Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Monday, May 13, 2013

Chilling Effects of Uniformitarian Assumptions in the Arctic

Evolutionary geologists insist on using their failed models and presuppositions when doing their studies. Uniformitarianism, "the present is the key to the past", takes present processes and assumes that they have been constant.
If uniformitarian geologists would admit that their models did not work, and used the far more accurate biblical Noachian Flood models, they would have greatly improved results.
Image credit: NOAA 
These assumptions frequently prove embarrassing, inaccurate and contradictory within their own framework. If they would admit that their models did not work and used the far more accurate biblical Noachian Flood models, they would have greatly improved results.
An alarming headline on Science News reads, "Ice-Free Arctic May Be in Our Future, International Researchers Say". This report provides a classic example of how researchers’ flawed understanding of earth’s geological history leads them to to seriously wrong conclusions. Their conclusions actually fly in the face of the evidence they report, and in this case it could cause unnecessary panic about a situation that will not happen.
The report explains that researchers analysed a long continental drill core that coveres the period of the Pleistocene ice age.
You can chill while you finish reading "'Ice-free Arctic' wrong conclusion based on flawed geological history". Edit: Note the comments, where a rabid evolutionists wants to score cheap points by quibbling over a minor wording variance that does not change the validity of the article.

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

Friday, May 10, 2013

That Bad Boy Can SWIM?

Squaring off against evolutionary conjecture is a strange critter called the boxfish. These toxic avengers look like they have the maneuverability of — well, a box. But that is the opposite of the truth.

Kind of cute, really.

But they have some surprises. In fact, they are so well designed that they are self-correcting, and even change the water flow. Auto manufactures have copied their design. They are being checked out as inspiration for undersea robots, too.
With their ‘boxy’ shape and rigid bony carapace that covers most of their body, boxfish look somewhat awkward compared to most other fish. As Science journal commented recently, ‘One look at the aptly named boxfish, and you might expect it to swim as well as a barn would fly.’ 

In reality, boxfish are able to swim extremely smoothly. This is even more remarkable considering where they live—reefs washed by highly turbulent and unpredictable waters. But even when continually buffeted by swirling currents, boxfish make only the slightest of deviations from their straight swimming paths, as they correct for unseen eddies and turbulence.
You really should read the rest of this short article, "How Does a Box Swim?"

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

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Book Review: "The Deception" by Steven J. Wright

Review by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
“To believe in creation, you have to believe in a God.  But what evidence is there for God anyway?  And if you were to find that evidence, how would you know which God was the correct one?  Doesn’t Hinduism have millions of gods?  Maybe one of them is the real god, and he or she created everything instead of the Judeo-Christian God.  Or what if it is the Christian God?  How would you know which of the thousands of denominations is the correct one to follow?  I might add that many ancient cultures and religions have similar myths on origins.  It goes to show that folklores get passed down and shared from culture to culture, but there is no scientific evidence to support them.  That’s why they are called myths. 
“Class, I’m not here to debate God.  I have my own beliefs, but this is a science class, and we only study the natural things—the things that can be tested and proven with experiments.  Let me go over some of the evidences we have of evolution that clearly disprove creationism.  The Bible states that the sun, moon, and stars were created after the earth.  But the Big Bang Theory shows strong evidence that the sun, moon, and stars were created before the earth.  Here is another one: The Bible says birds were created before the reptiles, but our fossil record shows that reptiles came first, and the birds evolved from them.  In fact, that is what happened to the dinosaurs: through natural selection and mutations, they evolved into birds.  Those little flying critters in your back yard are actually the ancestors of giant dinosaurs that roamed the earth sixty-five million years ago! 
“The fossil record we have is clear evidence that life has evolved from simple organisms to more advanced life forms.  You can’t argue with the bones!”  Some of the students laughed.  “This brings me to my next point.  Has everyone heard the story of Noah’s Flood?”  Many nodded in agreement.  “Well, for those who haven’t, it is also recorded in Genesis.  Simply put, the story is about a man named Noah.  God told Noah He was going to destroy the entire world, and He wanted Noah to build a big boat to put the animals on so they would be saved from a global flood.  There are so many problems with that story, but just like the creation myth, Christians believe in it despite the absurdity.  For example, where did Noah get the wood for the ark?  Didn’t he build it in the Middle East?  There aren’t too many trees over there, you know; it’s mostly desert.  And how could he fit all the animals on the ark?  There are millions of species in existence, and no boat could ever be big enough to hold them all and still survive a flood.  The story of Noah’s ark just doesn’t hold water. 
“Did you know there are over three-hundred other flood legends from cultures all across the globe?  Who is to say the legend recorded in the Bible is the right one?  Isn’t that kind of arrogant?  What if one of the other flood legends were the real one and the Bible copied from it?  Some historians say the Bible copied things from other religions.  Back then, it was a common practice to borrow ideas and customs from neighboring cultures.  It was a battle of the gods, I guess you could say.  Besides, there is no evidence of a worldwide flood anyway.  In the Bible, it was just a story about God not liking how people were acting, so He destroyed them. 
“Class, when you base your beliefs on some book supposedly written thousands of years ago, you have to sacrifice logic and reason for it to make sense; otherwise the entire basis for your faith is called into question.  Why not choose science?  It will never contradict itself!”
— Jeff Duncan, in The Deception, pp. 119-121

