attempts at manipulation. Many will often accuse us of anger, rudeness, dishonesty, stupidity and more when it does not exist. Some even go to various sites around the Web and "tell on us". If they even attempt to offer substantiation for their claims, they resort to selective citing, misquotes and straw men. I have one stalker in particular that spams 40-50 people, mostly creationists, in his efforts to shut down other creationists as well as me. Fortunately, this particular atheopath is not taken seriously by most people. There are some atheists that want to have respectful dialogue, but creationist sites seem to attract the angry types most often.

Like other creationists, it's my job to present accurate information and not to compromise and please people. (Note to some atheists: "Accurate", yes. Because you do not like something or disagree with the interpretations of evidence, that does not make it "inaccurate" or even a "lie".) If someone is angry because I exposed a "creationist" Page for being run by a cult and I lose readers at The Question Evolution Project, I won't lose sleep over it. Similarly, if people dislike our anti-abortion stance and leave, oh well. Theistic evolutionists and OECs (old earth creationists) ridicule us for our lack of compromise. So be it. Creationists are to present the truth and do it biblically, not attempting to please people by trying to make them feel good. Political correctness and coddling are not my primary considerations.

Being in a teaching position and in a ministry is an awesome responsibility. Not only are we going to be under stricter judgment from God, but we care about the people who sincerely, read the material and interact with us; I do not want to give bad information or send them to sites that oppose us. There will be mistakes, we are human after all, and we are trying to grow in both grace and knowledge. 

There are some who will say that we have arrogance because we will not compromise and insist that we are right. They can believe whatever they wish (if someone is going to think evil of you, there is nothing you can do to stop it), but the fact is that Christians have to come to God in humility for salvation, and the truth is in his written Word, the Bible. This includes the truth of creation. Science is very important, but we do not elevate it over God's revealed truth.

The attacks on Christians, and especially creationists, are increasing. Our freedoms are being eroded, including our freedom of speech as well as freedom of religion. Here is an example of an atheist Page that is engaging in criminal activity to harass a Christian that dared oppose their Mighty Atheist Wisdom®:

Used with permission of the victim, and under Fair Use terms for educational purposes.
I understand that this same Page ridiculed me for saying that atheists' hatred toward Christians can (and has!) become violent. Then they did some cyber stalking and harassment. Are atheists above all laws, or just God's laws? Speaking of laws, I'm told that there is someone involved in police work as an Admin there. Maybe these things are acceptable where he comes from?
"More and more people are having a hatred for Christians . . . People behave in a manner consistent with what they believe. If they believe that Christianity's okay . . . they're going to behave very much differently than someone who believes Christianity is a hate-mongering, filthy religion that needs to be destroyed. People with different belief systems are going to behave in different manners based on the belief system that they have. We behave in a manner consistent with what we believe, not with what we don't believe. I have seen an increase in hostility towards Christianity from all types of groups..."
Matt Slick, "Matt Slick Live", 6-02-2014

I strongly urge Christians to download this podcast and begin listening at about the 15 minute 55 seconds mark (you'll skip some technical problems). Click here for the download link (it says "Carm Radio 6_2").

We received a veiled threat message at The Question Evolution Project, and is somewhat alarming in light of Matt's observations. The screenshot has a big white space, scroll down to keep reading, sorry:

Screenshot taken from my Page, but I'm still insisting that Fair Use applies.

To take this a step further, people can lose their jobs for being creationists. One of the most recent instances as I write this is regarding Mark Armitage. He did his job and did it well, but was fired for being a Christian. Here is a short video:

Things are rough, and going to get rougher. We need to be able to defend the faith with greater fervor and skill, but also remembering that it is not our wisdom that brings someone to a saving knowledge of Christ, but the Holy Spirit. Our job is to make our best effort to share the truth. The best effort is to use and improve our thinking skills so we can present the gospel more effectively, and to be able to reason from (and rely on!) Scripture. Until Christ returns, we must stay faithful to our calling.

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Do Lunar Helium Measurements Threaten Creation Science?

