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, September 14, 2019

Engineered Nanobot Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

A few months back, I took some inspiration from a 1989 episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation that tied in with a previous post on gene editing ethics (see "Science Fiction and Genetic Engineering"). While taking a break from serious stuff on my Roku device, it happened again.

Once again, inspiration from science fiction. A Star Trek TNG episode provided some illustration for engineered adaptability, but the characters erroneously called it evolution.
Fun fact: the Angry Picard "meme" is from a segment where he was quoting Shakespeare
I had to turn the dial on my suspension of disbelief gadget up to eleven because the show was saturated with evolutionary propaganda that ran contrary to what I have learned about both creation and evolution. Speaking of which, the episode is simply titled "Evolution" and it involved nanotechnology. Although it does not actually exist yet in any practical sense, research is happening. Nanites (nanobots, nanomachines, and other names) are supposedly one billionth of a meter in size. If they are developed, nanomachines could be extremely important in medical science. Anyone who watches or reads science fiction has probably encountered stories involving nanobots.

In the story, two nanites escaped and somehow found their way into the warp core of the Enterprise. They began to replicate and adapt to their environment, and their feeding for further development and replication endangered the ship. Some folks didn't take too kindly to the disruptions and wanted them eliminated. But whoa there, Hoss! These critters are evolving. Yup, evolution. Isn't evolution wonderful? (Our television franchise loves promoting evolution, don'tcha know.) They have evolved into a new, intelligent life form in just a few hours. Isn't evolution wonderful? So, we can't kill them off since they're a newly-evolved life form. Evolution.

Except that it wasn't evolution.


It occurred to me that this 1989 story was indirectly illustrating some of the points of the engineered adaptability concept proposed by the Institute for Creation Research in 2013-2014. This creation model is contrary to how Darwin and his acolytes hijacked natural selection and other concepts. They insist on outside "environmental pressures" to cause evolution, but the opposite is true. Specifically, the Master Engineer designed living things to adapt and even anticipate changes, whether on an individual basis or even entire populations.

That's what happened in the story. There was no blind, purposeless molecules-to-machine evolution going on. These nanites were following their programming, adapting and changing. This television show illustrates something that we see so frequently riding the Creation Trail: owlhoots are so enthusiastic in their adoration of Darwin that they "see" evolution where none exists. The adaptation through design was misnamed in the show, and it is misnamed in science today. A huge amount of effort is involved in denying the creator in evolutionary thinking.

Excuse me now. I have to replace my suspension of disbelief gadget. That silly program burned it out.

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

Friday, September 13, 2019

Damage Response Machine for DNA

When everything was perfect in the beginning, the Master Engineer knew that things would run down after the Fall of Man. He put systems into place The exceptionally important and extremely complex molecule for life known as DNA is quite fragile. However, the MRN complex helps fix things up.

The Master Engineer knew that things in living things would deteriorate, so he designed ways to repair the extremely important DNA molecule. This is another refutation of evolution.
Credit: Unsplash / Blaz Erzetic
This molecular machine is comprised of three proteins, and repairs several kinds of damage. Proponents of molecules-to-molecular biologist evolution really have no explanation or model for how they came into being. It is amazing that the more we learn about the world even on the molecular level, the more we learn about the brilliance of God.
You have been designed with many trillions of cells. Within the nucleus of each cell (except for red blood cells) is the “molecule of life” called DNA. It’s organized into chromosomes (humans have 46) upon which many thousands of genes are found. Genes are hereditary units, comprised of nucleotide bases called T, G, C, and A. Each cell undergoes complex metabolic processes, or metabolism. Because we live in a fallen world, sometimes these processes (such as oxygen metabolism) can produce reactive chemicals that can produce harmful DNA lesions. Our DNA can also be damaged by environmental toxins and ionizing radiation.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "DNA Repair Research Reveals Astounding Complexity".



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

Thursday, September 12, 2019

Neglected Abundance of Food

It gets a mite difficult for people like me who can place an order for food on the telephone or on a website for delivery —

"You do that quite a bit, don't you, Cowboy Bob?"

They told me my weight is genetic. Or something. Moving on...

Many of us have little worries about getting victuals (correctly pronounced "vittles") at our convenience, so we may have problems understanding or empathizing with those who are desperate for decent food. In other places, people eat and thrive on things that make those of us in the Western world cringe. Then there are various things that people have not considered for sustenance and could theoretically alleviate starvation.

Some of the starvation problems are not simply drought, but bad government. Back in 1985 and following, there were rock concerts and such with the noble intention of alleviating starvation in Ethiopia caused by famine. It was not a good idea because distribution and other factors were not considered. Even worse, the government let much of the food that was delivered rot on the docks and money was used to buy weapons. Atheist Soviet ruler Josef Stalin killed millions of people through famine. The Great Chinese famine was caused largely by atheist ruler Mao's incompetence. The list could easily go on.

