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

Sunday, June 1, 2014

The Earnestness of Being Unimportant

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

What follows is an article that I submitted to Creation Ministries International for publication. They turned it down because it was not suitable for publication on their Website. I can see why, since my style is markedly different than that of their writers, and the subject matter is rather different. So, I reworked it for Internet Evangelism Day, since my calling is evangelism through creation science.

Hello, I am a nobody, and I have no status in the world. That is all right because I am not here to impress people. But the Creator of the universe died for me and bodily rose from the dead, and his Spirit is living in me — I am somebody to him. Using the Internet, unknown people in the world can make our voices heard and proclaim the most important message of all. 

A few years ago, I rededicated my life to Christ. In my efforts to regain lost ground and get back into the Word and good teachings, God called me to proclaim creation science. I learned that there is a wealth of creationist material available; things changed quite a bit while I was “gone”. 

Internet Evangelism Day, photo credit Simon Cataudo

One of the benefits of learning creation science material is that it helps strengthen the faith of believers (anti-creationists can be relentless presenting pre-packaged “arguments” that may seem intimidating at first). A second benefit is learning why creation is important: Adam was a literal person, and Genesis is foundational to Christian theology. Third, we can see the methodology and thinking of critics, and how their “arguments” can be easily dismantled — learning some basics about logical fallacies is not difficult and most of their attacks can be seen as lacking substance; there is no need to be bullied by scoffers.

The “Question Evolution” campaign from Creation Ministries International caught my attention. I suggested that there should be a “Question Evolution Day” (my comment is the second one on the page). After a while, I took the initiative to spearhead the concept, which has become an annual event. The goal is for people and ministries to speak up on Darwin’s birthday (February 12) and say that we believe in academic, intellectual, religious, speech and other freedoms. We should be able to say that we do not believe in molecules-to-man evolution,  that evolutionists are confused by their own evidence — and not receive reprisals.

Do you see what has happened here? The big ministries inspired an individual to prompt other people to take action — a grass-roots effort. Using Weblogs, social media and so forth, people are speaking out against evolution and for creation science. We are daring to go against the evolutionary establishment and say that evolution is both scientifically and theologically untenable. This is a variation on the theme for Internet Evangelism Day.

Internet Evangelism Day

Having people proclaim the gospel, and especially the foundations of Genesis, infuriates atheists because evolution can be a religion itself, but is also a foundation to the religion of atheism.

Those of us who have Weblogs will write articles or make posts refuting evolution and showing how science affirms creation and the Noachian Flood. We get nasty comments. The same happens on our social media sites (such as The Question Evolution Project on Facebook and Google+). What can we do when we’re attacked? We can duck and cover, be nice and play it safe (which is the opposite of what the committed Christian life entails), or we can furnish information. Someone may assert that humans and chimpanzees have very similar DNA, and we can provide a link on that topic. Someone may ask whether or not aliens from space put life on Earth, and another link is provided. We do not need to have all knowledge (indeed, some of our critics seem to expect us to do so), but we have many resources to utilize.

Something very important must be stated: Our faith is not based on science, because new information is being found almost daily and the interpretations of evidence are constantly changing. No, our faith is in the unchanging Word of God. I refuse to “leave the Bible out of this” and discuss science on “neutral ground”, because there is no such thing. When we agree to leaving the Bible out of a discussion, we are tacitly agreeing with the skeptic that the Bible is not true, and are arguing on their terms, which are primarily based on godless materialism in most cases. Note that I am not saying to argue science from Scripture, but we must not abandon our foundation while unintentionally agreeing with theirs. How can we then go back to presenting the gospel when we have effectively discarded the Bible? (At best, we can convince someone that there is a Creator, but then we have a Deist on our hands.) Stay with the Word as your ultimate authority.

Some of us are more vocal in spreading creation science, and we have had a great deal of intellectual and theological exercise in dealing with mockers (I could name several online stalkers that I have gained). Of course! People hated Jesus when he walked the earth, so they hate his followers as well. We are telling the truth and destroying the materialistic foundations for their worldviews. 

Any fame or recognition that we receive on the Internet today will be gone tomorrow (I pray to remember that I seek glory to God, not glory to Bob). The important thing is what we do for Christ. God commands us to present the gospel to everyone. It is not based on intellectual and philosophical persuasion, and the Holy Spirit is the one that does the conviction and salvation, not us. The power is in the Word of God. What we can do, what anyone can do, is show that our faith is not blind, but reasonable. Remember that we have the power of the Spirit as well as many resources to help us. All of this is great news to those of us who are nobodies in the eyes of the world, because we can have an impact. It may be small, it may be large, but all of it is important. Our impact can be substantial when we work together to spread the truth of the gospel and the truth of creation science.