I am not very skilled at writing reviews, having done so few of them. So I will do what I have done before and just get to it. But I loathe the review system at Amazon, since people with an agenda attack books, reviews and reviewers, even though they did not read the book! Amazon needs to pay attention to what's going on there, as their review system has become a joke. So, I'm putting my review right here.

Anyway, I must disclose two things: This book was obtained through a free Kindle promotion at Amazon (also available in paperback), and also, the author is one of my Facebook friends. Neither of these factors will change what I have to say, and author Steven Wright would expect no less of me.
Review and recommendation of a novel about a college professor dealing with creation science and realizing where the truth actually lies.
It is surprising to learn that this is the first novel by Wright (no relation to the comedian, I don't think). Let me start with some comments about the storytelling itself.

The Deception
 is not boring, and not difficult. It flows. I read it in one day.

One thing that I detest is a story that is predictable, especially for negative events. The suspense in those builds twice for me, once for the actual story suspense, and once for the disappointment that I was right.

Ain’t happenin’ here, Zeke. There were several times that I thought I had Mr. Wright’s plot lines all figured out, and I was pleased to be wrong. Except in one area, to be discussed later.

The characters had personality and were believable, including the cat, Samson. In fact, the main character, Jeff Duncan, was likable, then I didn't like him so much as the story progressed — he had flaws, and had to work on them. In addition, they made occasional wisecracks, which helped move the story along. We also see anger, frustration and sadness — some of these things hit too close to home, reminding me of people in my wife’s and my own experiences.

I’ll admit there were times that I was thinking, “What in the world are you doing, Steven?”, because I thought there was excessive drama and padding. Nope. I was selling the author short. Those things that provoked me to think, “Get on with it!” were there for a reason, but some reasons were not clear until later in the book.

I would like to call this kind of story “creation science fiction”, because it’s a novel that deals with creation science. Don’t expect to be preached at or think that part of the book is an essay from a creationist organization. While creation science is foundational to the plot, the human elements are prominent.

The excerpt at the top shows some of what creationists have to deal with constantly: Prejudicial conjecture and bigotry. Jeff was offering opinions based on ignorance that he obtained from anti-creationist Web sites that are heavily biased with materialistic presuppositions. The questions (actually, excuses to cling to disbelief) have answers for honest people who care to look for them. Jeff did not want answers. Instead, he wanted to please his boss and went ahead with uninformed arbitrary assertions.

The issue of academic freedom and student indoctrination is discussed. Not only are the rights of the students actively trampled, but the rights of teachers as well. And don't try to tell me that this doesn't happen.

When I said that there was one thing that was predictable, it was that Jeff Duncan would learn the truth about creation science. The book contains a section with an overview of creationism that would serve as a starting point for someone who wishes to investigate further (see the "Creation Links" tab at the top of this Weblog for further investigation).