Our Creator has provided his creation with an abundance of food. We need to learn how to find and use it. We can even eat duckweed.
Duckweed in a marina image credit: James Fischer, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (public domain)
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Our Creator has given us many things to be used for food. I disremember when, but I saw a movie where a boy was stranded in a remote place and tried to make algae soup. It was too nasty for him to eat. Maybe it needed hot sauce. Some suggested foods have been ridiculed partly because of what I refer to as "the eww factor": No thanks, don't want maggots, worms, or bugs for lunch, but you go ahead. However, some of those things do not have to be consumed per se, but can be put to good use. Some strains of duckweed (ducks love the stuff) are high in protein and are better for you than a typical salad. Or you can have the alternative vegetarian diet by feeding duckweed to livestock and then eating them.
People don’t starve because of a lack of resources. They suffer because of bad ideas and wicked rulers.

Solomon, the wisest king of all, had a lot to say about poverty. One of his proverbs says, “The fallow ground of the poor would yield much food, but it is swept away through injustice” (Proverbs 13:23). Here are some of his other proverbs about poverty. Hunger is not the result of a lack of resources, but a lack of character (slothfulness), a lack of truth (mythology and bad beliefs), and a lack of justice (wicked leaders). Recent news articles from scientific discoveries reinforce his maxims, but sometimes you have to think outside the box of natural inclinations.
To consume the rest of the article, click on "Food Abounds for the Poor".



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

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

How Humans are also Animals

In "Animals Do Not, But We Do", we saw that critters can do all sorts of things, but they cannot develop languages, create civilizations, build colleges and hospitals, and all sorts of things. However, biologists will tell you that humans are animals. Is that correct? Well, yes and no.


Humans were specially created, but we are also considered animals. According to biological classifications and common design elements, this is true.
The Cowboy by Frederic Remington, 1902
According to biological classifications and physiological traits, we are considered animals. (Using the same kinds of system, we certainly are not plants or minerals.) Going further, we are more specifically classified as mammals, which have certain characteristics in common beyond those of animals. Some humans can be considered animals because of their actions like those who crashed planes into buildings on September 11, 2001. Darwinists use cladistics and homology to argue for evolution, but their systems can work the other way, arguing for a common Designer. Even though we are biologically animals and mammals, we are still very different, having been created in God's image.
Are you an animal? If a man eats with deplorable table manners, his wife might ask him if he had been raised in a barn. If the guy down the street behaves wildly, you might call him an animal, though not to his face. If you hear on the news of a couple like Bonnie and Clyde going on a murder spree, you might remark that they are behaving like animals.

What is it about these behaviors that prompts us to call a fellow human an animal, whether in jest or seriously? It is any behavior that we deem less than civilized, behavior that we associate with animals more than with humans. But do those behaviors mean those individuals are actually animals? Of course not. The very fact that we might derisively call someone an animal based on “animal-like” behavior illustrates the fact that we humans generally consider ourselves different from animals.
To read the rest, click on "What Are Humans? Animals, Mammals, or Neither?"

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

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Animals Do Not, But We Do

Advocates of fish-to-philosopher evolution often point out the similarities between humans and animals, such as having DNA, blood cells, limbs, eyes, and such. We have so much in common, we must have evolved from a common ancestor, so we are just another type of animal, right? Not hardly! 


Evolutionists assume evolution and point to some biological similarities between animals and us. They ignore the stark differences, especially when it comes to accomplishments.
Credit: CSIRO / North Sullivan Photography (CC by 3.0)
Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
We have a great deal in common with animals, I'll allow, but there are vast differences. Not just physically, either. Consider what we do and what animals cannot begin to accomplish. Imagine if you will:

"Cap'n! Number One Chimp has been hit by a pulsar blast!"

"Get him into sickbay immediately and call the medical supervisor."

Not happening, not ever. Nor will animals learn to write and ignore the rules of capitalization in titles like I chose to do.

Materialists cannot accept the fact that we were made in God's image, and critters have not evolved, nor will they develop anything complex. Leave that to fantasy writers.
If we humans are not evolved animals, then we should possess abilities and features that animals lack. We will here consider six of these, which are also features of God. They are language, literacy, music, mathematics, creativity, and dominion.

These features not only make us special, they also make us accountable. We can use these features to glorify God or to rebel against His will—even to practise “the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8).
To finish reading, click on "What humans do but animals don’t".

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

Monday, September 9, 2019

The Tower of Babel and Evolutionary Thinking

Many sciences are infested with the bedbugs of evolutionary thinking, including anthropology and archaeology. People who work in these fields assume deep time and evolution for the interpretation of data. Those of use who presuppose the truth of the biblical timeline watch as they are frequently surprised by their discoveries. 


