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 31, 2014

Ants, Evolution and Zombies

The zombie mythology has evolved over the years, especially since popular movies of cannibalistic walking dead people became popular. Older stories are that zombies are dead people who were reanimated through witchcraft, slaves to their master, and could only be set free (or killed, depending on the story) by stuffing their mouths with salt. I don't cotton to zombie stories, but from what I gather, the new version varies, and zombification is pretty much the result of a pathogen. Skip the salt, they need to be shot in the head. Whatever the myth, people were taken over and had no will of their own.

That's similar to evolutionary theory, now that I study on it. People get indoctrinated in the pathogen of evolutionism, and that helps fuel their rebellion against their Creator. Their father down below, who fell because of pride (Isaiah 14.12-14, Ezekiel 28.11-19), controls their wills and encourages this prideful rebellion. We have evolution zombies walking around, spreading their pathogen and causing others to become like they are. Creation science ministries have the cure, and we want to see goo-to-you evolutionism put six feet under where it belongs. But I'm going off on a tangent. 

This post is about creatures who are not supernatural, but act like zombies. No, they don't eat brains. These ants have been taken over by a parasitic fungus and are controlled by it. Amazingly, researchers realized that although the ants were spreading the fungus, the fungus did not cause a full-on zombie outbreak and wipe out ant colonies. If a parasite was that thorough, it couldn't survive. Although the scientists are giving evolution the credit for this destructive behavior, they have no clue as to what went on, or why.

Real life zombies, like those in fiction, must ensure the spread and survival of the parasitic pathogen that creates them. If the parasitic hosts all go extinct, so will the parasites. Thus, through a tactical duel with death, carpenter ant colonies uniformly infected with a zombie-making fungus survive and thrive without succumbing to a zombie apocalypse. The colonies survive even as token members are driven to unnaturally position themselves where their spore-shedding corpses can rain down infectious fungal spores on their former fellows.
I won't ant-tagonize you any more, you can read the rest by clicking on "Zombie Ants and Genesis".

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Faker Alert for Facebook

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Edited November 18, 2014.

Someone is interested in giving me a reward. Atheopaths must hate it that they are fulfilling prophesy (Luke 6.22-23). The Question Evolution Project is hated by many people on Facebook. There have been some trolling attacks, many from the same guy who is probably using a fake name (see the list of recently banned and reported). Now this tinhorn is drawing down on me. He's using the name of the Page as an individual, and sending messages, "Just wanting to let my fans know my page The Question Evolution Project has been hacked. Can you go unlike it, I'll be making another page shortly". Hacked? My account password is so strong, even I don't know it! I copy it from the free, Open Source Keepass password safe.

The fake profile, which was later taken down. Click for larger.
Not only does did he have a fake profile under that name, but also set up at least two fake Question Evolution Project Pages (ours has been there for a few years, has over 3,400 "Likes" at this writing, and also has the words piltdown.superman in the URL). What he seems to have forgotten is that I have this site, which is linked to the Page on Facebook and posts there automatically. That gives good evidence that my Page is not hacked, since this post will automatically go there. And eventually to my Google Plus version as well. The strongest evidence where the real Page is simply to click on the Facebook badge in the right-hand column, and you go to the real Page! I recommend that other ministries do the same.

He even gloated about his criminal behavior.

After that account was taken down, he came back later. And failed again. These people imitate Christians and their ministries. I've been involved in sounding the alarm for Creation Ministries International, Ian Juby, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Eric Hovind and several others. People need to be vigilant! I strongly suggest that you read my other article on this, "Finding Anti-Creation Facebook Fakers". You can't rely on Facebook to do the right thing, but it happens once in a while.

Actually, I have some other things that bother me. People have been duped and made friends with fakers on just their say-so. Depending on their privacy settings, their personal information and friend lists are at risk. Facebook is fraught with identity theft. 

I have it on good authority that this guy has done a number of impersonations as well as troll attacks on other Christian and creationists. Others do the same. Do you think people like this are going to respect the privacy of Christians who accepted friend requests or "Like" imitator Pages? Not hardly! The "Good Without God" gang are willing to threaten Christians (see the article and screenshot here).

Let's be blunt: These people are engaging in criminal as well as immoral activities. But this stuff happens when they're under Satan's control (believing they're "freethinkers"), and also unable to tolerate the truth of biblical creation science; they want us silenced.

Anyway, I've pretty well demonstrated that the Facebook Page is not hacked, and people who do this are liars. Stay safe, stay vigilant, and have a healthy skepticism. As for me, I'm keeping on in the power of God and remembering that these atheists are building up my treasure in Heaven.

Plant Intranet is Tree-mendous!

Many years of study have been invested in the study of plant communication. Not only with each other, but within themselves. It's like having branch (heh!) offices that communicate on a molecular level. Supplies are low at the fort, so a message is sent to the commander to send more on the next stagecoach. Actually, it resembles a kind of intranet with e-mail (tree mail?), but without spam. 

Assembled from components at Clker.com
Scientists hacked in and blocked the communication, and found out that yes indeed, the communication is not just idle chatter. Although evolutionists give credit for evolution, that is a catch-all claim that cannot be supported, Instead, this shows the work of the Creator and his provision for even "simple" things like plants.
How do roots respond to what the top of the plant experiences? With an elaborate communication system resembling email.
The authors of a paper in Science Magazine don’t use the words email or intranet, but the signaling system they describe fits that description:
To read the rest of the article, get rooted at "Plant Intranet Seen in Action".

