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, January 5, 2015

Maddening Moon Magnetism 1

More studies of Earth's moon are getting evolutionary space scientists all frazzled. They require "deep time", and evolution requires huge amounts of time or else the story won't work. But the more they cognate on space stuff, the more they find out that their discoveries don't reconcile with their tale-spinning. Today, we see that the man in the moon is trolling secularists.
Full Moon with Earth's Horizon and Airglow Visible at Left
Image credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Despite the desires of participants in the Deep Time Rodeo, the moon once had a strong magnetic field. In addition, there are other features of the moon that say, "I'm young!" Naturally, secular scientists dance around the evidence and make up excuses to avoid the logical conclusions of a young Earth, moon and solar system itself.
Ponder this under tonight’s full moon. Scientists now say the moon once had a magnetic field stronger than Earth’s is now.

It’s a big surprise. How could the moon, much smaller than the Earth, have a strong magnetic field? Yet it did, a new analysis of Apollo moon rocks reveals, according to Benjamin Weiss, a professor of physics at MIT.
To read the rest, click on "Full Moon Has Magnetic Secret".




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

Sunday, January 4, 2015

Presuppositions and Fallacies in Evolutionary Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Everyone has a worldview. It is comprised of axioms and presuppositions. They can be cultural, experiential, based on opinions, education, and so on. Some people deny having a worldview, but we cannot function without it. Scientists use their worldviews as their starting point, and are not the epitome of sterile objectivity that many people believe them to be.


Worldviews and Presuppositions
I believe that the main reasons atheists and anti-creationists detest presuppositional apologetics are:
  • We do not elevate any philosophies (including science philosophies) above the Bible, which is our foundation, and freely admit that we have our own presuppositions
  • Presuppositional apologists analyze worldviews and their underlying presuppositions, and cognitive dissonance results when an atheist or evolutionist is shown that his worldview is irrational
  • We do not take much stock in the "wisdom" of unbelievers because that violates what Scripture tells us about the nature of man
  • Presups show that atheism and evolutionism lack the necessary preconditions of intelligibility that are only found in biblical Christianity
  • Although it's rooted in the Reformed traditions, you don't have to be a Calvinist to use it (I refuse to identify with either Calvinist or Arminian schools of theology, for instance)
There are other reasons that some people hate presuppositional apologetics, but I think those can all be traced to our firm stance on the authority of Scripture.

Atheists and evolutionists are hardcore presuppositionalists themselves, and they resent when we point out this fact. There are numerous assumptions made when interpreting scientific evidence. Secular scientists (as well as old-earth creationists and theistic evolutionists to varying extents) are assuming that the Big Bang is true, the universe and the earth are very old, evolution is established science, the Bible is false (or that the first eleven chapters of Genesis must be filtered through current opinions of science philosophies), and so on.

Logical Fallacies
In addition to presuppositions, their quest to prove evolution and "deep time" have many logical fallacies. One of the most frequent is equivocation (or conflation), where there is a bait 'n' switch by equivocating "evolution" with "science". They frequently denigrate the distinction between operational science (that which is repeatable, testable, observable, falsifiable, and so on) with historical science, where evolutionists attempt to use scientific principles about what is observed in the present, extrapolated to what they believe happened in the past. It hinders understanding and communication to use vague definitions such as "evolution is change over time" (an essentially useless definition) and "evolution is the change in allele frequencies". 

One conflation is between "micro" and "macro" evolution. The term "micro evolution" is misleading and should be removed from a biblical creationist's vocabulary, because there really is no evolution, only small-scale changes, and those things that are expected in the General Theory of Evolution (molecules-to-man) such as added genetic information through mutations are not present. Creationists generally agree that natural selection and variation exist (and supported by operational science), but "micro" evolution and natural selection do not support goo-to-you evolution. People who do not really understand science and the limitations in genetic variations will simply assume that because of those small changes, there must be large-scale changes; a little evolution means that there is eventually a lot of evolution. This assumption is based on the presupposition that evolution is true in the first place, and they want evidence to support their views.