The Deception is a Christian book, there is no mistaking it. You will have some direct gospel presentation, miracles, unnerving dreams and visions, Christian conversation, conversion and more. Even though I am a biblical creationist Christian, I do not like the content to be overbearing and distract from the content. I did not feel that way here.

Most of the problems that were brought up in the story were resolved, so there's none of that, "But what about...?" frustration.

EDIT: This may seem reminiscent of God's Not Dead, but that book and movie came out after The Deception.

I recommend The Deception to Christians and non-Christians alike. Are you planning a sequel, Mr. Wright? If you want to have a character as an obstreperous creationist, I have someone to suggest...

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

Monday, May 6, 2013

More On Evolutionists Not Understanding Evolution

Last week, I posted about some evolutionists being honest enough to admit that they do not really understand evolution. Today, you can read an article demonstrating that many scientists as well as Darwin's Cheerleaders do not understand their own belief system.
Science would be useless without logic and critical thinking. Circular reasoning, straw man fallacies, formal logical fallacies and outright deception are used to keep the faithful fundamentalist evolutionists in line and fool people who do not put forth the effort to check things for themselves. Giving credit to evolution as if it were an actual entity (Fallacy of Reification) is contrary to evolutionary dogma — but people do it anyway. This happens frequently. The following article has several examples that can cause people to wonder about how poorly scientists and their press actually understand evolution. But then again, if the public was told evolutionary dogma in a straightforward manner, people would plainly see that it has no substance.
If evolutionists and reporters stuck to the essence of neo-Darwinism, many of their claims would never reach the press. 
Darwin attempted to describe a natural mechanism (natural selection) that would generate the entire tree of life, with all its diversity.  Neo-Darwinism identifies the source of variation as mutations.  The essence of Darwinian theory is that the process is unguided, with no goals or purposes.  Many evolutionists and their press agents seem to forget this.
You can read the examples of false attribution and other flaws at "Evolutionists Don't Understand Their Own Theory".

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

Friday, May 3, 2013

Evolution, Time, Typing and Monkey Business

Have you heard the one about the monkeys and the typewriters? (If you're too young to know what a typewriter is, click here.) So here it is: Given enough time, typewriters and so forth, monkeys will produce all or part of the works of Shakespeare. Isn't that hilarious?

But seriously, folks, the concept of "given enough time, anything can happen" is a fundamentally flawed faith tenet of evolutionism. This is why the Evo Sith desperately cling to "deep time" and ridicule young-Earth creationists. (Ridicule is utilized when science and logic are ineffective at silencing their opposition.) The fact is, given an infinite amount of time, some things will never happen.
Prominent evolutionist Julian Huxley said that, given enough time, monkeys typing randomly could eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare. 
When arguing that life could have arisen by chance, evolutionists will often state that—given enough time—anything could happen, regardless of how improbable it might seem. For example, prominent evolutionist Julian Huxley (1887–1975) said that, given enough time, monkeys typing randomly could eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare.
Since then, others too, such as Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins, have made similar pronouncements about monkeys’ random typing being able to produce one of Shakespeare’s sonnets, or at least a sentence from one of his plays.
But when Plymouth University (UK) researchers installed a keyboard and computer screen in the monkey enclosure at Paignton Zoo, home to six Sulawesi crested macaques, it didn’t result in a nicely typed set of the complete works of Shakespeare. Neither did they get a sonnet. Nor even a single word of Shakespeare.
You can find out more of what's Shake-ing with the primates by reading the rest of "Monkey Madness".

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

Thursday, May 2, 2013

The Basis for Science is Faith

People have a simplistic view of the processes of science. It does not have a basis in atheistic materialism. In fact, the origins of an effective, consistent approach to doing science has a long and complicated history. The political, social, religious and philosophical environments underwent many changes. The greatest scientific minds of the past (as well as many in the present) were Theists, usually Bible-believing Christians. 