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Are Long Ages Essential in Mineral Exploration?

Some people insist that the geologic column and belief in "deep time" are essential for people in geology-related fields to do real science work. I reckon this to be a uniformitarian version of the evolution mantra, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". Not hardly. Neither assumption is true.

Yes, geologists use the geologic column, with its inaccurate assumptions of long ages, as a means of classification and reference. If they used the Great Flood of Genesis as a reference point, they would be more accurate in their work.
One of the most basic techniques is to observe the rocks in the field and plot the different kinds of rocks on a map. This would be the easiest, cheapest and most fundamental method of geological exploration. We also use magnetic methods, either on the ground or airborne. Other methods include aerial photography, seismic exploration, drill cores, gravity anomalies, and electrical methods. Plus we sample rocks from the surface and from drill cores to analyse their mineral content for resource potential. As you can see, all these techniques depend on making observations and measurements in the present and none of them gives any direct measurement of millions of years.
Read the rest of Tas Walker explanation in "Is the geologic column with its millions of years essential for mineral exploration?"

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

What's With All the Leafy Trees?

Evolutionary scientists are proposing an answer to why we see more trees with leaves than evergreens and so forth. It seems that examination of leaf fossils of the K-T boundary gave them the idea that a meteorite impact 65 or so million years ago was responsible. The resulting climate change caused the extinction of the dinosaurs and also gave the faster-growing seasonal plants an edge in the changing conditions over the slower-growing plants. Also, it was said that survival of the fittest does not apply, and some species had built-in properties that helped them survive. Wait, isn't that what creationists say about adaptation to change?

Found this big boy near my parking space.
The scientists established a series of conjectures about changes in trees that have me stumped. For one thing, catastrophic processes are invoked by the alleged changes of the meteorite impact, and this does not fit uniformitarianism. But then, some evolutionary geologists back off from their dogma and use catastrophe now and then when it's convenient. These scientists downplay some data in their report, and insist that their evolutionary interpretation is the only one, and adhere to their presuppositions. Fact is, their actual data fit biblical creation interpretations based on the Genesis Flood far better than the contrived "explanations" that were offered.
By turning the leaves of time at the K-T boundary, evolutionary scientists report they have found the reason fall is filled with leaves that change color. A University of Arizona team examined what they believe to be 2.2 million years’ worth of fossilized leaves from southern North Dakota’s Hell Creek Formation. “When you hold one of those leaves that is so exquisitely preserved in your hand knowing it's 66 million years old, it's a humbling feeling,” says the research team’s lead author Benjamin Blonder. Blonder and colleagues say their data correlates the evolutionary rise of deciduous trees with the famous meteorite that left the Chicxulub (pronounced cheek’-she-loob) crater near the Yucatan Peninsula.
Don't worry, I won't leaf you hanging. You can read the rest at "Timely Tale Tells Why Leaves Turn, Or Does It?"


Monday, October 27, 2014

DNA Redundancy — Not Really

Once again, we see several things happening at once. DNA is full of surprises, evidence shows the hand of the Creator's work, evolutionary scientists are surprised instead of seeing fulfilled predictions, and so on. As we keep saying, it's a great time to be a creationist, and I reckon it's only going to keep getting better.

DNA studies are showing codes within the code; what was considered a redundancy (maybe like a back-up plan) turns out to have even more function. Evolutionary scientists need a bit more caution and humility before declaring things "junk" or giving them some other write-off because they don't fit into their evolutionary presuppositions.
Discoveries of DNA sequence that contain different languages, each one with multiple purposes, are utterly defying evolutionary predictions. What was once hailed as redundant code is proving to be key in protein production.

Proteins are made of strings of amino acids encoded in the protein-coding regions of genes. A previous discovery demonstrated the same three-sequence series of letters in the DNA that code for an amino acid (called a codon), can also tell specialized proteins that turn on genes (called transcription factors) where to bind to the DNA in the genome. However, a new discovery is attributing even more function to the sequences of codons and overturning a widely held myth about the genome and how it functions.
To read the rest, click on "Dual-Gene Codes Defy Evolution...Again".

Saturday, October 25, 2014

That "Quote Mining" Monkey Business

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Anti-creationists make false charges of "quote mining"There was a time when people would cite something, give a reference, and that was that. If there was an inaccuracy, it would be calmly pointed out and corrected. Not so much on the Internet anymore.

Sometimes creationists produce quotes from evolutionists who admit doubts about their belief systems, their commitment to naturalism, flaws in their process and so on. We can almost guarantee that atheists and anti-creationists will cry, "Quote mining!" Naturally, they'll quote mine the Bible up one side and down the other, but never mind about that now.

Quote mining is finding a quote or phrase and lifting it out of context for misleading purposes. It is essentially making someone say something contrary to what he or she really meant, and twisting it for your own purposes. It's similar to selective citing, and all of this is related to the straw man fallacy. Most of the time when I've seen the accusation of quote mining, it is because someone doesn't like the straightforwardness of an evolutionist or atheist against evolution or atheism. On the other hand, I've seen owlhoots that take creationists out of context and misrepresent us by leaving out parts of conversations or putting words in our mouths. This was done to not only poison the well against the individuals (and creationists in general), but to lead into ad hominem attacks.