Secular researchers are continually surprised by their discoveries, especially since they validate the biblical timeline back to Babel and beyond.
De "Weinig" Toren van Babel by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, 1563
When discoveries are made that conflict with the current dogma, they send a telegram to the hands at the Darwin Ranch near Deception Pass and have them get to work on the problem. (In fact, they are having a retreat at Biden's Eye, famous for its red color at this time of year, to discuss the problems.) Darwin's disciples fudge the data by redating this, that, and the other thing to accommodate new findings. Or they let the ancient aliens folks with their evolutionary thinking saddle it up and gallop away with the facts.

Humans were not stupid creatures who hadn't yet shaken off their simian ancestry. Instead, they were created fully human, and fully intelligent. The discovery of a civilization with advanced building techniques, a semblance of religion, languages, commerce, and more would not startle and threaten biblical creationists. However, archaeology and anthropology, when correctly interpreted without Darwinian shackles, support the biblical timeline all the way back to Babel — and beyond.
The story begins in the southern region of ancient Mesopotamia where 30 massive structures have been discovered that archeologists describe as towers of worship. These huge structures resemble flat top pyramids and were masterfully constructed of bricks made of clay. These buildings had stairs and ramps leading to the highest elevation where a platform was built for the worship of idols.

These temples have been identified as ziggurats. They were designed with equal sides representing the shape of a square. They ranged from 20 meters (65 ft.) to over 90 meters (295 ft.) high, and they were tiered with the roof being a place for the gods to dwell and receive man’s adoration. These towering edifices, dating from the 3rd millennium BC, demonstrate an amazingly high degree of masonry craftsmanship. These structures have never been found before this time and, more importantly, they demonstrate the sudden emergence of human civilization. The advanced level of engineering, architecture and community discovered around these ziggurats is contrary to what evolutionists believe with regard to the development of man.
To read the rest of  the article, click on "Evolution and the Tower of Babel". It's best to ignore the special offer at the beginning, that is no longer valid.





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

Saturday, September 7, 2019

Limits of the Intelligent Design Movement

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It seems that the the simplest approach to intelligent design is to say that a painting had a painter, a building had a builder, and so on. Moving from there, we can show the specified complexities of various living things as well as the in the cosmos, the amazing design of the DNA molecule, irreducible complexity, and more.


The Intelligent Design people do a good job in refuting Darwinism, but their work is incomplete. Some in the ID community may be realizing its limitations.
An ornithopter design by Leonardo da Vinci, ca. 1489
The Intelligent Design movement is not something that has membership and issue identification cards. There are individual organizations like the Discovery Center that are specifically designed to refute various forms unguided evolution, as well as individuals who also promote ID. Darwin's dishonest gadflies, in their febrile efforts to reject God, say that the ID Movement is creation science in disguise. That is clearly false, as any schoolchild who can read their material might tell you. They have theistic evolutionists, old-earth creationists, some young-earth creationists, Mohammedans, agnostics, and others involved.

Don't be getting me wrong. Biblical creationists use intelligent design arguments frequently, but we do not divorce them from creation. When the two are properly married up, they address not only the intellect, but the spiritual aspect — which materialists deny and ID proponents mostly ignore. They do a fine job in refuting evolution, but that is incomplete.

In "Unsafe to Question Evolution?", I linked to material on how people in academic and secular science occupations who dare to question evolution risk their careers and reputations. A few who have tenure or status can do so a little bit, but most have to remain undercover. That post focused on Yale professor Dr. David Gelernter's "coming out" because he saw that the evidence did not support Darwinism. He is not too enthused with Intelligent Design because it does not go far enough. He realizes that neither evolution nor ID address the deeper issues of life. We can hope and pray that he will learn that biblical creation science can guide him in the right direction. For a short article on this subject, see "Yale University Prof: Darwin Was Wrong".

In a related article, there may be some agreement in the ID community about how they do not address important issues. Questions are raised that need answers, and there seem to be stirrings where some members (I use "members" loosely) are wanting more. An article on African chicklets — I mean, cichlids — which are popular among tropical fish enthusiasts devastates the idea that cichlid variation supports evolution. That is false, as regular readers have seen here many times. Some of the material on the cichlids could have been written by creationists. To read this article, click on "I.D. Catching up with Creation".

While presenting evidence supporting recent special creation and refuting evolution, we cannot essentially leave people hanging. Some folks seem to have the same foolish idea that I had: essentially, if we provide evidence for design, people will renounce evolution and fall on their knees asking Jesus Christ to be Lord of the lives. Such a view is contrary to Scripture, as I discussed in "Evidential or Presuppositional Apologetics?" Antony Flew renounced atheism because of the evidence, but apparently he was a Deist at best, and as lost as any other person who is unredeemed. We know where the answers can be found, and should not be ashamed of presenting the truth.




