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

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

The Tiger of Creation Science Continues Taming Dragons of Evolutionism

"Dragon" is an old word for dinosaur, and dinosaurs are pretty much extinct. Now the term "dragon" has become an illustration of fantasy or personal struggles, such as things that need to be faced and eliminated.

Evolution is not only a fantasy dragon in which people still believe, but it also transmogrifies. The concept of evolution is an ancient pagan religion, and began to take on scientific respectability in more recent centuries. The version that Darwin popularized had already changed shape before he joined the choir invisible. It seems that evolution's magickal transmogrification is accelerating, new speculations are refuted with facts and observations, so more speculations are offered as "science". Darwinoids constantly seek out creationists to attack, mindlessly calling anyone "liar" who dares to disagree with evolution and show evidence for creation, and then making excuses because reality does not fit evolutionary fantasies. Not to mention straw man arguments and outright misrepresentation of creationists... Yet, we still press on.

Kuniyoshi Project, Tiger and Dragon, Utagawa Kuniyoshi, ca. 1831
Do you know what happens to most mythical dragons? When people grow up, they stop bringing their dragons sealing wax and bits of string, and they stop visiting them in the autumn mist; reality replaces fantasy. Likewise, there are tigers — that is, numerous creation science ministries and individuals presenting information in hopes that little evolutionists will grow up and dare to face reality: Microbes-to-microbiologist evolution is false, and there is a Creator who makes the rules. The science is on our side, and we're still clawing and biting the mythical dragon that enslaves people.
Darwinism as a science has been evolving. That is, it has changed from its original concept and continues to change. It would do us well to pay attention to the latest trends so as not to be caught arguing against yesterday’s theory. When Charles Darwin initially postulated that all living species could be traced back to a single common ancestor, he suggested the mechanism causing these changes was natural selection. That was in 1859. Later, he backed off from his initial hypothesis and suggested that other forms of selection (e.g., sexual selection) were not only involved, but were more important. Worse, not knowing anything about genetics, he came up with and strongly promoted a Lamarckian idea that the environment caused changes in organisms which were then inherited by their offspring. This was contradicted by his contemporary, Gregor Mendel, who published the laws of genetics in 1862, but that was the state of evolutionary theory at the close of the 19th century.
You can use the magic of the Web to keep reading "Slaying yesterday's dragons".

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

Monday, July 7, 2014

Can Scientists Find Free Will?

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen

A frequent complaint that atheists and evolutionist have against the Bible pertains to free will, a subject that has been debated for a long, long time. Some of them complain from prejudicial conjecture (presenting an uninformed, biased opinion), incomplete information or simple ignorance. The problem is compounded because different theologians have varying explanations for free will. Most Christians agree, however, that God did not create us to be robots.

Someone made a comment on Facebook demanding scientific proof for the existence of the soul. Right. That is a logical fallacy called the category error — you cannot use material methods to test for the non-material. It is just as futile to require empirical evidence for the existence of God, who is spirit and outside the confines of time and space. You may as well ask for a bushel basket of patriotism.

If evolution were true, then free will is impossible. Think about it. We are all star stuff, ultimate products of the Big Bang, time, chance, random processes, mutations, natural selection, survival of the fittest and so on. So, there is no right or wrong, and there is no justice; we are just bags of chemicals doing what our electrochemical impulses tell us to do. This also means that we cannot trust our senses, reasoning or our memories in an evolutionary worldview, nor can evolutionists account for morality).

When they lie about creationists, calling us "liars" because we disagree with evolution and its rock star icons, or when they simply misrepresent us because they are incapable of logic, when they plot to deceive people — that's okay. Conversely, those of us who believe that the Bible is true, that God created the world in six literal days about 6,000 years ago — that's okay, too. We're all just slaves to our chemical impulses; we have to believe the way we do, so nobody has any business complaining about us.

Neuroscientists use faulty materialistic presuppositions based on evolution to try to explain the mind itself (but their explanations  fall far short of observations, reason and common sense). Unfortunately, many Christians have gone along with this, and it is akin to theistic evolutionists and other old-earth compromisers using atheistic conjectures and interpretations of evidence to explain Scripture. If we are reduced to electrochemical impulses, we have no soul, the mind is just the brain, and we are not accountable for our actions. A detailed examination of this can be found at "Christians, the Brain, and Person: Conceptual Confusion, Unintelligibility, and Implications".

Ironically, materialists are trying to find the physical cause or location of free will. Again, this seems like the category error to me.
Free will matters to children. It had better exist.