Do creationists do quote mining? Odds are that they have to some extent. More importantly, did they quote mine an evolutionist to make him look like he's becoming a creationist? I haven't seen that, and I've been above dirt for a few decades. What I've seen on both sides of the fence is when people will give an incorrect reference, use an inexact quote — or worse, just pass along information on the Web that they never checked out. Those are usually innocent mistakes, and occasional carelessness.

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”  George Wald

The above text graphic is a quote from George Wald. It is cited from an issue of Scientific American from 1957 (there are some variations on the issue number, month and year). It is widely circulated on the Web (see 1, 2, and this message to Bill Nye 3 for starters). Some atheopaths express their hatred and ignorance at the same time with profane retorts 4. The quote has also been used whole or in part in printed books (see 5, 6, 7, 8, for instance).

Back a spell, I wrote to a creation science ministry:
How do you deal with charges of "quote mining"? When we used an extensive quote from George Wald about how he chose to believe in spontaneous generation, even though it was scientifically impossible, we were accused of taking it out of context. Some even said it was fabricated, never said that in 1954's Scientific American. What do you do with such accusations?
To paraphrase their reply: There's nothing wrong with using quotes from evolutionists as long as we don't rip them from context. If we quote Stephen Jay Gould where he said there is no evidence of transitions in the fossil record, that's fine. But if we say that he's denying evolution, then we're in the wrong. When they claim we're quote mining, they need to back up their claims; after all, our society believes in "innocent until proven guilty".

EDIT: From the "Wish I'd Said That Department", this just in:
When the quote is provided and the source is cited and the quote mine charge is given, is the burden of proof of the accuser to provide the full context AND demonstrate that it was taken out of context.
Have I ever laid eyes on the original or a scan of that Wald quote? Nope. Is it a real quote, or something that has been made into a kind of legend that gets passed around? There are owlhoots that will flat-out accuse the quoter of lying, making up the quote or using fake material. But I have never seen someone produce a scan of the original. Frankly, when they say, "The real quote is...", it sounds like they are making stuff up themselves. They could be citing the wrong document (remember, there are different references given for the source) 9.

Is the quote real? By my way of reckoning, yes it is. I don't know if it would stand up in court, but I have a few reasons:
  • Scientific American, Harvard University (he was a professor there), his relatives and other people would probably have filed lawsuits
  • Christian authors are not "Liars for Jesus", despite the claims of riders on the Owlhoot Trail. Just use a bit of sensibility. They want you to consider evidence for the holy Creator God, who hates lying. Is he going to approve of dishonesty to trick you into getting your sins forgiven? Not hardly!
  • Accusations are not refutations, nor are contradictions. 
  • Since he lived until 1997 and the quote was around for several decades before his death, Wald probably had opportunities to refute alleged quote miners.
  • An author claims to have discussed this quote with George Wald, and there is no rebuttal 10, 11. Yes, I realize that this is verging on the argument from silence when I mention there's no rebuttal, but the fact that someone discusses correspondence with Wald adds to the overall weight of things to consider.
There is another reason that I think this quote may be real. In a way, it makes the earlier debate about quote mining pointless because many of the same principles are reaffirmed later! In the Scientific American book of articles called Molecules to Living Cells, 12 an article by Wald appears with a similar quote:
We tell this story [of how spontaneous generation has been disproved] to beginning students of biology as though it represents a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.

I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. What the controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the belief that living organisms arise spontaneously under present conditions. We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions in some former period, granted that they do so no longer.
He is appealing to his philosophical bias instead of logic, and has some flaws in there. Wald uses some loaded words by calling religion "mysticism" and calling materialism "reason", and implies the untrue but popular opinion that there is a war between "science" and "religion". He even plays a victim card when he laments that the "philosophical poverty of our time" is the rejection of spontaneous generation, even though it has been disproved, because he will not accept special creation. From there, he went to the completely unscientific assumption that unobserved and disproved spontaneous generation should not be rejected in favor of creation because it may have happened "under different conditions in some former period". This goes against the law of biogenesis 13.

So, I've tackled two items here. First, the accusations of quote mining are often a dodge from anti-creationists because they do not want to deal with the truth, and they do not substantiate their accusations. Second, the George Wald quote is probably real. Even if someone proves it to be inaccurate, the verifiable quote I have provided above shows his determination to believe something unscientific because he refuses to believe in Creation. Of course, I reckon he's a young earth creationist now, since he died in 1997 and had a face-to-face meeting with his Creator.

Do we quote evolutionists? Sure, nothing wrong with that. Will proponents of evolution object? Be sure they will. But contradiction and denial are not refutations. Calling us liars without evidence makes them into liars. Have them back up their claims.

Friday, October 24, 2014

Evolution's Lack of Prediction Ability and Benefits

Claims that evolutionary theory is predictive and necessary for science are shown to be utterly false.

Evolutionists insist on interpreting observations through their Darwin spectacles and forcing facts into their paradigms. "Nothing in biology makes sense without the guiding light of evolution", that kind of thing. That saddle's on the wrong horse, Hoss.

