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

Question Evolution Day is February 12

YOU can be a part of Question Evolution Day, no sign-up, no charge.
To find out more about this annual event, click here!

Friday, December 5, 2014

Letters to a Mocker: Response to Scientism, Part 1

This is a different kind of article, mostly written by someone else. His material appears further down the track. The was originally sparked by Haywire the Stalker, a militant anti-creationist who insists on spamming people who do not have any interest in hearing from him, as well as mailing other anti-creationists who are predisposed to agree with him. My friend asked to be removed from the spam list, and there was additional correspondence. He gave me permission to use his material, but I am not using the Haywire letters to which he is responding. They are unnecessary, tedious — and I didn't ask permission (even though he is willing to post the contents of correspondence without permission, which may be illegal).

Many anti-creationists like Haywire believe themselves to be brilliant, yet their material is full of emotional language, ad hominems, straw men, repeated assertions (he "proved" I am an "unrepentant liar for God" because he said so over and over, for instance), lack of science comprehension, double standards, circular reasoning, and many other misuses of logic. Also, it's amazing that these owlhoots want to call someone "evil". Okay, so what if we were? Why can't we act like atheists? After all, they have no foundation for morality. They have no basis for calling anyone evil! Atheism is incoherent, lacking the necessary preconditions of intelligibility. In addition, the religion of evolution has the same failings as atheism. Biblical Christianity has the necessary preconditions of human experience.

The way many anti-creationists "refute" the evidence and reason we present is to simply say, "That's not true", and then paste evolutionary propaganda links. Then the scoundrels claim to have dealt with whatever item was under discussion. Ironically, they often cite outdated or even erroneous material that knowledgeable creationists can refute. When they get obnoxious, many get banned from sites, forums, groups, and so on. Then they resort to childish tantrums like, "I regularly expose their lies and evasiveness", "they can't handle logic", "afraid of the truth" and other jaw-droppingly bad assertions.

Seriously, who could resist having dialogue with someone so logical and gracious? Click for larger.
In addition, Haywire is like so many others (such as Bill Nye the Evolution Propaganda Guy) who disingenuously equivocate "evolution" with "science", but deny that they make logical fallacies. Whether they are hopelessly deceived, unable to discern between historical and operational science, maybe something else, I can only speculate.

Those people loathe presuppositionalists. I reckon it's because we not only presuppose the truth of the Bible, but most of us won't compromise on it — God means what he says. The irony is that atheists and evolutionists are hardcore presuppositionalists themselves, what with most of them being materialists and all. For them, they assume that our beliefs are wrong, and reject them out of hand, often with mockery. But they can't justify their own belief systems and worldviews, nor can they account for knowledge — or even the laws of logic, which they torture mercilessly through misrepresentation, ad hominem attacks, false dilemmas, unsubstantiated assertions, circular reasoning, presupposing evolution is true, and other logical fallacies. They "know" we are wrong, mainly because they said so. And yet, they believe in things that are unobserved, unobservable, untestable, unrepeatable and so on. Both atheism and evolution are arbitrary, irrational and self-refuting.



Atheists, evolutionists and other anti-creationists are so wrapped up in their presuppositions that evidence threatening to their worldviews is viciously attacked; they cannot accept the fact that evolution is a subjective belief system that tries to use scientific methods about what is observed in the present, then speculates backward to explain the past. These people also display their inability to understand science, and don't seem to give a hoot that assertions are nothing without support.



The challenges below not only apply to Haywire the Stalker, but to many other anti-creationists as well, since the bad thinking is common among them. I have edited the material by removing items that were specific to the issues at hand (though they were sparked by an article from Creation Ministries International), having left intact principles that people like this need to address — but are disinclined to do so. Also, I edited some wording. Bold text is in the original.

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen
You have stated that my repeated claim that distant past events are "unobservable" are "meaningless mantras about the 'unobserved' past". This bizarre statement pretty much sums up why Sorensen and creationist scientists cannot take you seriously.

In order to prove it is "meaningless" I request that you provide me and others with "the" testable and "verifiable" scientific method you use to empirically observe "unobserved" past historical events. Thus we can all repeat your experimental method and make the very same observations for ourselves.

Just like you, Dawkins also claims he can observe unobserved past events. So, maybe you could check with "Dawk" to find out exactly what testable and verifiable experimental scientific method he uses to "observe the unobserved", More important, ask Dawk if he has taken any pictures of these observed unobserved historical events that he and you can share with us.

