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, September 30, 2011

Distant Starlight and the Age of the Universe

NASA Photo

Critics of biblical creation sometimes use distant starlight as an argument against a young universe. The argument goes something like this: (1) there are galaxies that are so far away, it would take light from their stars billions of years to get from there to here; (2) we can see these galaxies, so their starlight has already arrived here; and (3) the universe must be at least billions of years old—much older than the 6,000 or so years indicated in the Bible.
Many big bang supporters consider this to be an excellent argument against the biblical timescale. But when we examine this argument carefully, we will see that it does not work. The universe is very big and contains galaxies that are very far away, but that does not mean that the universe must be billions of years old.




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

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Oops, That Star Should Not Exist!

NASA Photo

Astronomers have found a mysterious star that is made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium gas. According to naturalistic star formation theories, the star shouldn't exist, since it is missing massive quantities of heavier elements like oxygen, carbon, and iron, as well as lightweight lithium. According to the Bible's account of star formation, however, the existence of such a star is no puzzle at all.
In their study published in Nature, researchers determined the makeup of the star, named SDSS J102915+ 172927, by analyzing the light it emitted. Lead author Elisabetta Caffau said in a European Southern Observatory press release, "A widely accepted theory predicts that stars like this, with low mass and extremely low quantities of metals, shouldn't exist because the clouds of material from which they formed could never have condensed."
Read the rest of "Lightweight Star Should Not Exist" here.




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

Monday, September 26, 2011

Double Standards of Evolutionary Discussion

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Edited 12-06-2015


I was quite pleased to see an article that was discussing some of the same things that I have been combating in my discussions with anti-creationists. More specifically, their double standards. It amazes me that any unqualified shmoe off the street is "qualified" to rail against remarks and articles by creationists, and is joined by a dozen "Me, too!" interlopers. Yet, if someone dares breathe a word of disagreement about evolution, he or she is expected to have impeccable credentials in every area under discussion. That is, I point out a flaw in evolutionary theory, and get asked if I am trained as a scientist. Qualifications or not, we can still speak the truth and can identify bad logic that people are using when attempting to liberate us from our knowledge and faith.

Atheist popes like Richard Dawkins are cited as experts on religion and philosophy, but guess what? They are do not satisfy the qualification "standards" imposed on Christians, creationists and ID proponents.

Further, I have noticed distinctly disingenuous attempts to manipulate conversations coming from owlhoots attempting to redefine "scientist" for their own convenience. Since the remark that "Creationists are not scientists" is not only disproved, but clearly a lie attempting to Poison the Well (with a touch of genetic fallacy), the word "scientist" becomes redefined. For some people, their personal definition becomes evolutionary biologist; sure, there are no "scientists" on the list of Darwin dissenters because the real word has been redefined! This dishonest tactic brings to mind the child who says, "Let's play ball. We can only use my ball, my equipment, my playing area and my rules which say I win anyway." Some people say that they want to "engage in debate", but have made it clear that creationists are wrong from the get-go.

When anti-creationists want to have discussions, they often redefine words for their own convenience. Watch out for their chicanery.
photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov (modified)

To add to this insulting and devious manipulation, if someone can be considered a qualified scientist, he or she must be the right kind of scientist (that is, not a physicist or something) to discuss evolution. Hey, I guess that disqualifies Charles Darwin, since he failed in medicine and his only degree was an ordinary one in theology. And the "great" geologist Charles Lyell was a lawyer by trade.

I guess nobody can discuss anything, then. Except the experts. So, don't let me catch you discussing the Big Game if you are not a veteran of the League. Avoid discussing theology unless you are trained in it. Refuse to speculate on that sound under the hood unless you are a certified mechanic. Ad nauseum.

No, I firmly believe that the "creationists are not scientists", and, "you are not a scientist" whimperings are simply attempts to dodge the issues at hand. Especially when they are made by people who are "unqualified" themselves! To be intellectually honest, you cannot avoid the truth about the unpleasant facts surrounding evolutionism simply by attempting to dismiss the speaker out of hand and say that he or she is irrelevant.








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

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Evolution Based on Faith, Not Science


Several times a week, I am hit with faith-based comments where the users believe they are speaking "science" in defense of evolutionism (links to sources are given, until they get embarrassed and delete their comments):
  • Evolution is as much science as quantum theory is. To claim otherwise is totally absurd.Note the equivocation between evolution and quantum theory, followed by a form of ad hominem attack. Edit: My charge of ad hominem was challenged. I verified it with two experts, one said it was abusive ad hominem, the other narrowed it further to Appeal to Ridicule, which can fall under the "umbrella" of ad hominem.
  • Proof has been steadily accumulating over 150 years, as science advances more appears. that's how science works. Wrong. True science is willing to discard a theory if the facts do not fit instead of making excuses, wishing that an answer will come along someday, or faking the data. Also, true science does not resort to fraud or make many utterly stupid mistakes in its desperate pursuit of advancing a "theory".
  • No, this is undeniably your doctrine that you will burn in hell if you accept evolution. Nothing fallacious about that. Wanna bet? Not only is this a straw man argument, but an outright lie.
  • The transition is from basic to more complex over a long period of time. The over-simplified "old school" version of one of the competing theories of evolution. Yet, it is a statement of faith because there is no evidence. Further evidence of the faith nature of  his (?) comment is that it was a rebuttal to my comment that the fossil record does not show transitional forms!
  • We're evolutionists ... We strike for the head by tweeting the truth. Truth? Which "truth"? I like truth that is real and can be substantiated from a reliable source like the Bible, not stuff that is made up, fraudulent, constantly adjusted like the philosophies of evolution. 
I have to deal with railings, accusations, lies, fantasy, unsubstantiated assertions (like this ridiculous gem), wishful thinking, utterly bad (and outdated science) and more. These support my assertions that evolutionism is a faith-based religion, a philosophy based on beliefs about the past. That's right, I said it! Beliefs! Evolution is not testable, repeatable, falsifiable, observable or anything else, but it is pushed forward with jihad-like enthusiasm by fundamentalist evolutionists.