We're told that Darwinian evolutionary theory is useful in making predictions. Is it? In some ways it's true, because there are so many things pretending to be predictions, sometimes they get a vague "prediction" right and then shout it from the rooftops. The reality of the situation is far different. Over and over, we keep hearing about how something is discovered that is not predicted by evolutionary ideas, and even where discoveries cause evolutionists to "rethink". The scientific method according to evolutionists is quite biased and unscientific. For more about this, click on "How Explanatory Is Evolutionary Theory?"

Darwinoids will also insist on using "evolutionary thinking" (those Darwin spectacles I mentioned), saying that evolution is useful and even necessary, and give credit to evolution — but evolution had nothing to do with it. Worse for them, what they are calling "evolution" in their thinking is actually based on engineering and strategy. The reality is that evolutionary thinking should be reigned in; it is not involved in real science. You can read about that by clicking on "How Useful is Evolutionary Thinking?"

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Gilgamesh, Genesis and Myths

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

People who want to detract from the Bible's historical and divine nature have tried to wave it off as just myth. Worse, they ignore a lot of reality by saying that the Hebrews copied from the myths of other people, touched them up and then declared them to be holy writ. I read the Epic of Gilgamesh and studied on it for a spell. (I thought "epic" meant "very long", but not necessarily; it could mean epic "style". The Gilgamesh epic poem is not all that long, especially since a lot of it is missing.) The part of this that is of interest to biblical creationists is the story of the global Flood in the 11th tablet.

Some things about the Epic of Gilgamesh just reared up as obviously mythology, what with gods and goddesses getting angry and fighting each other, Ishtar having snits because Gilgamesh won't giver her a tumble, references to the Anunnaki (pick your story about who they were, some people believe that the Anunnaki are our reptilian overlords from the planet Nibiru, and other variations), simple paganism and so on. Quite a bit of obvious fantasy there.

So it seems to me that the line of thinking would be that the Hebrews weren't clever enough to come up with their own stories. So, they got the Sumerian tablets of stone. Or did they get the later ones from their long-time enemies the Assyrians? Or maybe the Babylonians?

"Surely you can't mean Assyrians!"

I do mean Assyrians. And don't call me Shirley.

Anyway, in this way of cogitating, the copied Flood account tablet was supposedly modified and tweaked for the Israelite culture, and the rest of the poem was discarded.
Some people try to tell us that Genesis, especially the Noachian Flood, was copied from ancient pagan mythologies. Both common sense and real scholarship show that the Bible is written as history, and not copied.
Library of Ashurbanipal / The Flood Tablet / The Gilgamesh Tablet / Wikimedia Commons /Fæ
Just from my own reading, such "they copied the myth" ideas are ridiculous because of the vast differences. I'll refer you now to chapter seven of Nozomi Osanai's thesis, entitled “A comparative study of the flood accounts in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis” for some interesting analysis.

To ride further on this trail, there is a great deal of confusion today about the meaning of the word "myth". Some things are called myths that have a basis in history, and the Bible (especially Genesis) is called a myth by people who haven't really studied on it. For more information on the differences between the Bible as history and ancient myths, I refer you to "The Myth About Myths in Early Genesis". Yes, the Bible has miracles. But even those read quite a bit differently than the ancient pagan material.

Even a cursory reading of the ancient mythologies shows a huge difference between them and the historical narratives of the Bible. You don't have to be a scholar to see them, you don't need to have disbelieving scholars and scientists add their own ideas of what it means and explain it to you. True scholarship shows that Genesis is not mythology. The Bible is for everyone, not just people with advanced degrees.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Archaeologist Found a Thrill on Potbelly Hill

Evolutionary thinking in archaeology needs re-thinking. Discoveries in Göbekli Tepe show construction that should be "beyond" such "primitive" people. The discoveries fit quite well with biblical creationists' expectations, however.Standard evolutionary thinking will not allow for ancient people to have any great intelligence levels. After all, they evolved up from the slime through various stages including ape-like brutes and eventually to human form. Evolutionists do not know where intelligence came from except the ad hoc explanation of "EvolutionDidIt". When advanced techniques in lifestyles, architecture and so on are discovered, I reckon it's a bit disconcerting to them because their presuppositions are out of whack.

Göbekli Tepe (Turkish for "Potbelly Hill") was an unimpressive site, mostly ignored for about 30 years. Then Klaus Schmidt noticed some interesting things. Now the site is impressive, since there are examples of architecture, artwork and construction that are interesting — and mysterious. Now they have to study on how this fouled parts of their belief system. These discoveries do not fit with evolutionary assumptions, but are completely in line with biblical creationists' expectations, since man was created with intelligence.
Everyone is familiar with Stonehenge, but that does not impress archaeologists. Several walled cities had sprung up in other places, and the human race’s engineering abilities were already advanced by this time. According to secular assumptions, hunter-gatherers had already spent thousands of years acquiring the skills and resources necessary to build monuments. At least, that was the assumption . . . until the discoveries at Göbekli Tepe.
. . . 
Archaeologists began studying the area in 1963, but at first they ignored this mound because it appeared to be just a medieval outpost.

Then in 1994, Klaus Schmidt of the German Archaeological Institute noticed some flint chips and decided to take a closer look. What he discovered overturned secular assumptions about the rise of human culture.
You can read the rest of this article in context by clicking on "Overturning Expectations About Ancient Man — Monuments at Göbekli Tepe".