Helium was detected on the moon during solar eclipses. There are claims that helium-3 is too abundant for the young universe models of biblical creationists, but there are problems with these claims. One is that it is rather difficult to actually measure. Another is that there are many assumptions involved. A third problem is that several factors that can lead to an abundance of He-3 are not taken into account by evolutionists, and the amount of helium on the moon is not a problem for creation science.
Helium-3 arises from the radioactive decay of tritium, a ‘heavy’ isotope of hydrogen containing one proton and two neutrons. Through beta decay one of the neutrons in the nuclei emits an electron and is converted into a proton; thus the new atomic nuclei has two protons and one neutron turning an isotope of hydrogen into an isotope of helium (31H → 32He + e). This decay process has a half-life of about 12.3 years. Helium-3 also arises from complex nuclear processes in the sun and the sun’s corona involving interaction between protons, deuterium and alpha particles, and the products can be emitted in relatively high concentrations from powerful solar flare events.3 In the depth of the earth, He-3 may arise from the radioactive decay of lithium-6.
You can read the rest in context by clicking on "Helium-3 capture in lunar regolith and the age of the moon".

Monday, August 25, 2014

Varieties of Evolutonists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Experiences, observations and material that I have have read brought me to these speculations. With more time, reading and experience, I may adjust some of them later.

Some people will play with semantics, claiming that the word "evolutionist" is something contrived by creationists in an effort to malign proponents of evolution. Their "sources" for such an accusation are anti-creationist sites that simply make the assertion without evidence. The word evolutionist is indeed a valid word that gives a useful description, so I see no need to change my use of it.

Vehement anti-creationists
Having an online ministry brings out people who hate biblical creationists who will seek our Websites, Weblogs, social media areas and so on. They will lash out at us with assertions and ridicule (often calling us "liars" and "science deniers") because we disagree with naturalistic and atheistic interpretations of scientific evidence.

Example of bigotry and intolerance by irrational atheist. Have I just been threatened?
Fair use for educational purposes.

Many of these people are unable to construct a rational discussion, being content to rely on emotional reactions. Some ministries and creationist organizations will simply move on, because we have our work to do and cannot spend time with people who want to be vituperative. My belief is that they want to justify their hatred of and rebellion toward God, and attack the foundations of biblical doctrine. Most of these are atheists, but unfortunately some "religious" people join in.

Theistic evolutionists and Old Earth Creationists (OECs)
These reject the plain reading of Scripture, saying that a "literal" reading is ridiculous. However, creationists are not woodenly literal. We use the historical-grammatical approach like people do every day whether reading the Bible or other things. TEs and OECs insist on adding to the Bible and making it say things that are not there, as well as finding excuses to reject the six-day creation week. Why they join in with atheists in ridiculing those of us who believe the Scriptures as they are written is puzzling, but I suspect it is because they want to look intelligent in the eyes of the world. Ultimately, they deny the authority of the Scriptures that many claim to believe and rely on for their salvation.

Uninformed evolutionists
This heading is not intended to sound insulting or condescending. The fact is, people have evolution shoved down their throats at every turn. Government-run schools misrepresent evidence against evolution and supporting creation or Intelligent Design, use deceptive textbooks, suppress evidence against evolution, or they simply ignore it. They indoctrinate people into evolutionary thinking in this manner. The "good parts" that sound good to the indoctrinated are continually presented. So, what choice do they have except to believe it?

Sometimes they become curious about this creation science stuff that they've heard about and want to learn more. They start to investigate our side of the story, and begin to realize that important information has been withheld; creation science and ID are not the realm of "fundies", and do have scientific evidence.

These people may react with jeers at first, but we hope that they will take the time to read and honestly consider the material. In addition, we want them to see that a materialistic worldview is fatally flawed and self-refuting. Biblical creationists are straightforward about the fact that we use the Bible as our ultimate starting point instead of naturalistic presuppositions, and we want people to not only see that science is on our side, but ultimately to come to salvation through Jesus Christ.

The humanistic worldview is based on rebellion against God, elevating man over his Creator. It is an appeal to pride that goes back to the Garden of Eden, where Satan planted seeds of doubt with Eve, "Did God really say...?" From there, he went to an appeal to pride by insulting God and saying, "Your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God" (see Genesis 3 for the full account). Indeed, Satan was cast out of Heaven because of pride, and he appeals to pride even today to tempt man to reject God.