If you do provide us with direct observations of unobserved past events we need never again rely on purely SUBJECTIVE opinion based evolutionary presuppositions, assumptions, inferences, contrived 'explanations, conjecture, and purse speculation as to what supposedly happened in the unobserved past. No! We will all have real "experimental" science and "direct observational" evidence go by — I wait with bated breath!
This is you big moment of truth. Let's us all see what real  testable and verifiable empirical science you "actually have" to substantiate that you can observe unobserved past events.  Along with testable and repeatable scientific evidence to substantiate each and every stage of the "hypothetical" evolutionary continuum. As we all need to see that evolution is "in fact" based on experimental and observable science. And is NOT based on mere subjective OPINIONS as to what SUPPOSEDLY happened in the distant past. So, give us testable and verifiable science for the origin of the universe, the DNA double helix, complex genetic coding, life, consciousness, and every other essential stage of the evolutionary continuum. We want to see what testable and verifiable science you actually have to substantiate all these "evolution did it" subjective assertions and assumptions.

Here's the rub! If you fail to do this, it will be reasonable to continue to conclude that you're nothing but "hot air", and that your hypothetical evolutionary worldview is founded on a huge number of "vastly improbable" undirected chance events for which there is "no known observable or verifiable scientific answer".  Of course, this blind faith hypothetical evolutionary premise actually turns out to be the definition for "magic and miracles".  Namely, "vastly improbable" events for which there is no verifiable scientific answer. You also need to know that another name for this godless "metaphysical" evolutionary premise is SCIENTISM.

I am well aware that you are among those who have an absolute "blind faith" commitment to evolution and scientism. And that no evidence against evolution would ever persuade  you otherwise. As such, all evidence presented on creation.com is thus rejected from the outset. This blind faith commitment to evolution and scientism is why you repeatedly make bizarre claims you cannot possibly justify, and therefore regularly trip yourself up. Meaning, you have yet to discover that your feet are planted firmly in midair. Thus, my suggestion is that you broaden your perspective beyond the "unproven" narrow atheistic framework of "metaphysical" naturalism and scientism. Get a copy of the new CMI DVD titled: "Evolution's Achilles' Heels". I brought 30 copies a week ago and they went like hot cakes, with people waiting for delivery of the next batch.
My friend received another response. (Naturally, since Haywire is verbose, and everyone is entitled to receive his opinion, whether they want it or not.) But since this is rather long, click here for the conclusion.






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

Thursday, December 4, 2014

Creation Science Research Supports Genesis Flood Model

Secular geological explanations for fossil-bearing rock sequences causes several anomalies that they cannot explain. This is especially true in the Midcontinent Rift in North America. A tremendous amount of lava was produced, and geologists wonder why the thing didn't turn into another major ocean.


North American Basement Rocks (Midcontinent Rift is called Keweenawan here) / USGS / PD
Once again, what is observed fits much more realistically into the Genesis Flood model of biblical creationists than the ideas of their secular counterparts. Specifically, the "fountains of the deep" in Genesis 7:11 may be explained, and be an explanation, instead of the speculations of uniformitarian geologists that only create more questions.
Most of the fossil-bearing strata on Earth are comprised of six megasequences. Secular scientists believe they were laid down over millions of years, but this assumption prevents them from describing some prominent geological features—features that are best explained by large-scale flooding. Using data from over 500 stratigraphic columns,3 I examined megasequences across North America to document the sedimentary evidence for the Flood’s catastrophe. At each site, the megasequence boundaries were identified, along with the thicknesses and extent of individual rock types. These findings enabled the creation of computer maps that will build a chapter-by-chapter model of how the Flood changed the entire surface of the world.

Preliminary results demonstrate the presence of a seventh megasequence below the six common fossil-bearing megasequences. It lies just below the Sauk Megasequence in what secularists call the late Precambrian or Proterozoic Era. However, this newly delineated pre-Sauk sequence may be instrumental in documenting the onset of the Flood.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Fountains of the Deep".

 





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

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Ichthyosaurs Getting Icky for Evolutionists

Ichthyosaurs. Those varmints are causing consternation for evolutionists. They can't figure out where the "fish lizards" of dinosaur times came from (hint: they were created, not evolved), so they give in to some interesting speculations on them. Additional news makes things even worse for Darwin's acolytes.