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Ashes to Ashes, Cosmic Dust to Cosmic Dust

That story about the origin of the universe popularly known as the Big Bang has to keep evolving. (Some people get upset about that name and when people use the term "explosion", but they need to cut some slack to people who use those words because such usage is completely understandable, even if technically inaccurate.) Currently, it is considered a period of inflation. A few times, "proof" of the Big Band or inflation has been presented, only to be found seriously lacking.

Credit: NASA/WMAP Science Team
The "proof" of the inflation of the universe was supposedly found in cosmic microwave background radiation imprinted by so-called "gravity waves", but this was quickly put in doubt because it was probably nothing but dust. Now it looks like data from the Planck satellite will put that proof six feet under where it belongs. It would be really something if proponents of the evolution of the universe would admit that the evidence reveals the hand of the Creator.
During a high profile news conference in March 2014, the BICEP2 radio astronomy team announced purported direct evidence for inflation— an important part of the modern Big Bang model.

In Big Bang cosmology, inflation is a hypothesized "growth spurt" in which the universe enormously increased in size. Inflation was an ad hoc addition to the Big Bang model intended to solve some very serious theoretical difficulties, including the Big Bang's own version of the seeing-distant-starlight-in-a-young- universe problem. Inflation was originally thought to have occurred shortly after the Big Bang, although secular cosmologists have since begun to view inflation as the actual cause of this alleged cosmic explosion. Hence, finding evidence for this hypothesized inflationary process is quite important to Big Bang proponents.
You can read the rest of this article by clicking on "A Fuss Over Dust: Planck Satellite Fails to Confirm Big Bang 'Proof'".

Monday, October 20, 2014

Oxygen, the Origin of Life, and Another Vindication of Creationists

As creationists have maintained, oxygen has been present on Earth from the beginning. Some evolutionists know this, too. Further research confirms it, which means origin of life ideas on "early" Earth are defunct.

In the evolutionary scheme of things, origin of life ideas require absence of oxygen on a primordial earth. Abiogenesis does not work, despite the claims of proponents of the failed Miller-Urey experiment. That's because oxygen will cause such life to cash in its chips. Creationists (and some evolutionists) have known for a long time that Earth has had, and must have, oxygen from the beginning. This deals aces and eights to origin of life conjectures. It also throws a wild card into the draw for speculations about extraterrestrial atmospheres.
Free oxygen is death to life trying to evolve, but it was present early on, being formed naturally from atmospheric carbon dioxide.

What is life? What is the meaning of life? Astrobiologist Chris McKay says it’s a tricky question, but on Astrobiology Magazine, he offers a contrasting challenge: “in the search for life in our solar system what is needed more than a definition of life is a definition of death.” And what does it mean to be dead? “It means that the organism was once alive and is composed of organic molecules that are specific to life — molecules such as DNA, ATP, and proteins.” Life, therefore, consists of many non-living parts, but just putting the parts together doesn’t make them alive.

Scientists at UC Davis didn’t say it directly, but origin of life research just got dealt a death blow. A press release from UC Davis says that oxygen forms naturally from carbon dioxide:
Whoa, Wilberforce! To read the press release and the rest of the article, you'd be obliged to click on "Oxygen Was Present from the Start".

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Puzzling Planetary and Satellite Formation

Anti-creationists dismiss creation scientists through prejudicial conjecture and poisoning the well, claiming that creationists' explanations are essentially, "GodDidIt, that's all". Some serious investigation of creationary materials will show that this is incorrect. While admittedly there is a grain of truth to the "GodDidIt" claim, creationary scientists do not stop there; they want to know how God did it, and more.

Some evolutionary theories of the formation of the solar system, including planets, comets, satellites and so forth have occasional plausibility from a historical science perspective, but have many failings under scrutiny. Essentially, when cosmological theories break down, ad hoc explanations are rustled up and added in, but those theories should be put out to pasture. "EvolutionDidIt" or "NaturalProcessesDidIt" are unhelpful.

"Starfield 3" from Sad Monkey Designs
Creationists have pointed out the numerous flaws in the theories of solar system formation and how they are inadequate to explain what is actually observed. Dr. Danny Faulkner discusses some basic principles, flaws — and issues some challenges to creationist scientists to delve deeper into some of these same questions.
I present a review of the two types of planets and the orbital characteristics of their satellites and evaluate evolutionary explanations for them. While the naturalistic theories may explain certain features, other features require a number of well-timed catastrophic events. To have so many of these events is very improbable. The evolutionary theory cannot explain certain aspects of solar system bodies. To date, there have been few comprehensive proposals for a creationary model of the solar system. The invocation of design must be carefully thought through.
To finish reading, click on "Anomalies with Planets and Satellites in the Solar System—Indication of Design?

Friday, October 17, 2014

Further Studies in Scientific Racism

Evolutionary thinking has consequences. One of those is the "scientific" idea of racism.

People like Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Laurence Krauss and others believe that when people lack belief in evolution, they are hindering the progress of science (equivocation fallacy, "evolution" and "science"). Evolutionary thinking has consequences; it is not just a theory of biology, but a worldview with many negative results.