Neuroscientists have been trying for years to locate the source of free will in the brain. They have done this freely of their own will. But if they ever find free will is caused by the physical brain, or has been determined by our evolutionary past, it will cease to be free. The late Cornell evolution professor William Provine used to insist that Darwinism implied there is no free will. Apparently he chose to say this freely by his own choice, but he understood that free will is an illusion except in the Biblical world view that he once trusted as a child. Needless to say, preachers call on their flock to make life choices, because the Bible assumes (despite issues of God’s sovereignty) that people can hear, understand, and respond.

Here is some food for thought on free will from the secular news.
I hope you decide to continue reading "Choosing to Believe in Free Will".

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

Saturday, July 5, 2014

Chameleons, Evidence of Creation

When I was young, I had a couple of chameleons in a small plastic shoebox-like container. At least, I thought they were chameleons. They were marketed that way. Much later, I learned that they were not chameleons at all, but a distant relative known as green anoles. These lizards could do a bit of color changing, and were cute. My mother didn't like them.

Yemen chameleon / Pixabay / miniformat65
True chameleons are famous for being able to change their colors so they can blend with their backgrounds. This is only a legend. There are about 160 species, and many do change color to some extent, but the blending with the background is part of their natural coloration and their conduct. Chameleons are skilled hunters and hiders, with extremely efficient abilities. Eyes, tail, ultra-fast tongue — truly a product of the Creator, not of evolutionary processes.
He might look bizarre to you, but not to a bug. With his impressive arsenal of specialized hunting equipment, the chameleon is truly a master of disaster.

Stealth. Patience. Vigilance. Slowly the hunter moves unseen among the branches. His independently rotating eyes constantly scan the leafy canopy in every direction. No insect is safe within striking distance of his infamous weapon—a fast-acting and deadly accurate catapulting tongue. Aided by his steady grip and excellent vision, the chameleon is always ready to seize unsuspecting prey.
To read the rest, click on "Chameleons — A Bug’s Worst Nightmare".

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

Friday, July 4, 2014

Approval of Seals

Pinnipeds (walruses, sea lions, seals) have many features that testify to the intelligence of their Creator. Their swimming ability is amazing, and some can dive to depths that should kill them if they were not built for it. The insulation of those that live in cold climates (which is the majority) is also impressive. Naturally, Darwin's Drones insist that they are a product of evolution, but they cannot give any account for it or a believable mechanism. The best explanation is that they were created.
Around the world, seals and sea lions represent different things to different people.

One superstition says that it’s bad luck to kill a seal because they embody the souls of dead sailors. To marine theme park visitors, they are cute and talented performers able to balance balls and walk on their flippers; to environmentalists, they are defenceless pups slaughtered for their pristine fur; to commercial fishermen they are a threat to fish stocks; and to wild-life enthusiasts they are among the most spectacular creatures to watch at play in the wild.

Throughout history, seals have played a substantial role in many cultures, providing food, fuel and clothing for indigenous tribes in the Northern Hemisphere’s frozen regions. Because of their expressive faces, these marine mammals have also been the focus of many legends, ranging from the ‘selchie’ stories of north-western Europe (in which seals are believed to be women and children condemned to a life where neither land nor sea provide a permanent home) to the superstitions that it is bad luck to kill a seal because they embody the souls of dead sailors.
You walrus wanted to know these things, water you waiting for? To finish reading, click on "Spectacular, surprising seals". 

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

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Neanderthals in Spain — Or Were They?

Neanderthal bones in Spain fell nowhere near the plain. They have caused a great deal of controversy in several locations, throwing off evolutionary dating timelines and more. Now it seems that remains in Spain may not be Neanderthal. Or they may be. Or both. Or neither. Huh? Personally, I opt for "both", since they are nowhere near the Neander Valley, they may be Neander-Spanish, like other immigrants that hyphenate their old and new homes. Ya dig?

It seems that whenever there is a variation in any living organism, the Evo Sith are looking for a way to say that it is an example of evolution in action. This is not only very fallacious because they use circular reasoning, ignore conflicting explanations and so on, but an example of their biases. Trying to shove variations of these ancient humans into some "that must be evolution" scheme seems desperate. If you're confused, it is not surprising, considering the ever-changing speculations that are offered as "science".

Neanderthal bones in Spain are giving more problems for anthropologists. Were they Neanderthal or not? Both? Actually, the evolutionary speculations fall apart. The biblical creation explanation is a far better fit for the facts.