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

Friday, September 6, 2019

The Perplexing System of Pluto

People who like space exploration, and even those who are uninterested, are likely to have heard about the New Horizons spacecraft and its visit way out yonder. Arguably the biggest news came from the flyby of Pluto. The results were surprising to both creationists and secular scientists. Things keep getting worse for proponents of cosmic evolution.


Pluto and its moons have caused problems for secular scientists for quite a while. New speculations about its origin leave us cold.
Credits: NASA / JHUAPL / SwRI (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
If you think back on your basic solar system knowledge, you might rightly recollect that the first four planets are called terrestrial, skip the asteroid belt, then we find the gas giants like Jupiter and the next three. After that comes a lot of rubble, Barney, called trans-Neptunian (or Kuiper belt) objects. Pluto and its system are way out there.



While secularists have a whole heap of problems dealing with evidence that the solar system is young, they are also struggling with various speculations on how it formed. (My own guess is that our Creator was playing a prank on secular scientists who wanted to believe in deep time rather than recent creation.) Planets and moons fly retrograde at times, the composition of the inner planets, then the outer planets, and then Pluto and company have evolution-defying composition. Their orbits are recalcitrant as well. Secular scientists are even speculating that Neptune and Uranus migrated out there. Probably illegally. Both secular and creation scientists have gained a great deal of information, but there is more to learn and everyone has their work cut out for them.
In recent issues of Journal of Creation, John Hartnett and Danny Faulkner have both commented on discoveries regarding the satellites of Pluto from the July 2015 New Horizons mission. There are many mysteries about the Pluto system that are sure to be the subject of much research and discussion for years to come. Hartnett and Faulkner addressed some difficulties for evolutionary naturalistic theories to explain the origin of Pluto’s natural satellites. I would like to comment on the new theories being explored by planetary scientists regarding the Pluto system.
To read the rest, click on "The satellites of Pluto". 

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

Thursday, September 5, 2019

Facing Up To Faces

Faces are useful and, at times, fun. We can communicate with them in subtle ways, especially people who have been together for a long time. If you stop and study on it, animals do not have much variety in expressions; that squirrel I chased off the patio had the same expression he had before, but I know he was both alarmed and angry.

Darwinists assume evolution, and researchers wanted to see how we evolved faces. They did not have any success.
Original image credit: Unsplash / Francesco Ungaro
Frame enhancement: PhotoFunia
As expected, some Darwinists started with the assumption of evolution, then tried to reckon how we evolved faces from those of our alleged ancestors. There are many factors involved, what with muscles, functions, and all that make the matter difficult. Researchers made assertions but only paid lip service to evidence. Seems to me that this is along the lines of the absurd believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds, since there are numerous changes that must be in place, but evolutionists have no mechanisms. Let's face it, we are not related to apes, but were separately created.
A team based at Arizona State University (ASU) Institute of Human Origins recently speculated on how the distinct features of human faces evolved from ape-like faces.  Their science-sounding terms masked a failure to face certain facts that should have framed their conclusion.
To read this short article in its entirety, click on "Where Did Faces Come From?"


via GIPHY


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

Wednesday, September 4, 2019

Evolution, the Disreputable Girlfriend of Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Although science is a tool for interpreting observable evidence, people treat it like an entity, such as in the expression "science says". Scientists say, not science, but we can work with this later. Science is used by fallible humans who have biases and make mistakes, sometimes clinging to bad ideas despite evidence.


Science has a girlfriend known as Evolution. She has caused many problems for Science, but he will not send her packing.
Made with PhotoFunia
For example, the phlogiston theory of combustion was disproved but it took a while before it was put out to pasture. Ignaz Semmelweis demonstrated that medical people needed to wash their hands before touching patients, but his evidence was rejected for many years. The views of Charles Darwin gained acceptance despite contrary evidence, which includes deep time in geology and also cosmic evolution.

Evolution is the girlfriend of ill-repute of Science. They go to parties together, and Science uses Evolution to impress people. However, Evolution is unfaithful and even invites her brother Scientism over for long visits, drinking all the fire water, stealing the rent money, and trashing the place. Bad company corrupts good morals, and even brings down mediocre morals. Science need to tell Evolution to pack her grip and get out, but he's too infatuated with the pleasures she brings. Which is weird, because Science and Evolution fight quite a bit, but neither of them notice.