By the way, the "fact" of evolution, with all of its abundant "proof" should be a settled matter because the proof would be indisputable by even the most die-hard, narrow-minded Fundamentalist. Instead, not only do regular people have doubts, but creationists scientists deny evolution and even scientists themselves have doubts (one simple evidence is that there are competing theories). So, shut me up. Give me real evidence, not guesswork, inference, equivocation, stupid mistakes and outright fraud.

But enough of my rant. My purpose today is to introduce you to an article by Dr. Roy Spencer. 
Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. 
In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college.

You might wonder how scientists who are taught to apply disciplined observation and experimentation and to search for natural explanations for what is observed in nature can come to such a conclusion? For those of you who consider themselves open-minded, I will try to explain.
If you are not afraid, you can read the rest of "Faith-Based Evolution" here.





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

Saturday, September 24, 2011

That Pesky Polymerization and the Origin of Life Problem


A well-publicised paper by Claudia Huber and Günter Wächtershäuser in Science proposed a scenario for a materialistic origin of life from non-living matter. They correctly state:
The activation of amino acids and the formation of peptides under primordial conditions is one of the great riddles of the origin of life.
Indeed it is. The reaction to form a peptide bond between two amino acids to form a dipeptide is:
Amino acid 1 + amino acid 2 → dipeptide + water
H2NCHRCOOH +H2NCHR′COOH → H2NCHRCONHCHR′COOH + H2O (1)
The free energy change(ΔG1) is about 20–33 kJ/mol, depending on the amino acids. The equilibrium constant for any reaction (K) is the equilibrium ratio of the concentration of products to reactants. The relationship between these quantities at any Kelvin temperature (T) is given by the standard equation:
K = exp (–ΔG/RT)
where R is the universal gas constant (= Avogadro’s number x Boltzmann’s constant k) = 8.314 J/K.mol
For reaction (1),
K1 = [H2NCHRCONHCHR′COOH][H2O]/[H2NCHRCOOH][H2NCHR′COOH]
= 0.007 at 298 K
where a compound in square brackets symbolises the concentration of that compound.
This means that if we start with a concentrated solution of 1 M (mol/l) of each amino acid, the equilibrium dipeptide concentration would be only 0.007 M. Since tripeptides have two peptide bonds, the equilibrium tripeptide concentration would be 0.0072 M or 5x10–5 M. For a non-specific polypeptide with 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids), the equilibrium concentration would be 3.2 x 10–216 M. NB: the problem for evolutionists is even worse, because life requires not just any polymers, but highly specified ones.
I hope you're taking notes, there's going to be a test on this material. It would be best if you read the rest of "Origin of life: the polymerization problem" here.




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

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Darwin's Failures Support Intelligent Design


Responding to “How far has ID come in the last five years?”, locally famous commenter markf responds,
Every single one of those headlines is about “Darwinism” and “Darwinists” (whoever they are – their most important common characteristic appears to be they are government funded which rules me out).
Looking at the detail on the posts the only positive achievement I can see for ID is the controversial Dembski and Marks paper. All the rest is about perceived failures of this Darwinism.
Which is an excellent demonstration of missing the point. Failures of Darwinism are not merely a negative. They are a positive. The growing number of stress points at which Darwinism fails can, taken together, form a picture, one that points to general laws that govern how high levels of information are produced in life forms.
Obviously, as with dpi, the more such points, the clearer the picture. We can’t have too many of them, though eventually, there will be enough to work productively with.
Michael Behe’s Edge of Evolution is an instance of this approach. The upper limit on the change toward greater functional complexity that can be produced by Darwinism is telling us something.
Read the rest of "The last five years: Darwin’s failures are positive sources of information for ID" here.




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

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Viruses Did Not Evolve, Either


Viruses have a bad reputation. They are ultra-tiny, well-designed machines that copy themselves in a process that sometimes causes disease in the organisms in which they reside. One class called retroviruses is equipped with machinery that splices its own viral code into the DNA of a host cell.
Retroviruses have been portrayed as genetic "leftovers" from an evolutionary past, but how did they really originate?
A report published in Science showed how one retrovirus was "born." Researchers discovered that a retrovirus named XMRV was formed when two DNA sequences called "proviruses" were brought together through "recombination." This occurs during gamete development when genetic material from the parent cells is rearranged into new combinations of genes in the offspring, resulting in more genetic variations.
You can catch the rest of "Were Viruses Created or Evolved?" here.




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

Labels