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

Saturday, May 31, 2014

SETI: Array for Tax Dollars!

The SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) Institute (not involved in UFO research) uses radio telescopes in the Allen Telescope Array (ATA) to search for signals from space that indicate alien intelligence. They want tax dollars to fund their research, and made the outlandish promise that they will find extraterrestrial life in the near future so they can get the money.

There are several reasons for this confidence (or arrogance, or even a con game). These include a great deal on luck, and the presupposition that evolution is a fact (it must have happened "out there"). Naturalistic assumptions are fanciful at best. Perhaps if they increased their membership drive (individual memberships begin at $50 USD), they would not need to make every pay for their evolutionary fantasies.
In hopes of keeping funding flowing, the SETI Institute promised US congresspersons that scientists will find extraterrestrial life in our lifetime.

According to Live Science, Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute told a House committee he believes we will find extraterrestrial life “within everyone’s lifetime in this room.” He bases his optimism on three improving technologies: (1) improved robotic searches within our solar system, (2) ability to detect biomarkers on earth-like extrasolar planets (see 4/29/14), and (3) vastly improved surveys for alien signals, searching millions of stars.
You can read the rest at "SETI Advocates Try to Persuade Congress for Funds".

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

Friday, May 30, 2014

Intelligently Designing Based on Evolution?

When scientists use biomimicry (or "biomimetics", studying nature for the purpose of imitation and application to technology and other purposes), they have the presuppositions of millions of years and evolution. This is self-contradictory; they want to intelligently design products based on what they believe happened through time, chance, random processes, mutations and so on. In addition, evolution and natural selection are given the status of intelligent entities, choosing and designing!

To further show self-contradiction, nature was designed by the Creator, but instead, they want to give credit to evolutionism's false pagan deities. Then they have serious flaws in the imitation processes!
Increasing numbers of innovative researchers borrow from biology when they examine and incorporate living systems into man-made designs. We know how man-made designs originate— people design them. But what about living designs? Two recent biomimicry research programs let slip major logic errors when accounting for the origin of the creatures they copy: the seahorse and kangaroo.
You can read the rest at "Millions of Years of Evolution Equal Engineering?".

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

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Wasps Have Big Eyes — Therefore, Evolution!

Darwin's Cheerleaders want things both ways. On one hand, if a fossil is found and the creature exists today, virtually unchanged after alleged millions of years, it did not need to evolve, so it did not do so. But on the other hand, people will attribute every little change in some critter to evolution, almost as if Darwinian evolution were an irrevocable, irresistible, intelligent power.

morgueFile / earl53

Some species of wasps have larger eyes. Why? Because they needed to evolve them! Larger eyes are proof of evolution. Researcher Michael Sheehan said, "Larger facets in their compound eyes mean better vision, but we found that as these wasps get smaller, they have larger than expected eyes. This demonstrates that they evolved improved acuity relative to size in order to discriminate among different individuals in the colony." But this is fallacious reasoning, which is to be expected with evolutionary presuppositions guiding the interpretation of observations. Other possibilities conveniently ignored are that it may not have anything to do with evolution, simple natural selection — or that the Creator made them that way according to his purpose.
Social paper wasps recognize and remember the individual patterns of one another’s faces. Individual patterns of red, black, yellow, and brown may indicate association with a particular queen or represent relative strength or particular roles in the colony. But whatever the patterns mean, evolutionary biologists believe they are important enough to drive evolution of the facet size in wasp eyes.
Although the truth stings, you can lend your eyes to the rest of "Did Little Wasps Evolve Big Eyes to Recognize Their Friends?"

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

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Evolution, Psychology and Shots in the Dark

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Here is something ironic. Astrology has the trappings of science, and astrologers contend that it is science, but it is rejected by scientists. On the other hand, psychology does not have much that is consistent to really define it as science (repeatable, testable, observable, predictability, specificity and so on), yet it is considered a science (but not by everybody) — evolutionary science lacks many of the same elements that define a science. If rejection of accountability to God was in the direct criteria to define science, astrology would probably be accepted as a science as well. Like astrology, psychology has a great deal of uncertain predictions that can be plugged into a wide range of possibilities to claim successful results.