Yes, I know, the above paragraph is a sardonic example of reification, but I used it to make a point. People believe in deep time, biological and chemical evolution, and adhere to Scientism despite contrary (or absent) evidence, not because of it. Things are presented as science that are risible, but Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ spread speculations as if they were actual scientific evidence of something. Sorry, old son, but there are many things unknown to science despite the posturing and guesswork of scientists. Savvy that?

Begging the question (using evolution to prove evolution) and materialistic presuppositions give rise to some stories that should give the public the giggles. Unfortunately, critical thinking is not taught enough in the public indoctrination centers, so people fall for what scientists say. Someone with healthy skepticism should ask questions (even to themselves) and spot the materialistic presuppositions involved — extra credit for knowing the science that is being ignored.

Here are a few examples:

  • We can see extraterrestrials because they will have evolved the ability to glow special colors for their protection.
  • Climate change is making populations of angry spiders.
  • Because microbes attach themselves to sand and disperse, that's how live is spread on Mars.
You can read about these and more examples of bad science by clicking on "Unrestrained Speculation in Darwin Fantasyland". In addition, I suggest "What Science Doesn't Know" and "Evolution vs Science". Science needs to get rid of that Evolution girlfriend, and scientists should humble themselves before the Creator, who is the source of true wisdom.




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

Tuesday, September 3, 2019

The Beginning of Multicellular Organisms

The standard story told by adherents of universal common ancestor evolution about the rise of multicellular organisms is that sponges clumped together and took a notion to evolve. We may wonder how such knowledge was obtained. Don't you know who they are? They're evolutionists, so they're right.

The standard textbook explanation for the evolution of multi-celled organisms has been challenged. However, the new idea raises many unanswered questions.
Credit: NOAA / G.P. Schmahl (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Darwinists are mighty fond of passing along speculations that fit the evolutionary narrative as if they were actual science, now they want to move it up a notch. Some researchers disagreed with the whole clumpy sponge idea, so they had some guesswork of their own: stem cells. That's right, multicellular organisms came from stem cells. However, stem cells are very complex and evolutionists cannot account for their origins. Of course not. The most logical explanation is what biblical creationists have been telling us all along.
One of the problems inherent in the evolutionary dogma is going from a single-celled organism, once such a thing exists, to a multi-celled organism. Evolutionists have proposed all sorts of outlandish ideas to solve this predicament, but none of them have been workable. However, because their worldview requires this evolution to occur, they continuously search for a mechanism to go from single-celled to multi-celled.
To read the full article, click on "Origins of Multicellular Organisms". 

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

Monday, September 2, 2019

Loss of Flight Claimed as Evidence for Evolution

Like cattle rustlers who refuse to admit that they got lost riding the wrong trail in the dark, Darwin's disciples keep claiming that they have evidence for evolution where none exists. It is both pathetic and amusing when they deny their own belief system and claim that loss of traits shows onward and upward evolution.

Evolutionists claim that loss of traits is evidence of their beliefs. A bird called the white-throated rail lost its ability to fly, but they actually show evidence for creation.
Cropped from Wikimedia Commons / Francesco Veronesi (CC by-SA 2.0)
One of the most giggle-worthy examples of this is the use of troglomorphism, the loss of sight and pigmentation in cave animals (see this article, Part 1 and Part 2). Another example is a flightless bird called the white-throated rail.

"Are these people for rail, Cowboy Bob?"

Don't do that.

Supposedly, flight evolved several times in different ways, even though evolutionists really have no idea how it happened. Stuff happens — it's a law, you know. Instead of the hallucinations of the Darwinian elite, observations actually work against evolution and support special creation.
A recent paper in an esteemed zoology journal caused a stir in the science media. Its authors claim that fossils of a species of bird called the white-throated rail . . . show evidence for the repeated loss of flight in this bird in several islands in the southwest Indian Ocean near the island of Madagascar.  . . . 
What is special about these species of birds is that the loss of flight capabilities has occurred several times rapidly, under specific conditions. These include the lack of land predators and other animals which could compete with the birds, principally for food. The authors of this paper claim that flightlessness has “evolved” several times. The online journal Science Daily reports these findings as birds coming back from the dead. But is this really a demonstration of de-evolution followed by re-evolution actually happening? What is really going on here?
To read the entire article, click on "Rails derail evolution — The loss of flight is not evolution!"



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

Saturday, August 31, 2019

Providing Evidence for the Creator

In several places, I have written about how unbelievers often demand that we prove to them that God exists. Apologists can see that this insistence is actually a justification for their rebellion against the God that they already know exists (Romans 1:18-23), and irrationally requiring scientific, material evidence for God.