Evolution is the humanistic (atheistic) way to reject God and the authority of his written Word. It may come through complete atheism, or through compromising religious people. Those of us in creation ministries desire to show that God is the Creator, the Bible is true, science supports creation and biblical young earth models, and ultimately hope that people will come to faith in Jesus Christ.

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Another Neanderthal Evolution Theory Turned On Its Ear

Evolutionary scientists had some basic guidelines for determining how to classify humanoid fossils and so forth. (For that matter, the concept that a larger brain meant that the owner was more intelligent was discredited.) Once again, we see that when more information is discovered, we also see that there is a great deal more information to be learned. Adjustments must be made.

Henry Vandyke Carter / PD

One of the criteria to determine if a skull belonged to a Neanderthal was the layout of the inner ear — it was unique to them. Or so they thought. Since that same inner ear arrangement has been found in a non-Neanderthal, some rethinking has been happening. The lines of biology are more complicated, and archaic humans traveled quite a bit. This may be startling for evolutionists, but it fits in very well with the biblical creationist timeline.
How can you tell a fossilized skull belonged to a Neanderthal? The comparatively large size and prominent brow ridges? Actually — until now at least — paleoanthropologists have looked at a more subtle feature: the shape of the labyrinth in the inner ear. This bony chamber cradles the human body’s balance organ—the semicircular canals—within the temporal bones on each side of the skull. The Neanderthal bony labyrinth differs from that of modern humans and other archaic humans in a suite of subtle but specific ways long deemed diagnostic of Neanderthals. But not anymore!

This discovery has shown some evolutionary anthropologists that their view of human lineages and migratory patterns is oversimplified. According to Washington University paleoanthropologist Erik Trinkhaus, the truth about human relationships and historical geography is much more of a labyrinth than evolutionary anthropologists have imagined.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Human Evolutionary Lineages Teeter on Neanderthal-Style Inner Ear".

Friday, August 22, 2014

Moons Spouting Off About Recent Creation

Are you familiar with the expression, "The same thing only different"? 'Tis a silly phrase and I really don't like it — except when it's useful. It came to mind when reading two articles about two moons orbiting two planets. Many of the events discussed were extremely similar.

Mosaic of Jupiter's moon Io, NASA / JPL / USGS
Ice particles on Saturn's moon Enceladus, NASA / JPL / SSI
Quite often, the solar system does not cooperate with stories given about its formation because of many anomalies; some things just don't work. With these two articles, we have two moons that are recalcitrant. Io (a moon of Jupiter) was rowdy, firing off huge amounts of volcanic material that should have been dissipated long ago according to deep time belief systems. In addition, Saturn's moon Enceladus is shooting ice into space. Enceladus should not be able to do this. In both cases, scientists used an implausible explanation and expect people to believe it, what with them being scientists and all. One very similar "theory", two different moons ejecting different materials. While the activity of these moons is fascinating, it does not cause biblical creationists to come up with ad hoc "explanations".

Here are the two articles, and they will not take you an astronomical amount of time to read them. First, "Solar System Geysers—Each a Fountain of Youth". Second, "Io Volcanoes Go Hyperactive".

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Mendel and Genetic Limits

Some people have the mistaken notion that so-called "microevolution" (small-scale changes in organisms) lead to "macroevolution" (goo-to-you). (Some atheists dishonestly charge that creationists made up those words to deceive people.) Use of these words is discouraged by creationists, as "micro" and "macro" involve change in a different direction.

Federal Republic of Germany, Gregor Mendel, 1984

While Charles Darwin was saying that small changes led to big changes, Gregor Mendel was experimenting with genetics, using peas. Mendel wondered if he could support Lamarckian evolution (a concept that Darwin disliked), and actually refuted it when he discovered the laws of genetics. His work also demonstrated the opposite of Darwin's speculations. Again we see that the Bible is right, things reproduce after its own kind and does not change into something completely different.
One of the “heroes” of evolutionists is Gregor Mendel, a European monk who experimented with plant breeding in the latter half of the 1800s. While his contemporary Charles Darwin specifically tried to replace belief in creation, Mendel claimed he was trying to understand God’s creation. Evolutionists like to quote Mendel’s findings as proof for their beliefs, but in reality he demonstrated the strict limitations of biological change.
Peas read the rest of this article at "The Limits of Variability".

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

You Have Some Nerve!