Modern psychology is generally considered to have had its genesis with Sigmund Freud (a.k.a. Frood-dude). Freud, Jung and others were influenced by Darwinian ideas, and most psychologies are humanistic in their procedures. For the most part, there are several major schools of psychology (among many). Why? Because none of them are completely effective. They have left God out of the equation; you have no soul. Like other secularist beliefs, especially those that have evolutionary thought as foundations, you are a meat machine and a slave to your brain chemistry. (Ironically, atheists, "Humanists", evolutionists and other secularists believe this by default, yet call themselves "freethinkers.") Using materialistic, pragmatic and utilitarian standards, psychologists attempt to use scientific methods to help people. But they cannot effectively treat people.

Sigmund Freud's psychotherapy became irrelevant, and today we have psychology that is based on throwing medications at people rather than helping them. They shoot in the dark with medications that seem to alleviate some symptoms, but they really do not fully understand how they work. Often, the medications are harmful. Watch some of the commercials for medications, especially the brain chemistry meds. They seem to say, "This may help you feel better, but you may commit suicide, have a stroke, heart attack, allergic reaction, have other symptoms, need to go off the medication again..."

Those commercials and their disclaimers remind me of this one:

I used to be on antidepressants, and felt that they did not do that much good, and have been off them for several years (except for the moderate anti-anxiety pill that I still take). It is odd that I get an antidepressant side-effect from fish oil capsules (that I take for heart health) and from Vitamin D. At one point, the head shrink was wanting to keep doing some mix-n-match and give a "cocktail" (yes, they really use that word) of a combination of medications. I don't go to therapists any longer.

Many psychologists and psychiatrists care about helping people, but they are limited by their evolutionary paradigm and really do not understand how the brain works. By leaving sin, accountability to God, repentance and the spiritual nature of man out of the treatment scheme, they will continue to fail to have fully effective results. With the uncertainties and denial of God, psychology has more in common with astrology than many people think — like evolution.

I strongly recommend these articles: "Secular Psychology as Abuse" and "Psychology Struggling to Regain Scientific Image". For the opposite problem, false spirituality with a pretense at biblical counseling in "Theophostic".

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

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

More Cave Paintings Further Thwart Evolutionary Timelines

Evolutionary timelines are constantly being disrupted by new discoveries. "Paleolithic" cave paintings in Chauvet, France, were troublesome enough by stirring up controversy. Now cave paintings in Spain have made matters worse, throwing a spanner into the works for the ages and skills of ancient humans.

Replica painting from the Chauvet cave / PD
Cave paintings from Chauvet, France, were thought to be the oldest according to radiocarbon dating. The ones in Spain are dated as "older". But that does not fit, because evolutionists insist that humans (Neanderthal or not) were not that advanced yet, but the opposite is true. Once again, evolutionary presuppositions are threatened by evidence — and the evidence comes from their own methodologies. It is far better to accept that humans were created, and created recently. Reality does not threaten biblical creation.
The radiocarbon ‘dating’ of charcoal remains from ancient fires inside Spain’s famous Nerja caves as being around 43,000 years old has sparked debate among paleo-anthropologists. That’s because the charcoal remains were found beside six cave paintings, and presumably of the same age. However, 43,000 years by evolutionary reckoning is ‘too old’ for such paintings. Neandertals are presumed to have lived back then, without any ‘modern humans’ around. This is the first time that cave art has been linked to Neandertals.
You can read the rest at "Neandertal paintings 'bombshell'".

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

Monday, May 26, 2014

So-Called "Junk" DNA is Good for Your Heart

You may recall that evolutionary scientists studied selected parts of the genome, and the areas they did not understand were termed "junk" DNA that were useless leftovers from our evolutionary past. Those assumptions are being proved wrong. By not studying things that they ignored because they did not understand them (how scientific is that?), several branches of science were hindered.

Three images compiled and modified were originally from openclipart.
In this case, medical science related to heart health has been irregular. Portions of that stuff they wrote off are actually vital. Long non-coding RNAs are finally receiving studies, and some of them play a part in heart health. If scientists had a worldview that included the idea that God designed things for a purpose, this negligence may not have happened.
A new research study has shown that large regions of the human genome, once thought to be useless junk, work to keep your heart functioning properly. When these areas of the genome malfunction, cardiovascular failure is often outcome, showing the importance of every piece of God's handiwork.
You can keep the beat going and read the rest of "'Junk' DNA Keeps Your Heart Beating".

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