Used with permission of recipient. Here is conflation between "evolution" and "science".
Note that he doesn't like to "see pages that misinforming people",
but misled the recipient about who he was. He has a track record for lying, has
made fake Pages imitating Christians and creation ministries,
so there is no reason to believe that he does "science for a living".
Two related fallacies that are frequently observed are the false dilemma and the argument from silence (another article on the argument from silence is here). The false dilemma is the either-or fallacy, where there are only two possible explanations, and others are rejected out of hand, or simply ignored. The argument from silence draws from information that does not exist (such as challenging me to a debate, and then claiming my refusal is an admission that creation science is false). Recently, I have encountered people who said, "Since the Bible doesn't say there is no life on other planets, then it may exist", or, "Jesus didn't command us to celebrate his birthday or resurrection, so it's evil to do so". 

When reading material from the science press, those writers (and often the scientists themselves) use these fallacies.

There is also the fallacy of exclusion, where relevant information is ignored or even suppressed. It can include making assumptions (including prejudicial conjecture) without facts (or contrary to facts). Here is a very simple example: My wife and I were carrying some large black bags to her car. She had one bag and a smaller object, and I was carrying only one bag. An observer in a nearby apartment could see that and say, "That guy is making his wife do the hard work". (Prejudicial conjecture could include, "He's just lazy".) What was not known was that I was carrying the heavier load. Just to work with the idea that if I was indeed having her do the heavy work, an observer would not know, say, that my back was acting up again, or that she was being stubborn and insisting on the heavier bag. It is risky to make assumptions and conclusions over facts that are not available — especially in science.

Other fallacies do not need more than a brief mention, because they apply more to crusaders for atheism and evolutionism than to scientists. Fallacies appeal to emotion, some people are unable to distinguish between "lying" and "disagreeing about interpretations of the evidence", set up straw men, use appeal to authority, rely on assertion instead of reason, and more. You can read about several other fallacies that are encountered on the Web and in discussions in my "Logic Lessons" series.

Publicizing Science
When science publications release grand pronouncements about new "discoveries" in evolution, age of the universe, "proof" of inflationary theory, and so forth, they make noise and kick up dust like a Cavalry charge across the prairie. When the excitement settles and more serious analysis can take place, several problems are often found. One is that the press embellished the statements from scientists, and another is that the scientists themselves were making very unscientific pronouncements that had a strong basis in their worldviews, but not in actual science.

Reading and Listening Carefully
As many of us have pointed out, people today are not being trained to think critically and to actually consider the evidence. They are likely to accept what scientists say and then exlaim, "Aha! We've just disproved creation science!" — then they are humiliated when intelligent analysis is done (such as the Higgs Boson hysteria). Christians do not need to be intimidated by "science". Our faith is not in the pronouncements of scientists and their press, but on the Word of God. Also, secularists use many fallacies, confuse the issue, argue from their presuppositions, and more. It may look good on paper, but their science is sorely lacking.

I strongly recommend reading the article that got me all het up to write this today, which gives several examples of science that was nothing resembling actual science. Click here to read and learn from "Pardon Me, Your Presuppositions Are Showing".




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

Saturday, January 3, 2015

Higgledy-Piggledy Evolution and Atheism

Evolution is a cornerstone for the religion of naturalistic atheism. Neither evolution nor atheism is rational.

Almost from the beginning, there have been people who wanted to find ways to deny God. With increasing ferocity over time, such denials have reached the irrational level of attempting to deny that God exists in the first place. One of the cornerstones of the religion of atheism is evolution, which is itself an ancient pagan religion that has been given a veneer of "science". You can have all the axioms you want, old son, but when they build on arbitrary assumptions, you have not really built anything scientific. (For that matter, there are owlhoots that try to confuse you by conflating "evolution" and "science", then they can mislead you by saying that creationists are "anti-science", which is a flat-out lie.)

Atheism has its own origins mythologies that are just as incoherent, unscientific and irrational as atheism itself. But people foolishly rebel against the Creator, putting their faith in false reason and conjectures about origins. Only biblical Christianity has the necessary preconditions of intelligibility and human experience.
The question of origins (where did everything come from) has only two possible answers. Either the universe arose by itself or it didn’t. If it did then some sort of cosmic evolution must have taken place to account for reality. If it didn’t then there must be a Creator. There is no third option.