Critics of creation and Intelligent Design like to come up with certain physiological features and say, "That must be evolution, since it's done so badly. No God did that!" Such remarks are made from their evolutionary biases and not from sound reasoning. Unfortunately, other biased people take these pronouncements and run with them, thinking, "Checkmate, creationists!", but neither Darwin's Cheerleaders nor their mentors know what they're talking about.

Henry Vandyke Carter / PD

What they believe is evidence for evolution is, when examined by knowledgeable people, actually evidence for the Creator after all. Clinton Richard Dawkins made pronouncements that the human eye is poorly designed, and that has been thoroughly discredited. Dawkins, Don Prothero and others make similar foolish claims about the recurrent laryngeal nerve, but they not only misrepresent its functions, but demonstrate lack of knowledge of embryology and anatomy. Or perhaps they are blinded by bias. The truth is, this nerve also shows the work of the Creator.
A common claim by evolutionists is that the mammalian left recurrent laryngeal nerve was poorly designed because it travels downward past the larynx, then around the aorta and, last, back up to the larynx. They reason that a much shorter route directly to the larynx would be far more effective. This analysis concludes that the reasons for the longer route include both developmental and design constraints. Furthermore, the evidence for intelligent design of this arrangement is both obvious and compelling.

Evolutionists commonly claim that the human body is poorly designed, and that this proves it was not intelligently designed, but rather cobbled together by the unintelligent process of evolution. One of the most common examples of poor design cited by evolutionists today is that of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN), which controls the larynx (voice box) muscles. The claim is often made by Darwinists that evolution is proved because examples of “poor or at least very puzzling design can be accumulated endlessly”, and one of the best examples is
“… the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which connects the brain to the larynx and allows us to speak. In mammals, this nerve avoids the direct route between brain and throat and instead descends into the chest, loops around the aorta near the heart, then returns to the larynx. That makes it seven times longer than it needs to be!”
The main argument is that the laryngeal nerve is poorly designed because it does not take the shortest route to the larynx, a condition also true for many other nerves. Examples include the optic nerves, which do not take the shortest route to the occipital lobe of the brain, but rather cross over at the optic chiasm for what are now known to be very good reasons rooted in optimal design.
I hope you have the nerve to learn the truth. To do so, click on "The left recurrent laryngeal nerve design in mammals is not poor design".

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Big Bang is a Big Whimper

Many Christians have not given serious consideration to how accepting secular notions about origins affects their entire theology. When accepting the latest pronouncements of man-made science philosophies, they are forced into a position of making theological adjustments to make it fit their understanding of Scripture.

Source: Hubblesite.org

The current popular view among secular scientists regarding the origin of the universe is the Big Bang. There are Christians who are quite happy to believe that God used the Big Bang to create the universe. Unfortunately, the Big Bang is seriously at odds with the book of Genesis and the order of creation, so they have compromise in the beginning. In addition, the Big Bang has serious scientific difficulties, and has been adjusted many times — so compromisers need to make frequent adjustments as well. The Big Bang is not "settled science", nor is it agreed on by all cosmologists and cosmogonists. Who are you going to believe, the Creator who has told us what he did in his Word, or changing scientific speculations?
Most scientists believe that the universe suddenly appeared 13.8 billion years ago in an event called the big bang. Today, the universe appears to be expanding, so if the big bang model were true, the universe would have been much smaller in the very beginning.

In addition, if the big bang were true, that would mean (according to secular astronomers) that at the beginning, the universe would have been much hotter than it is today. According to the big bang model, this hotter temperature in the early universe ought to have produced a radiation field that continues to fill the universe today.
You can finish reading this short article by clicking on "A Big Belief". 

Monday, August 18, 2014

Goldilocks, Earth and Rotation

It is baffling why some people are so concerned about how the possibility of life on other planets affects biblical creationism. They will ask, "What will that do to your view of the Bible?" This kind of question gets ahead of itself, and I wonder if these people have any idea what is involved in the studies of exoplanets in the first place. It's not like they're across town, or even a three-day flight from Earth.

First, scientists have to find a suitable planet that may be in the habitable zone. Then, through processes as yet unknown, they must find out if there is life on that planet. After that, it needs to be determined if there is intelligent life on it. So, don't be trying to overturn God's written Word with "what ifs" and assumptions.