Unbelievers demand evidence for God, often with illogical requirements. We can give evidence for the Creator to honest seekers, but only in the proper way.
Credit: Freeimages / Maxime Perron Caissy
For the most part, the people that comment at The Question Evolution Project are antagonistic and hard-hearted, rejecting any attempt to answer their questions. Once in a while, we (and Bible-believing Christians) encounter people who have saddled up to ride the long trail to seeking truth. If they get up on the hill for the bigger picture, they can see that there is a wagon train-load of evidence for God's existence as well as his character. He is our Creator and has made himself known.

We do not need to spend time trying to present evidence to mockers and those who define "reality" through materialism and evolution, but we can have fruitful discussions with people that seem to be sincerely wanting answers. Then we can help remove stumbling blocks to their faith, but need to do so in a presuppositional framework. That means we do not let them sit in judgement over God, nor do we leave the Word of God out of it (see "Question Evolution Day and Presuppositional Apologetics"). There are some things to keep in mind when doing this.
Interact with people long enough online when discussing God, and the inevitable demand for “evidence for your sky daddy” (or other pejorative) will arise. So, let’s talk evidence.

. . . another prerequisite, how do we define God. God as revealed through his creation, through his Word, and through Jesus as The All powerful, All Knowing, and All Loving Eternal Creator.

We need to talk about three more things before we talk about evidence:
To read the entire article, click on "Evidence for the Almighty". Another by the same author should be helpful, "It is Irrational to Demand Evidence For God".




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

Friday, August 30, 2019

Now Extinction is Evolution?

The Darwin death cult has many strange ideas. Now they are saying that death leads to evolution.
The Darwinian death cult keeps on getting stranger, quite possibly because their efforts to deny the Creator are downright irrational. We are bombarded with the canard, "It evolved" without models or evidence when reading articles, watching documentaries, and so forth.

Not only is evolution assumed in order to provide evidence for it (the fallacy of begging the question), but Darwin's dark dream is often presented as an irrevocable force: things must evolve. Except when they don't. These are the same tinhorns who brought you you, as "science", that parasite manipulation just may have influenced human intelligence. Yes, really.

There are many living fossils (an organism was fossilized many evolutionary years ago and its living counterpart is essentially unchanged), so the lack of evolution is evosplained with the unscientific excuse of "stasis": it didn't feel the need to evolve. Some addlepated evolutionists actually use lack of change as evidence for evolution. Wait, what? I think these are the same tinhorns who also claim that loss of traits also supports the Bearded Buddha. Isn't evolution supposed to provide new and improved traits? Must be another evolutionary miracle happening.


via GIPHY

We know that death leads to change. Animals are food for other animals (or us), and we stand before our Maker in the greatest change we experience. Yet Darwin's disciples are claiming that death leads to life through evolution! (I still say those folks have been ingesting peyote buttons.) Their speculations conveniently ignore important information and do not provide plausible mechanisms for this alleged evolution. They also raise a prairie schooner-full of questions.
How can scientists and reporters write articles on “evolution” when evidence shows organisms died or didn’t change?

What’s going on here? Frequently, evolutionists classify papers and articles as being about “evolution” when the evidence is opposite of evolution. Darwin needs life to evolve from bacteria to human beings. He doesn’t need them to stay the same or die out. What’s evolution got to do with it?
To read the rest, click on "Extinction is not Evolution".



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

Thursday, August 29, 2019

Atheism and Irrationality

The original definition for atheism is the denial of God and any other supernatural beings, but since they cannot support their claims, they redefined the word to the fatuous "lack of belief" claim. They also pretend to be the paragons of logic and reason, believing in "reality". However, they are not consistent with their worldviews.


Atheists claim to believe in reality and reject God and spiritual matters. However, many admit to belief in the supernatural, which affirms what the Bible says.

There are times when people call themselves atheists and say, "You don't know what atheism is!", then proceed to presumptuously speak for all atheists, painting them with a broad brush. Not so fast, Phyllis. Back in 2008, an article in the Wall Street Journal called "Look Who's Irrational Now" cited a survey where atheists admitted to belief in the paranormal and pseudoscience, including astrology. The original article is here, and is reproduced here.

More recently, another survey revealed that professing atheists and agnostics believe in some form of the supernatural, including fate, karma, and reincarnation. This shows what Bible-believing Christians have maintained all along: belief in God is built in. Since atheists reject biblical creation, they (and their compromising religious allies) substitute  falderal such as the Big Bang and evolution mythologies to account for the origins of the universe, humanity, and everything else.

This jasper gave a hint that he did not want rational discourse:
Like others with atheism spectrum disorder,
this one chooses to blatantly misrepresent "religion"

This one lashed out with unbridled hate:
This bitter demoniac also misrepresents the Bible; click for larger
(used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes)
Unfortunately, some professing Christians who are not well-grounded in the faith believe in occult things. One of these is a pseudo-karma cause-and-effect along the lines of, "I parked in a handicapped spot for fifteen minutes yesterday, today my car won't start. God is punishing me!" Both the religious and irreligious know that the truth about our Creator and life is found in his written Word.
A recent study on atheists and agnostics (those who say we cannot know whether or not a God or gods exist) showed that they are not quite as naturalistic as most might believe. Despite not believing in a God (or gods), neither of these groups seem to have completely rejected supernatural beliefs about issues such as “life after death, astrology, and the existence of a life-force.”
. . .