Varieties of ichthyosaurs. Wikimedia Commons / Nobu Tamura, compiled by Levi Bernardo
Although they looked like dolphins and breathed air, they were cold-blooded. Since they're probably extinct (evolutionists think they were well-suited for their environment, so extinction is another stinker for them), the most likely explanation is that they died in the Genesis Flood. Another testimony of the Flood is that there are soft tissues found in ichthyosaur graveyards. Also, a mother that apparently died in labor and the young were rapidly buried.
Ichthyosaurs were marine reptiles that looked amazingly like dolphins, which, though resembling fish, are mammals. The name comes from the Greek ichthys, ‘fish’ and sauros, ‘lizard’. This clear case of shape similarity in fish, ichthyosaurs, and dolphins can’t be attributed to inheriting this shape from a common ancestor. Although evolutionists call this ‘convergent evolution’, a better explanation is common design.

According to the evolutionary story, ichthyosaurs lived at about the same time as the dinosaurs. In particular, they appeared suddenly 250 Ma (million years ago) with no trace of non-ichthyosaur ancestry, and died out 90 Ma, before the last dinosaur (65 Ma).

The exquisite preservation of the fossils indicates rapid burial. If the ichthyosaur died giving birth, that in itself would not explain the fossilization.
If you've a mind to, you can read the rest by clicking on "Ichthyosaurs: evidence for a recent global flood".
Click for larger. A libelous stalker (and hater of Dr. Sarfati) ignores the point of the article to
emphasize a trivial point, cry about his hurt ego, and show his lack of logic skills.
I highlighted only a few of his fallacies.





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

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Magical Mystery Evolutionary Explanations for the Cambrian Explosion

To reuse an old joke, "Evolutionists must be in great physical shape. After all, they get a lot of exercise by running down creationists, side-stepping relevant facts, and pushing their luck".  The "Cambrian explosion" is a layer in the geologic column where fossils of many fully-formed multicelled animals "suddenly appeared", with no transitional forms. It has been a source of frustration and attempted explanations for many years. But the magical realm of conclusion-jumping may bring joy to the faithful.


www.piltdownsuperman.com, The Question Evolution Project, Magical Evolutionary Thinking

Microfossils were found in rocks that are considered older than the Cambrian layers. They don't know quite what was fossilized, but evolutionists are confident that by ignoring evidence and logic, and shoving evolution into the observations, that they can solve the enigma of the Cambrian explosion. The magic of evolution! They still can't get past the fact that the Noachian Flood is the most logical explanation.
Are Megasphaera microfossils ancient embryos? Encysted protozoans or giant bacteria Algae? Or are they extinct animals? Evolutionary scientists still aren’t sure just what these tiny fossils are. But they are confident of one thing: Megasphaera are the 600-million-year-old evolutionary ancestors that will solve the enigma of the Cambrian Explosion.

Slicing through a new batch of Megasphaera microfossils, a team of scientists from Virginia Tech and the Chinese Academy of Sciences has found the fossils represent several stages in the life cycle of a multicellular organism. Measuring just 0.03 inches (0.7 mm) across, these small spherical fossils come from South China’s Ediacaran Doushantuo Formation, supposedly “60 million years deeper” in the geologic column than the Cambrian Explosion.
You can dig deeper by reading the rest of "Multicellular Life Evolving in Microfossils, Evolutionists Say".
  




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

Monday, December 1, 2014

Saturn Situated and Other Space Surprises

Earth is in a special spot, and obviously the product of the Creator's design because slight variations will mean that life is not possible. (That's the short form of the Teleological Argument, which some people believe is flawed. The argument was briefly mentioned in an earlier post.) Yet, here we are by God's plan. It's more than just our orbit and our sun, we have help from other riders on the cosmic trails (the other planets).

Back in 1972, I had a copy of Thrilling Science Fiction, a bi-monthly publication of short stories. (Turns out that they were reprints, but I didn't know or care.) One was called "The Seventh Planet" by Les Collins (Cole). Funny how I recollect some of it after over 40 years. Anyway, some traveling astronaut made contact with space aliens who wanted a home. They said they wanted to remove a planet so they'd have room for their own, or something like that, and asked if they could remove the seventh planet (this is back when Pluto was still a planet). He thought, sure, who'd miss Uranus? Except that they counted from Pluto inward; by our reckoning, they removed the third planet...