Speaking of the habitable zone, there are many exoplanets but so far, none have fit the criteria. Too big, too small, too close to their sun, too far away, wrong composition, combinations of factors... To make matters worse, the rotation of the planet may also be an important factor. (In typical evolutionary desperation, some scientists say that because Venus is cloudy, it must have rotated faster in the past. Evidence, please?) The more astronomers and cosmologists find, the more it seems that Earth was put where it is (the "Goldilocks" or "Just Right" place) by the Creator.
Life can’t exist on a planet that rotates too fast or slow. This is another Goldilocks problem for astrobiologists to consider.

NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine has added another factor to habitability: planetary rotation. In “Rotation of Planets Influences Habitability,” Amanda Doyle reports on findings from a paper on the arXiv server scheduled for Astrophysical Journal Letters. After giving the usual definition of the habitable zone as the inner and outer radius around a star where liquid water can exist, she complicates things:
You can read the rest by clicking on "Planet Rotation Limits Habitability". 

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Makes a Compelling Case

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In yesterday's post, points were made that atheists and evolutionists blatantly misrepresent the biblical creationist position in their efforts to control education. They present evolution as indisputable scientific truth. One of the main problems with this is that people will simply accept such statements as accurate, and then expect creationists to defend positions that we do not hold.

Educators present only the good side of evolution, often including (sometimes from ignorance) outdated and inaccurate information from textbooks. Indeed, some textbooks also contain fraudulent material. Creation science and Intelligent Design materials are actively suppressed, and evolution is sometimes required to be presented with no contrary information. Add this indoctrination to the additional problems that people tend to "think" with their emotions, and that students are not taught to think critically. Then we have Darwinoid Drones arguing with creationists using bad information and worse logic, not even knowing what creationists teach!

There are many testimonies of people who did not know anything about creation science, and when they investigated the information for themselves, they realized that they had been misled. (Of course, there are others who will read creationist material and chant their mantra, "Creationists are liars", so there is little hope for their minds.) The majority seems to have little chance of learning or thinking, since they get the material presented in the biased evolutionary way.

I remember an old cartoon.

A big dumb hound dog that is hunting a fox so he can cut its tail off, so Bugs Bunny puts on a fox costume. Later, he's using an ink pad and rubber stamp to make fox tracks. We see the dog sniffing along and comes across the stamped tracks. He says, "Fox tracks!" and follows them, sniffing along. 
Suddenly the fox tracks stop and train tracks begin. The hound says, "Train tracks!", sniffing along again. He finds Bugs in the fox costume leaning against the entrance to a train tunnel, grabs and shakes him. "Daaaah, now I gotcha, ya little old fox! I'm gonna cut your tail off!" 
Bugs slaps the hound's hands away from him. "Just a minute there, Bub! Just what type o' tracks was you followin'? 
"Uh...uh...uh...train tracks!" 
"Now then. If yer followin' train tracks, you must be trying to catch a train. Right?" 
"Yahyuh, yahyuh, dat makes good sense!" 
"Then if it's a train you're after, he went thataway!", pointing into the tunnel. 
"He did?", the dog says. Then he shakes Bugs' hand. "Gee, thanks a lot, pal, thanks a lot!" He "catches" the train and is extremely pleased with himself.
(If the embed works below, you can see this cartoon. The bit I'm quoting starts at the four minute mark.)

My point with this fun stuff is that people will learn "evolution", then go try to cut off the creationist's tail, use bad reasoning and then think they've done something spectacular. Learning only the evolutionists' skewed and false views will give them an unrealistic sense of accomplishment when they attack creationists.

Many of us have similar experiences when someone is given one side of a story by a biased presenter, then learns that there is more to the story after all. For instance, the cultist "creationist" that I wrote about was railing about me, and someone simply accepted the cultist's account without bothering to see my side of the story:

Translation: Yahyuh, yahyuh, dat makes good sense!

Evolution "education" is biased indoctrination. That's right, I said it! They suppress contrary evidence, misrepresent opponents and even present false information. (The logical conclusion of their evolutionary "we're all just bundles of chemicals that happened by chance anyway", so almost anything goes.) The rest of us will strive to present the truth (I'm doing so from behind my unregistered assault keyboard), hoping and praying that people will examine the evidence that we present and realize that the things that seemed to make sense about evolution do not withstand scrutiny. God is the Creator, the evidence supports this conclusion, he makes the rules, we are accountable. And that is something the Evo Sith fear.