But for most, it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile atheism or agnosticism with a religion that believes in God—like Christianity. Nevertheless, atheists and agnostics still borrow many aspects from a biblical worldview—whether they realize it or not. For example, logic, truth, knowledge, morality, and science—which are predicated on the Bible being true—do not come from a materialistic and naturalistic view of things. Atheists and agnostics often agree that logic, truth, morality, and so on exist, but it cannot be justified in their worldview.
To read the article in its entirety, click on "Atheists: Believers in Fate, Reincarnation, and Karma?"




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

Wednesday, August 28, 2019

Concluding the Engineered Adaptability Series

We have been exploring the Continuous Environmental Tracking engineered adaptability model from the Institute for Creation Research. It has been fascinating to see how the Master Engineer has built adaptations and variations into organisms.

To concluded the Engineered Adaptability series, we are given an overview of what the creation science model is displaying.
Modified from a photo at Freeimages / Tolga Kocak
Charles Darwin bushwhacked natural selection and made it his own so he could take God out of the picture. His paradigm is that external forces cause creatures to evolve into something else, but that is not the case. Instead, the CET model shows that adaptations are front-loaded into living things to not only adapt, but anticipate changes. This affects not only individual organisms, but entire populations.
For the past two years, the Engineered Adaptability series of articles has explored ways in which scientific methodology and understanding benefit when engineering principles are applied to how living things function. In the process, we have built a conceptual framework for a design-based model called continuous environmental tracking (CET), which focuses on the mechanisms through which organisms express traits that enable them to closely track changing conditions and adjust accordingly. This final article will take a bird’s-eye view of what the series has presented.
To read the rest, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Continuous Environmental Tracking Wrap-Up". At the end of the article is a link to the entire series. We have seen other instances of engineered adaptability here, but they were not "officially" a part of the series. I have found it exciting and am looking forward to further developments.

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

Tuesday, August 27, 2019

Genetics and the Creation of Eve

Atheopaths and other mockers often point to the Genesis account of the creation of Adam and then Eve.This is in stark contrast to the fact-free fish-to-fool evolution that they falsely call science, yet still insist that we all accept.


Mockers reject the creation of Adam and then Eve since it does not fit their materialistic opinions. Eve's creation foreshadows aspects of modern science.
Adam and Eve before the Temptation / George Frederick Watts
I'll allow that the creation of Adam from the dust of the earth and not evolving from critters is a mite startling to some folks. They would do well to consider that the Creator does things the way he sees fit, and there are purposes for his methods. Sometimes he tells us, other times we don't really need to know.

The same sort of thinking can apply to the creation of Eve. God showed Adam the animals, but none of them would be suitable עֵזֶר, helper. He was different from them. God essentially used the first anesthetic, and took a rib from Adam's side to make Eve. In a way, this was the first act of cloning by using genetic material. The science of genetics would not be pioneered until thousands of years later by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him.) Some elements of God's making of Eve foreshadow modern science.

 Scoffers lie about the Bible and say that it teaches men have one rib than women, but people who have a basic knowledge of biology know that ribs not only grow back, but inherited physical traits are not passed along to offspring.
Evolutionists claim that a population of human-like creatures evolved from a population of ape-like creatures. However, the true eyewitness account is very different. God directly created the first human being, Adam, from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7).
. . .

But whereas God made Adam from the dust of the ground, this new companion would have an intimate connection with Adam. In a way, this helper would be a physical descendant of his.
To read the entire article, click on "Eve, the rib, and modern genetics".



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

Monday, August 26, 2019

Unsafe to Question Evolution?

We are just under six months away from the ninth annual Question Evolution Day as I write this post. QED is a grassroots movement to encourage people to share material that refutes evolution and affirms special creation. We are hoping that not only will people reevaluate fake science for evolution, but that some evolutionists themselves will also question it. Ultimately, we want people to come to know the ultimate truth found in our Creator.


While some people simply accept evolution and refuse to question it, scientists and academics who public doubt Darwin risk losing their careers.
Yale Old Library - postcard via NY Public Library
As we have seen numerous times on this site alone and even more on the sites that are linked to from articles, Darwin's proselytes frequently declare evidence (or even proof) of evolution using incomplete data and spurious reasoning. Many people succumb to the propaganda: "Well, if science says, then it must be true!" Not hardly!