Nobody is saying that if you believe in evolution, you're a racist. Nor can I find anyone who thinks that racism is caused by evolutionary thinking. But evolutionary thinking accelerated racism.

One of those negative results is making racism scientifically acceptable. After people began waking up to how racism cannot be scientifically justified, and when it became socially unacceptable, evolutionists were distancing themselves from their own history. (Biblical creationists who stood by their Scriptural presuppositions that man is from "one blood" have been proven justified.) When I posted "More Modern Evolutionary Racism", several owlhoots chose to disunderstand the contents of the main article (it helps if you actually read it). The atrocities of racism in Australia are amazingly brutal, and are well documented. Did you know about the buying and selling of people's body parts in Africa as well? But that was all right by Darwinists, since Africans (and Australian aborigines) were considered less evolved than white Europeans, and less than human.
Imagine a foreign people entering your country and desecrating the graves of your ancestors. They then transport the body parts to their homeland for the purpose of ‘proving’ the inferiority and animal-like nature of your people. As appalling as it may sound, such a practice was common among scientists for many decades after the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.
. . . 
According to one researcher, “…the graves of between 5000 and 10,000 Australian Aborigines were desecrated, their bodies dismembered or parts stolen to support a scientific trade.” What many do not realize is this was not a geographically isolated phenomenon, but was occurring simultaneously in the German colonies in Africa, especially at the request of prominent racial scientists in Germany.
Evolutionists will continue to try and distance themselves from their history, but we want people to know that ideas have consequences. Those who want to know more and read the rest of the article can click on "African invasion of the bodysnatchers".

Thursday, October 16, 2014

So Where is That Creationist Research, Anyway?

Critics of creationists will often complain that all we do is pick at flaws in evolutionary theories, so why don't creationists round up some research? Well, busting evolutionary broncos is often quite easy because Darwin's Cheerleaders frequently fail at critical thinking, and there are numerous flaws in what is considered evidence for evolution. They get ornery when we point out those things.

But more than that, anti-creationists seldom do their homework, preferring prejudicial conjecture instead. If they did scout around the Web, they would learn some starting things that interfere with their biases. Creationary scientists actually do research, write papers, have jobs in scientific fields, publish in peer-reviewed journals and more. Although the Bible is their foundation, they still conduct "real" science, including life sciences. Here is an article by Dr. Jason Lisle from the Institute for Creation Research about activities in biology, DNA, stratigraphic columns, astronomy and more:
We do many things here at the Institute for Creation Research, but the core of our ministry is original scientific research that relates to the topic of origins. We study the universe for the glory of God. We love to share our results with others and see their delight as they realize how science powerfully confirms the Bible. To that end, we publish our research in peer-reviewed science journals so that our work may be scrutinized by other scholars and any remaining problems or oversights can be exposed and removed. If none are found, we then summarize our research in lay-level literature such as Acts & Facts magazine or the various books we publish.

Contrary to what is sometimes reported, we do not “try to prove the Bible using science.” We recognize that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and is thus inerrant in all its affirmations. The Bible is actually the foundation for all scientific inquiry because it delineates the necessary conditions that must exist in the universe for science to be possible and logically justified. In other words, science is possible because God upholds the universe in a consistent and rational way that the human mind can at least partially understand. We do research to honor God, expecting to learn something about the way in which He rules over creation. As Christians who love science, we are happy to join with others who share our passion such as the Creation Research Society (CRS).
You can read the rest by clicking on "'R' is for Research".


Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Presuppositional Thinking in Evolutionism

A clear example of presuppositions in evolutionary science. Although many deny it, scientists do interpret evidence according to their worldviews.

A basic fact of human nature is that people interpret what they observe according to their worldviews — we all have our starting points. These worldviews are based on presuppositions which can relate to valid and invalid axioms, experiences, biases and so forth. I have long maintained that despite the opinions of many, scientists are not dispassionate and unbiased; they have something to investigate and try to prove.

Biblical creationists presuppose that the Bible is God's written Word, and interpret evidence in light of it. Evolutionary scientists presuppose that evolution, deep time, materialism (in the majority of cases), and other things are true. Creationary scientists present models and so forth based on their worldviews, just like evolutionary scientist do the same thing. Everyone has the same facts and evidence, there are no "creationist facts", and no "evolutionist facts". As I indicated, the worldviews tend to dictate how the evidence is evaluated. Both kinds of scientists use the same saddles but ride different horses.

Credit: Answers in Genesis / Dan Lietha
Although the following article does not make any remarks about presuppositions, they are clearly present. Using "evolutionary thinking" as a starting point, the scientist denies miracles, and then promptly uses his version of naturalistic miracles.
“No miracles” is a favorite phrase by an evolutionist who finds that perplexing puzzles in nature always “yield to evolutionary thinking.”

Don’t understand the origin of human language? Curious how crows can fashion tools to get food? No miracle; “evolutionary thinking” can explain it. That’s the attitude of Russell Gray (U of Auckland), who was highlighted in Science Magazine this week. A “man of enthusiasms,” Gray is on a roll, gaining popularity among many for his skill at submitting complex problems to evolutionary explanations.
Using the miracle of the Internet, you can finish reading by clicking on "Is Science Free of Miracles?"

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

How Bad Is the Ebola Virus?