Friday, August 15, 2014

Humanistic Evolutionary Indoctrination Hijacks Science Education

Atheists and evolutionists will sometimes say that they want to have "an honest discussion" with creationists about origins science. Unfortunately, they obtain information from anti-creationist sources.  regarding what creationists believe and teach. From their questions and statements, we can tell that they seldom attempt to understand what creationists really believe and teach.

This kind of approach leads to absurd conversations resembling:
"You misrepresented the biblical creationist position".
"No, I didn't! I did not misrepresent it! Prove that I did!"
"You made assertions but did not substantiate anything".
"Liar! What I said is true!"

Sigh. Such illogical assertions are generally based on repeating what has been read from spurious sources.

The British Humanist Association gave an excellent example of the inaccurate information that has been spread about creationists. They listed several "arguments" that creationists use. These are straw man arguments, quote mining, uninformed but enthusiastic creationist laypeople, examples that BHA does not understand aspects of science themselves, blatantly untrue assertions (atheists like to falsely accuse, "Liar for Jesus", but we have cases of "Liar for Darwin") and more. This helps their efforts to suffocate critical thinking in students, ridiculing creationism and promoting falsehoods of evolution; this is brainwashing.
For some years the British Humanist Association (BHA) has been campaigning to prevent children in UK state-funded schools being informed about the evidence for a creator. They have been remarkably successful, especially in their lobbying for the most restrictive government regulations concerning what may be taught. For example, the latest ‘free school’ funding agreement requires that “The Academy Trust must not allow any view or theory to be taught as evidence-based if it is contrary to established scientific or historical evidence and explanations. This clause applies to all subjects taught at the Academy.” Since the theory of evolution would be deemed “established science” and “all subjects” would include Religious Education, it would appear that this effectively prohibits any meaningful discussion of the scientific evidence for creation in any classroom.
To finish reading, click on "Strawmen and censorship: the British Humanist Association and creation in schools", and learn to watch for inaccurate or outright dishonest statements that you do not have to defend.

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Don't Fear the Ice Cores

Some biblical creationists are intimidated by the certainty of long-agers who insist that they have strong evidence for an ancient earth and that the biblical timeline is impossibly short. This confidence is based on bravado. In actuality, the ice cores are nowhere near as reliable as evolutionist claim.

Evolutionary geologists are confident that ice cores are a strong indication of an ancient earth. Unfortunately, their methods are based on assumptions and circular reasoning. Biblical creationist models obtain better results.
Pixabay / Antarctica / Mariamichelle
Several assumptions made regarding ice sheets, flow models and core samples, including the assumption that they are extremely old. Also, they are calibrated and confirmed by other methods that require numerous assumptions. This amounts to circular reasoning, one of the most common practices of evolutionary science. Using a Noah's Flood model, creation scientists used their assumptions for flow models and came up with more believable results.

There are three parts in this set. First, "Ice Cores, Seafloor Sediments, and the Age of the Earth: Part 1", and then, "Ice Cores, Seafloor Sediments, and the Age of the Earth: Part 2". And yes, Ice Cores, Seafloor Sediments, and the Age of the Earth Part 3.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Cultists as Creationists

Previously, I wrote an article about how people need to be discerning. Cults like the Sacred Name, Jehovah's Witnesses and others will use interest in origins as a way to rope in the unsuspecting and feed them their "truth". 

On another Weblog, I wrote about a Sacred Name cultist posing as a biblical creationist and speaking blasphemy on Facebook. I hope this article (and others linked within) will not only expose the charlatan, but also give encouragement to check for deceptions and compare their statements with the Word of God. After all, this is not the only time or place that this will happen. Please see "A Cult on Facebook Claiming to be Creationist".

Microscopic Machinery is at Work in You

The human body has been likened to a machine with all of its components functioning together for existence and procreation. Animals can also be compared to animals; I tell my wife that I like watching Basement Cat, the Feline Machine. To some extent, the machinery comparison can be extended to plants as well. It becomes easier to notice the similarities as we learn more about biology, even down to the molecular level.