Materialism is the dominant religion in the West. No, not officially. But biblical creation science and even the Intelligent Design movement are actively suppressed by the Ministry of Truth, and those who dare stand up for intellectual, academic, and speech freedoms are often subjected to ridicule and censure. This makes it extremely difficult for Darwin doubters (even if they are not creationists) to survive professionally and academically.

Dr. Jerry Bergman has written several books on how people rebelled against riding for the Darwin brand and paid the price. He is a victim of academic discrimination himself. In the following article, he discusses two people who are able to speak their minds with less reprisals, but leftist sidewinders still manage to defame David Gelernter as "fiercely anti-intellectual". This is journalism? Yes, today defamation and libel are a big part of their playbook.
In my experience after teaching at three universities, when discussing Darwinism with colleagues, I have learned there exist many more Darwin skeptics than commonly believed. Most are in the closet for very good reasons (career survival), or at least they decline to publicly speak out about their views opposing Darwinism. The evidence against Darwinism is so great that it seems inevitable a few would speak out about their well-founded doubts about evolution. And some have.

Just this week alone, reports were published about the views of two leading scientists who have spoken out about their Darwin doubts. A leading Yale University Professor, David Gelernter, chief scientist at Mirror Worlds Technologies, a member of the National Council of the Arts, and a prolific author, has publicly renounced his former belief in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. He explains the main reason is because the idea “has been effectively disproven.”
To read the entire article, click on "Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out". You may also consider how spreading the word about Question Evolution Day can help plant seeds of doubt in the minds of evolutionists, and help proclaim the truth of our Creator. ADDENDUM: It figures. The day after this posted, an additional article was posted about David Gelernter. If you have the notion, see "Yale University Prof: Darwin Was Wrong".




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

Saturday, August 24, 2019

Evolutionary Thinking and Fake Reality

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It is interesting to me that many of us who reject the concept of space aliens and unbelievable science in fantastic fiction still tend to put our disbelief in the stable and watch or read these things. Computer simulations can be like high-end video games, totally dependent on programming. Add to these the idea that we are living in a computer simulation. My current favorite is Stargate SG-1.


There are some new versions of the idea that we exist in a computer simulation. Also, evolution is deceiving us about reality. A podcast is linked that discusses these concepts.
Image credits: The one on the tablet is an artist's conception from NASA,
the larger image and modification from PhotoFunia
The idea of "you may be just a brain in a vat" has been around a spell. You know how it goes: we're imagining everything we experience but nothing is real. This idea, as well as those "we're living in a computer simulation" concepts, give rise to a passel of science fiction movies like The Matrix, They Live (well, it sort of fits), and others. I have to add a science fiction short story that I read (I disremember the author and title, sorry) where people realized that when things were going wrong, it was because our lives are the dream of another entity. Somehow, they figured out a way to lull it back to sleep; centuries for us were a few hours for the dreamer.

When playing some shooter games, I occasionally get bored and become Mr. Indestructible so I can hurt the evil critters up personal-like. Some have suggested that we are living in a computer simulation by an advanced alien civilization. Mighty smart folks to do that, huh? They even came up with all of the specified complexities of life that refute evolution, as well as the amazingly complex DNA molecule. The latest version is similar to the story of lulling the sleeper back to dreamland because we don't want the aliens to know that we know. (Mayhaps they'll bring on the Meteor of Death because they're bored with their game.) There have to be limits to dealing with "what if...?", old son, and get back to the real world.

The whole thing is clearly based on atheistic and evolutionary thinking. There is no Creator, no purpose, no value to life. From that comes the ideas that there is no reality, and morality is relative (postmodernism). One concept is that even though evolution is supposed to explain everything, it is also deceiving us. Yes, evolution is once again being treated like an entity, not a blind, pitiless, impersonal force. 

Materialists deny God and define "reality" on their terms. Like some tinhorns have redefined lying to mean, "I disagree with some people, so I call them 'liars' even though I cannot prove deception and want to use an emotive word". Reality (like honesty, logic, and science itself)  is defined by God on his terms. People who deny his existence or authority have no say in the matter. God has made himself known in the Bible, and its in everyone's best interest to find out what he has to say.

This article was inspired by a pair of segments in The Briefing podcast by Dr. R. Albert Mohler. Although other writers will probably delve into these subjects, I would like to commend you to his podcast (free to listen online or download, or read the transcript). Click here for The Briefing on Thursday, August 22, 2019. Look for "Could the Cosmos Just Be a Computer Simulation? The Threat of Meaningless Existence vs. the Sure and Certain Hope of Biblical Realism" and "Leading Scientists Claim We Live in a Subjective Reality: Are We Gripped by a Collective Delusion about the Material World?"

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

Labels