Quadruple Saturn Moon Transit Snapped By Hubble
Four-moon transit of Saturn. Source: Hubblesite.org
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Aside from the disaster shock value of the story, what if Uranus was removed? Well, they may be repercussions. Let's move in a bit. Spectacular Saturn has a hand in our survival. Hard to believe, but there's what I'd call a dynamic tension out there. If Saturn were closer, it would throw off our orbit and foul up things pretty bad. There's also a problem with the planet's tilt, that would also ruin us.

In addition to this story, there are still more surprises from outer space. You know how evolutionary science is supposed to not only expect, but even predict? More and more, we read about how evolutionists are surprised, startled, baffled, unable to explain, and more about what is discovered. Know why? It's because they have the wrong starting point! The evolutionary paradigm continually fails, but science continually supports biblical creation science and a young universe.
How Saturn saved the Earth, and other news from the ringed planet, its family, and other bodies in the outer solar system.

It takes much more than a habitable zone to give life a stable platform. It requires cooperative neighbors, too. Computer models, reported by Jeff Hecht on New Scientist, found out that Saturn, even though it’s about 800 million miles away from Earth, could have yanked the Earth out of its life zone.
You can read about Saturn, and a whole passel of other fun tidbits, by clicking on "Saturn Rescues Earth: Outer Planet Wonders".




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

Sunday, November 30, 2014

Radiometric Dating and Reason — Part 3

As you can see, this is the third installment in a series on radiometric dating. (Part 1, on the most common forms of radiometric dating methods, is here. Part 2, on the isochron method, is here.) Uniformitarian geologists rely on a number of assumptions to make their dating methods work. Unfortunately, the assumptions are unrealistic.

On a side note, did you know that there is a huge assumption made about the age of the earth? It is not determined from terrestrial rocks, but from meteorites! The assumption is that everything formed at the same time, and meteorites are purer than the rocks on our own world. Old son, that's circular reasoning.

Back to the main topic now. In Part 3, the Potassium-Argon dating method is examined. Although considered to be the most reliable, this method is so loaded with assumptions, it is actually unreliable and unscientific. Once again, a proper interpretation of the evidence points to a young planet.
Radioactive dating methods—many of which are quite elaborate—have numerous physical condition requirements that cannot realistically remain unaffected over millions and perhaps billions of years. Since the potassium-argon dating methods clearly appear to be unreliable, why should any rational person trust them to provide accurate dates for rocks?

In the early 1950s, scientists established theories for using the decay of radioactive potassium (40K) to argon (40Ar) as a clock for dating certain types of rocks. Called “noble” because it rarely bonds with other elements, argon (Ar) is one of the six noble gases. The others include helium (He), neon (Ne), krypton (Kr), xenon (Xe), and radon (Rn).
To finish reading, click on "The Noble Clock: Radioactive Dating, Part 3
 




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

Saturday, November 29, 2014

Putting a Lie About Living Fossils to Rest

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Every once in a while when creationists use the term "living fossils" to show flaws in evolutionary ideas, someone comes along with a comment like, "That's a term made up by YECs to attack evolution!" That's the opposite of the truth. But what if Young Earth Creationists did make up that term? Words and phrases are made up all the time. So if we did make it up, somehow it wouldn't be legitimate — but it's all right for atheist evolutionists like Clinton R. Dawkins to make up the word "meme"? Double standards, you can but we can't.

But we didn't.

The first known use of the term "living fossil" seems to have been with Papa Darwin himself. Like his successors, he used an observation and then guessed about an explanation. When people do it today, it's called "science".


PiltdownSuperman.com, The Question Evolution Project, BCSE, Charles Darwin, Living Fossils, Evolution, Creation, Creation Science

Since some people want to cling to their beliefs despite the evidence, I'm going to show you that the term "living fossil" is not just something creationists lassoed for our own use. The following sources are not creation-friendly:
In addition to the source from Darwin, you can clearly see over a dozen links to evolutionary sites that use the term "living fossils". It's not a creationist term, despite what Darwin's Stormtroopers pa-TROLL-ing the Web may try to tell you. This is a fallacy called "prejudicial conjecture"; someone heard someone else say that it's a creationist term and then s/he passed that lie around as well. It could easily have been avoided by doing a few minutes of online research.

But wait! You may very well be studying on this and wondering, "Hey, Cowboy Bob, what do creationists think about living fossils, and why does it matter to them?

I'm glad you asked. Here are some links on the matter:

So, the next time someone tells you that YECs made up the expression, or that evolutionists don't use it, you can say, "Not hardly!", and show them this link. I did the research for your convenience, and also because some anti-creationists can't be bothered to do it.





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

Labels