Your cells are far more complicated than this machine
Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures
In fact, the components of the living cell were considered simple. In fact, our cells are loaded with extremely complicated machines and mechanisms that were designed by our Creator before mankind began to dream of them. I cannot see how, on an intellectual level, someone could believe in time, chance, mutations and so on, and deny that life is intricately designed. But it is not an intellectual battle, it is about ideologies and rebellion against God. 

Here are a few new reports:
  • ATP powers chemical reactions and has a kind of spark plug
  • Ultraviolet light damages cells, but DNA has a protection function
  • Some cells are tagged for the trash, but sometimes the tags must be ignored
  • Cell division is tightly regulated; I'll need to see your license, please
  • Chromosomes are pulled apart, but surveillance regulates the process
Read about these and more at "Cell's Molecular Machines Arouse Fascination".

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Prehistoric Plant Users?

Creationists are grinning about dental calculus. Of course, we wouldn't be grinning so much about having to have our own removed. Rather, archaeologists made some cavities and are studying the remains of supposedly prehistoric people. Studying dental build-up has put evolutionists down in the mouth before, and it is happening again.

Once again, modern dentistry causes serious problems to evolutionary theory. It seems that ancient humans in Al Khiday, Sudan, ate and used plants in defiance of evolutionary timelines, and in support of biblical timelines.

Evolutionary assumptions are that humans were stupid brutes early in their development, and they were too stupid to figure out how to use plants effectively. It seems that the people of this study knew about plants, and how to use them effectively — possibly for medicinal purposes. The results fit with biblical post-Flood dispersal models and put a cap on evolutionary guesses.
Al Khiday, near the Nile River in Central Sudan, contains five archaeological sites with burial grounds representing three cultures: one without evidence of agriculture, another with evidence of some agricultural development, and a more recent one suggesting a well-developed agricultural economy. In the context of biblical history, the oldest would be consistent with people descended from those dispersed from the Tower of Babel. The most recent of the civilizations represented, centered at the nearby city of Meroë, flourished from about 800 BC until about AD 350. 
The teeth from Al Khiday make possible dietary comparisons spanning a few thousand years in the same region. Donatella Usai, coauthor of the comparative study published in PLoS ONE, explains, “Al Khiday is a unique site in the Nile valley, where a large population lived for many thousands of years. This study demonstrates that they made good use of the locally available wild plant as food, as raw materials, and possibly even as medicine.”
To finish reading the entire article in context, brace yourself and click on "Plants for the “Prehistoric” Palate".

Monday, August 11, 2014

Evolution is not in the Cards for Sharks

A creature with one of the worst reputations is the shark. It's often a victim of "guilt by association" where people think that just because it's a shark, it will seek you out and kill you. For that matter, the word "shark" covers a lot of ground, because there are various species of shark. This gets more complicated because the hammerhead, for example, comprises more of a family of several species. Most shark attacks on humans are from three kinds, and some of the reports are sketchy. Some of them are huge and alarming to behold, but (like the majority) have no interest in humans. But there's no need to be careless, either.

Basking shark, harmless to humans / Pixabay / tpsdave
Sharks are amazingly efficient at doing shark stuff. Evolutionists have no idea how they evolved (especially the teeth!) and have no plausible models, but they're certain it happened because they presume that evolution is a fact. Realistically, they are examples of the wisdom of their Designer.
Sharks come in all shapes and sizes, from the bizarre–looking hammerhead shark, with its eyes at either end of a double hammer–shaped head, to the angel shark, which has ray–like 'wings'.

All sharks have incredible design features suiting their diet and environment. Those that feed near the surface, like the mako and thresher sharks, are beautifully streamlined and powerful swimmers, allowing them to catch and feed on fast tuna and marlin. Bottom–feeding species, like the above–mentioned whale shark, [Edit: small error there, someone commented to me that the whale shark is not a bottom feeder -CBB] are stout, blunt–headed and are more sluggish, while shellfish–eaters have coarse, pavement–like crushing teeth.

Sharks are among the ocean’s cartilaginous fishes (class Chondrichthyes); that is, those fishes that have a skeleton made of cartilage, rather than being 'bony', and have tooth–like scales (denticles) on their skin.
I really fin you've been hooked and would like to sea the rest of "Sharks: denizens of the deep".