In the past, people in the Western world were not overly concerned about the Ebola virus because it was far away and not a matter of concern. Suddenly in late 2014, the latest outbreak has spread and the death toll is in the thousands. It has a high mortality rate. So far, there is no known cure. Fortunately, it is not something that is airborne. EDIT: Here is some of the unhelpful sensationalism, a report that maybe it is, maybe it isn't but if it isn't, it could become airborne.

Transmission electron micrograph of Ebola virus. Credit: CDC
Microbiologist Dr. Andrew Fabich addresses some serious questions about the Ebola virus (including how evolutionary "junk DNA" ideas have been harmful). How contagious is it? Were viruses created by God? Can I get infected? Is this bioterrorism? Are atheists doing anything more than ridiculing medical missionaries? How can we respond?
Several months ago, friends of mine were planning a trip to Liberia. They were just about to head over when they got the news that there was an Ebola outbreak. At the time, they contacted me to find out just how safe or unsafe it was in Liberia. They knew more about what to expect on the trip to Liberia, but they were unsure of what to expect in terms of Ebola infecting as many people as it had. At the time, the death toll was in the hundreds (recent estimates suggest that the death toll is over 4,000). I began trying to help them understand a few things about Ebola so they could make an informed decision. Since that time, I have noticed a number of websites have arisen with misinformation and sensationalism that misleads the public about how severe a threat Ebola is.
I strongly recommend reading the rest of this article by clicking on "Where Did Ebola Come From?" ADDENDUM: Here is a more recent article, "Is the Ebola Epidemic Evolution in Action?"

Monday, October 13, 2014

And Dingo Was His Name-o

The Australian dingo gives testimony to creationist predictions of adaptation and to the Genesis Flood.

G'day. Today we travel to 'Straya and look at the dingo. This wild dog supports creationist predictions about adaptation, and also fits the Genesis Flood timeline. There is disagreement as to when it came to Australia, but the Aborigines have ancient legends saying that the dingo was brought with them.
Here’s an animal that sure could use an ‘image make-over’ and public relations campaign.

For many years, the dingo was best known as the wild dog of Australia—the largest carnivore on the Australian mainland — and for being the scourge of the sheep industry. A single dingo can maul up to 50 sheep in one night, killing far more than it needs for food.
To read the rest, click on "The Australian dingo—a wolf in dog’s clothing".

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Don't Fear the Labels

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

During a discussion with the pastor about having a Question Evolution Day event in his church, he was concerned about being "labeled". Don't misunderstand, this pastor is not a fearful man. That is a natural reaction because (as I have pointed out many times), he seems to know that people often "think" with their emotions. Hanging a label on someone is a way to provoke an emotional reaction. Anti-creationists will use this fact to their advantage. I got to cogitating on this, saddled up and set out at full gallop.

People are afraid to be labeled as biblical creationists
The URL is now outdated, this was made at Sign Generator, which is also gone now

What Kind of Labels?
There are many kinds of labels riding the open prairie today, and the most accurate definitions are often left behind in favor of the ones most commonly used. Being labeled is one thing, but the connotations associated with many labels are often inflammatory. I reckon that hanging a negative label on someone is supposed to negate the truth of what someone says.

"Racist" is bandied about so often that it has lost its meaning, and has become a reflexive way of name-calling someone who disagrees with a person of a different skin color (people have been called racists solely because they disagree with certain American politicians of African ancestry). Those of us who say that the Bible forbids homosexual relationships are called "homophobes", a word that is worthless except for its provocative value. I have been called stupid because I use the monicker of "cowboy", which has some negative meanings depending on who is using the word and how it is used.

Biblical Christians consider theistic evolutionists to be liberal and compromising. Conversely, there are militant atheists who consider theistic evolutionists to be "moderate" Christians because their lack of commitment. Indeed, there are TEs that have higher esteem for atheists than for biblical Christians! For that matter, the label of "evangelical" is almost meaningless due to compromise.

Creationism, Anti-Creation and Labels
People who oppose biblical creation use labels for their opponents instead of actually dealing with the issues. Some are childish, such as calling Ken Ham "Ken Sham" or saying "Devious Dr. Sarfati" (ad hominem and poisoning the well). Those of us who believe in a recent six-day creation of literal 24-hour days are frequently called "fundies". Another label is based on the bait-and-switch fallacy of equivocation: Evolution is "science". We deny prokaryrote-to-pony evolution. Therefore, we are "science deniers", which is ridiculous — just ask the creationists who are credentialed scientists, for starters. Some of the names we've been called are obscene and unworthy of a response.

Evil Thinkers Gonna Think Evil
I learned long ago that if someone is going to think or say something evil about you or your worldview, there is nothing you can do to stop it. If you are in Satan's way, he is going to stir up his people to attack you. Some of them do not seem to have the ability or the desire to deal with topics, so they resort to labels to stir up people against you. Meanwhile, they try to discredit creation because it means God is the Creator and, ultimately, our Judge.