How about trying something else? Since the evidence does not lead to evolution, the biblical creation model (which is far more plausible) should be considered.
A famous fossil cave in Spain yielded some 6,500 human fossils from at least 28 ancient individuals. Investigators analyzed the human skull parts and compared them with typical Neandertal skulls. Their findings, published in the journal Science, unwittingly support a biblical creation model for Neandertal origins.

Along with human bones in two of its distinct floor layers, the Spanish cave Sima de Los Huesos, which means "bone chasm," also had remains of predators including bears.

What did those ancient people look like? In short, the Science authors found that the human skulls showed a combination of Neandertal traits and modern traits. Were they true Neandertals? Not exactly, but neither were they not Neandertal. What does this do to evolution or creation concepts of Neandertal origins?
You can read the rest at "Human Remains in Spain: Neandertal or Not?"

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

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Mercury Top the Dinosaur

The dinosaur called Mercuriceratops gemini has been discovered in a well-populated dinosaur graveyard called the Dinosaur Park Formation in Alberta, Canada. Unlike the Roman character Mercury, this one was not named because it was a messenger of the dinosaur gods. Rather, it has frills on its head that reminded people of the wings on the head of that particular Roman.

A dinosaur called Mercuriceratops gemini has been causing unwarranted evolutionary speculation. What is more interesting than the dinosaur is the story of the fossil graveyard itself.
Mercury by Evelyn de Morgan
As is so typical of evolutionary paleontologists, they see evolution instead of variation. In fact, even though most of the creature has not been recovered (only some skull bones), there is already speculation as to the purpose of the frills on the head. What is more interesting than this less-than-frilling relative of Triceratops is the story that the massive boneyard itself reveals.
Sporting wing-like frills on the side of its head, Mercuriceratops gemini, like its winged messenger namesake among the gods of classical mythology, is said to deliver a new chapter to the evolutionary history of horned dinosaurs in North America. The fossil record of this diverse group of big Cretaceous herbivores just got more diverse, surprising many evolutionists searching for the hidden evolutionary message in the twin finds.
You can finish reading by heading over to "Mercuriceratops Delivers a Message from the Past".

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

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

The Universe Should Not Even Exist — Wait, What?

The Big Bang has evolved several times and is only distantly related to the original concept. Cosmic background radiation was thought to be a proof for it, but then the horizon problem appeared and did more harm than good. Also, the Teleological Argument would not go away. Being skilled metaphysicians, cosmogonists and cosmologists brought forth ex nihilo the idea of "inflationary theory". This, too, is something that looks good on paper but cannot be proved.

Computer simulation of particle traces from an LHC collision in which a Higgs Boson is produced.
(c) CERN. Image credit: Lucas Taylor
Then there was a ruckus about the Higgs boson. Atheists were rejoicing at the possibility that the universe could indeed spontaneously come into existence (a credulity-straining extrapolation at best), but the celebration was premature. Now it looks worse. Given for the sake of argument that evidence for the Big Bang and inflation has been found, it cannot work. The more desperate secular scientists get, the more absurd they sound when they try to find ways to posit life, the universe and everything without the Creator.

Before I send you to the featured article, I have to say something to Christians. Our faith is not based on the latest trends of man-made "science", it is based on the unchanging Word of God. One compromiser was saying that the book of Genesis harmonizes with the Big Bang (not hardly!), and that the Higgs bosun news supports it. I wonder how his faith is doing now.
Theologians might rightly celebrate a recognition by cosmologists that the universe is so finely-tuned, it shouldn’t exist.

“Sir, I exist!” said a man to the Universe. “However,” replied the Universe, “the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation.” That joke by Stephen Crane points out that human existence is not a necessary consequence of Matter, if that is all the universe is. But what if the Universe began the conversation? “I exist!” said the Universe to Nothing and No One. Those two would not only have no sense of obligation, they would be blind, deaf, and dumb to the statement. Only God could celebrate the existence of a material universe, and He is under no obligation to create one.

In that light, look at a news article by Tia Ghose on Live Science: “Universe Shouldn’t Be Here, According to Higgs Physics.” The Higgs boson discovery was the big event of 2012. It produces the Higgs Field in the Standard Model that gives mass to particles. Ghose translates the complexities of the theory into pithy lay language:
You can read the rest at "Existence of Universe Is Highly Improbable". Addendum: A follow-up article was released from the same site, "Inflation Concocted to Avoid a Young, Perfect Universe".

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