Many people seem convinced that the theory of evolution is based on an analysis of brute facts that clearly prove evolution has been a real process throughout history. As arch-evolutionist Richard Dawkins said:
[Y]ou have got millions and millions of pieces of evidence which no reasonable person can possibly dispute.
However, every person has an ultimate starting point of belief about the question of origins, a presupposition that is simply accepted as true without proof, or an axiom. Even if one says that their ultimate starting belief is the result of the analysis of a collection of facts that lead them to that ultimate starting position, it remains that at the root of their belief system they will always have a starting point that cannot be supported further.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Atheism Needs Evolution".




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

Friday, January 2, 2015

Feedback and Evolution

Regular readers know that creationists emphasize the importance of definitions. I thought feedback was when you put an open microphone in front of a speaker that goes to eleven and you get that ear-piercing woooo noise. Or that when the Big Corporation tells employees, "We value your feedback", while deleting your comment. Now I know a new definition of feedback, and it's a mighty important concept, especially since evolutionists cannot account for it.

Gary Wedemeyer and The Deacon / US Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management
Engineers know about feedback regarding mechanical things, but it's vital in biology. Ever watch a horse and rider in an event like, say, a steeplechase race or barrel racing? Or maybe you've watched a cowboy lasso a wayward cow, loop the other end of the rope around the saddle horn, and both horse and rider work together to get the cow under control? Not only are those matters of skill, training, and experience, but feedback. They are responding to each other. Horses and riders are practically a unit.

Feedback is an important feature that is found everywhere, even down to the cellular level. Our cells are manufacturing plants for DNA and repairs, and they need feedback to continue. There is no decent evolutionary explanation for feedback, but it fits perfectly into a biblical creationist worldview.
One of the things that becomes a total contradiction to the proposition of biological evolution is the reality of feedback (the scientific principle involving sensing and repositioning by a distant controller). Engineering feedback was not described until the early 1900s; however, biological life functions have had feedback ever since the first cell was created.
Don't horse around. You can read the rest by clicking on "The Evolutionary Problem of Feedback Mechanisms". Also, there are two short videos below.






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

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Piltdown Superman and 2015

New Year's Day, Piltdown Superman, The Question Evolution Project, Question Evolution Day, Biblical Creation Science, Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Happy New Year! Not that I think there's anything special about changing calendars or New Year's celebrations, but it's a good time to stop and plan. Some of my readers may know that my goal is to get these written and scheduled from 3-7 days ahead of time. But that's short-term planning, I reckon this is about longer-term planning.

A side note for people who like to make resolutions: Don't get carried away. If you make a big list, you'll probably get discouraged trying to do too much. If you make a big list, fine, but I suggest that you do just do a couple of resoultions. In a month or three, do a couple more.

Where was I? Oh, yes. I'm back behind my unlicensed assault keyboard, bringing you evidence that refutes the fundamentally flawed evolutionary worldview, and supports the reality-based biblical creation evidence. The big attention-getting holidays are over with (including Thanksgiving for Americans), and there's nothing of significance down the trail for a ways except for February 12, Question Evolution Day. So, let's see...


The Question Evolution Project logo


The Question Evolution Project
The Facebook version of TQEP has had some growth in "Likes", especially lately. We hit 2,000 Likes on December 30, 2013, and have passed 3,890 Likes at the end of 2014. (I liked the numbers on New Year's Day in 2014 — we had 2,014 "Likes".) When people click "Like" on posts, leave comments, share articles and so on, it helps spread the word. Also, I believe (and some people support this) that we have good growth because of our uncompromising biblical creation stance, and also how we don't go riding off after politics, conspiracy theories, and assorted side issues.


Question Evolution Day, The Question Evolution Project

Question Evolution Day
This is linked up yonder in the top paragraph. It's a holiday that I made, which was inspired by the Question Evolution campaign of creation.com. As you can see, the fourth annual is coming up. Anyone who believes in intellectual, religious and academic freedom can be involved in this Web event, and it won't cost you two bits. If you want to have a QED event in your home or church and show videos, have refreshments, stuff like that, go for it. But participation in the event is free. Also, my hope is that it will take off on its own and carry on after I'm six feet under — but people will have to be determined to make it happen.