Radar's article give you an overview of the factors influencing the development of modern scientific methods. Many people who claim to be experts on science (and evolution) do not know much of this material at all!
"Yes, it is a press, certainly, but a press from which shall flow in inexhaustible streams the most abundant and most marvelous liquor that has ever flowed to relieve the thirst of men. Through it, God will spread His word; a spring of pure truth shall flow from it; like a new star it shall scatter the darkness of ignorance, and cause a light hithertofore unknown to shine among men." -Johannes Gutenberg
Faith is the primary component of both Darwinism and Creationism.   This post investigates the faith ingredient of science.   The Creationist believes that the Word of God is authoritative.   The Bible is correct when it speaks to history and accurate when it speaks to science.   The Bible is God's written way of communicating to mankind, showing us the way to Heaven after this life and the way to relationship with God during this life.  While Creation Science is almost entirely involved in investigating the natural world, the eyewitness account of creation by God is considered authoritative.  Creation Science believes in God as Creator and the Bible as Truth.  Therefore God did indeed create the Universe and all that is material existence, including time itself and all the laws and forces of nature.
Christians believe that Jesus Christ came to Earth as the Messiah and did indeed both take the sins of the world upon Himself and also conquer death and Hell by rising from the dead and, after spending some time with His followers, returned to His place with God the Father and Spirit.  We find salvation in accepting Jesus' sacrifice for us and becoming new creatures, reborn within as the Spirit of God replaces the dead spirit we inherited from our ancestors.

Darwinist Science (Naturalistic Materialistic Humanism) has faith that God did NOT create and that the Bible is NOT true or of any use.   All supernatural causes are arbitrarily ruled out no matter what the investigation of evidence may seem to logically conclude.  Darwinists are the modern day version of the CHURCH/STATE of the Middle Ages, determined to stifle dissension and censor and hide information from the common man.  Darwinists deny God and deny that God created the Universe or life or information and ignore any evidence that is uncomfortable.   In fact Darwinists work very hard to censor any non-Darwinist information.  The NCSE is nothing but an organization designed to censor the information students will learn.  Just as the CHURCH/STATE of the Middle Ages took a hard line against the common man being allowed to read or interpret the Bible and defended axiomatic science like a herd of Musk Oxen circling around their young,  Darwinists rule the worlds of academia and science and also the news and entertainment media.   
Occam's Razor has been tossed in the trashcan by the modern Darwinist.  History has been rewritten and evidence has been twisted until it cries out in pain, as Burke said: 

“Liberty does not exist in the absence of morality.”
― Edmund Burke
I strongly recommend that you finish reading "Faith is the basis for Darwinist Evolution and Creation Science...First, Creation Science IS the basis for modern science". Addendum: There is now a Part 2, here.

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

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Genetic Controls of the Embryo — Unfriendly to Evolution

Flickr/Ed Uthman (image use does not imply endorsement of this post)
Let me over-simplify: Neo-Darwinism relies heavily on a series of gradual mutations so that one organism can, eventually, turn into another organism. Microbes to microbiologist, goo to you, that sort of thing. This flies in the face of observational science. Everything has to be in place at the same time, or an organism cannot change, or even survive, because mutations are meaningless at best, but usually harmful.

The startling complexity of DNA and genetics should make anyone an evolution denier with even a cursory glance at the processes. It helps illustrate the design and wonder of life. For example, embryonic development has genes that switch growth processes on and off... Here, let the author explain:

As they say in the real estate business, location is everything. It looks like the same working principle applies to genes and their control sequences in the genome during embryo development. And not just the gene’s simple location in a linear sense, but its three-dimensional spatial location. 
During the growth of an embryo, genes that direct the developmental processes are precisely switched on and off. This highly complex process contextually confers specific properties to different cells that eventually become the various organs and tissues of the developing embryo. The precise timing and control of these genetic switches is critical to building a properly proportioned healthy animal. 
One of the best studied individual genes in this process encodes a protein called “Fgf8” (Fibroblast growth factor 8). There are actually a number of different types of fibroblast growth-factor genes that are not only important for basic cell survival, but also for embryonic development, cell growth, cell differentiation, and tissue repair.
Let your knowledge grow by finishing "Embryology Gene Control Confounds Evolution"

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