When the pastor I mentioned earlier was starting his church, he did not want the word "church" in the title because of its connotations of boring and traditional, and opted instead for the word "fellowship". EDIT: Correction, they took that word to connect with people who are turned off by "church", and I certainly have been myself. I think I was pretty close in my assessment, though. I pointed out that using that word can prompt people to think "cult". For that matter, some people equate the title of "Baptist" with "Fundamentalist" (or "fundie"), but they are ignorant of the varieties of Baptist denominations, some of which are liberal. (I reject the label of "Fundamentalist" for myself, as I explained in "Fundamentalist and Literalist".) While using labels can help you relate to someone so you know where they're coming from, especially when people self-identify with certain ones, labels can also be ways to pigeonhole people, which can hinder communication. I freely identify myself as a Bible-believing Christian and creationist, your connotations are up to you.

Plausible Negativity
Some labels or accusations can have a superficial appearance of plausibility. One of these comes from liberal Christians and Old-Earth Creationists who say, "Creation science is divisive". That is not the case, see "But It's Divisive", here, and also "Does the Creation/Evolution Debate Hurt the Gospel?", here. There are many testimonies where people respect those of us who stand on the authority of God's Word and do not compromise, and who are prompted to seriously consider our side of the issue.

But I Believe It
Some people don't talk about how they believe the Genesis account of creation, and are content to say "I believe it. Let's move on". That can be very harmful.

In the August 2014 "Prayer News Update" from Creation Ministries International, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati wrote in "Evolution makes atheists out of people":
Sometimes pastors and parents see no need for CMI ministry in their churches: "We believe all this; why would we need your ministry?" Yes, you may believe it, but can you defend it? And do your children believe it?
Children do not learn important things by osmosis or because their parents believe. Also, we are called upon to defend the faith (1 Peter 3.15, 2 Cor. 10.3-5, Jude 1.3, Prov. 24.11-12). It seems that we are bombarded with "evolution is true" statements at every turn. (My wife and I were watching a show about cats, and they had to throw in a comment that it evolved such and so trait, stated as fact.) Most people have their kids in government-run schools, and they are getting intensive indoctrination in secular humanism and evolutionary thinking. They are not being taught how to think critically (to examine the evidence logically). In addition, students are not being shown flaws in evolutionary thinking, but are told what to believe and thinkCreationists want them to learn how to think.

Atheists, anti-creationists and many hardcore evolutionists are on the prowl, looking to justify their rebellion against God (Rom. 1.18-23, 1 Cor. 1.20-25). Many have hate that you can practically feel from a distance. When you want to share the gospel with someone, these people are looking to slap leather (have a shootout) with a Christian, especially on the Web. Unfortunately, too many Christians don't have bullets in their intellectual chambers; "Well, I believe" is not sufficient when someone wants answers — especially if your kids come to you after an indoctrination session.

Blatant attacks on creation are happening in Britain, and academic freedom is under attack in Scotland. American readers should know that there are many instances of students losing their religious freedoms in schools, and that groups like the Freedom from Religion Foundation are attacking our rights (sometimes unsuccessfully). They may not even be able to say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance anymore. Do you want to have the answers for questions that the indoctrinees ask? They're available. I strongly urge you to buy or read online a book about how we're losing our youth, it's entitled Already Gone.

Seedbed and Side Issue
Some people are not interested in creation because they consider it a "side issue". To many people, "side issue" means "unimportant". Yes, creation is a side issue in that belief in a recent creation is not essential to salvation, as I discussed here. However, it is very important. Genesis is the seedbed of all major Christian doctrines! Evolution undermines our basic doctrines. It takes eisegesis, a magisterial view of "science", compromise and/or scriptural ignorance to put evolutionary beliefs and "deep time" into the Bible.

Some people use Peter's preaching in Acts chapter 2 where 3,000 people were saved that day as a reference to evangelism. The religious and historical contexts are important here — Peter was preaching to monotheistic Jews who knew their Scriptures. If you go to Acts chapter 17, the context is different. Paul was preaching to pagan Greeks (evolution is actually an ancient pagan religion), so he began with creation. We are living in a culture that is essentially pagan. Starting in Genesis, we can show that God is the creator, that is where we learn about how sin originated, and the promised Redeemer. Seedbed, remember?

Cowboy Bob Sorensen, Question Evolution Day, The Question Evolution Project, PiltdownSuperman.com, Science Denier, Christian, Biblical Creationist

Jesus told his followers to count the cost (Luke 14.26-33). Think about this: If you compromise on creation because "science says" the earth is ancient, evolution happened, whatever, then what? "Science says" that water cannot be changed into wine, a virgin cannot give birth, the dead are not raised... Keep compromising, and with that domino effect, you can lose it all. Our faith is not based on the ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies and speculations, our faith is based on the Word of God. Are you afraid that mean people will seek to destroy you because you believe in and proclaim the truth of creation? Well, cowboy up! I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ (Rom. 1.16), nor am I ashamed of creation. EDIT: Go ahead and label me a Jesus Freak, ain't no disguising the truth. We do have evidence for creation science and for the Bible, but evidence supports our faith, it does not make it. We experience persecution, but in the Western world, it's nowhere near as bad as Christians who went before experienced, and those in other countries are experiencing. Yet.

I hope you will join us for Question Evolution Day, It's going to really take off again this year! Tell your pastor. Hey, send him this link, that would be great. Don't fear the people. Don't fear their logical fallacies. Don't fear the labels and name-calling. Don't fear the bullies. Fear God and proclaim the truth, since God's opinion is the only one that matters.
Question Evolution Day is February 12
The URL is now outdated, this was made at Sign Generator