Popular Posts
The usual process here is for me to read articles, select some from various scientific disciplines (I won't pretend that I understand all of them), write an introduction, do an excerpt, and then link to the article so you can learn from better minds than mine. Sometimes I have the audacity to write my own articles. I don't know much about Google Analytics and if I use the thing right. (Maybe if I was running a business and making money doing this, I'd try harder to get a handle on the thing.) But according to that, two of my top four most-viewed posts were original articles, "Scientism and Blind Acceptance" and "Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism". Two other big posts were "Evolution Thought Police Increase UK Creation Censorship" (I was thrilled that Creation Ministries International used my "meme", you can see my "writing" on the top left of the blackboard), and "Setting the Record Straight, Answering Bill Nye", a collection of links refuting Nye's bad "science" and sometimes dishonest remarks at the debate with Ken Ham. I want to add that "Finding Anti-Creation Facebook Fakers" was also in the top ten.



Graphics
I'm no graphic artist, ain't no way. But I can do some tinkering. Most of the grapics I use are public domain, free-to-use, Creative Commons, and things like that. Also, sign and "meme" generators. Some "memes" are very popular, and have shown up in many places on Facebook and so on.


Personal
2014 was good in some ways, and terrible in others. Gained some haters, some libelous stalkers got even more irrational, made some friends that I hope will stay in touch, the Page gained fans and supporters, and more. I learned a great deal about theology, human nature, unwillingness to relinquish materialistic worldviews despite evidence, evidence refuting evolution and supporting biblical creation, theology, and other things. But I had some difficulties and challenges. Some of those were illnesses, death, financial setbacks, yada yada yada. Through these, my faith has remained intact, and even grown. For Christians reading this, please pray for me and for the other Admins at The Question Evolution Project.

We're going to hit the ground running in 2015, and I'm going to continue to bring you articles that I hope you like and can use (going to pass the 1,000 posts mark this year if I don't keep deleting old ones). As usual, there will be the occasional surprises and items to keep things interesting. In addition to giving you information, I want to encourage and help equip Christians to stand on the authority of Scripture and learn about creation science. Evolution is scientifically bankrupt — the evidence points to Creation, and supports God's written Word.






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

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Submerged Britain

Although there is abundant global evidence for the Flood, the British Isles are an area that warrant special study. Uniformitarian assumptions keep leading researchers on dusty trails to dead ends and wrong destinations. Great Britain was completely submerged at one time during the Genesis Flood, but uniformitarian geologists refuse to accept this, and often will often refuse to examine the evidence. For example, Siccar Point in Scotland does not have much information about it because of uniformitarian assumptions; this is the same kind of bad science that has held back research in biology (such as "junk" DNA) and other areas because they think they have things all figured out.


FreeImages / Ben Nevis via Carn Mor Dearg Arete / biscuits17
Radiometric dating is no account because of the bad assumptions involved (knowing the beginning "parent" quantities, the decay rates, and the ending "daughter" amounts). Further, those decay rates have been shown to be not constant. Having the same materials yield different dates, and even having rocks of known age calculated to be millions of years older than they really are, should cause serious geologists to be skeptical of the adherence to radiometric dating in their field. Fossil content in the British rocks does not help "deep time" assumptions, either.

Even so, using some uniformitarian materials, creationists can show that Britain was submerged, all at the same time. This flies in the face of secular geology, even though geologists will reluctantly set aside their assumptions and graciously grant that there have been occasional flood catastrophes. The evidence actually points to the Genesis Flood. If they'd get past their erroneous presuppositions and cognate on the evidence, geologists would be more likely to reach accurate answers.
Our focus in this paper is to show that when we examine geology holistically, rather than burrowing ourselves in small detached details, confirmation of the recent Flood emerges.

The UK, because of its relatively small size compared with the world’s land mass and the early development of geology here, has been explored to a higher level of detail than many other countries. This paper presents evidence from within the uniformitarian paradigm that the UK experienced a complete flood recently. In the process we show that there are also other pointers, quite independent of flood legends, to the whole world having experienced a global flood. Other researchers are then encouraged to complete this story geologically.
To read the entire article in context, click on "Why was the UK once totally under water?"
 




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

Monday, December 29, 2014

Asteroid Impacts, Lava Flows, and Dinosaur Extinction?

So what was it really that done in them dinos, anyway? Some people claim that "science knows" what happened to them, but "science" knows nothing. After all, science is not a sentient being. Also, even thought the dominant theory among secular scientists is that an asteroid smashed into the earth, that raises more questions and speculations, such as why mammals didn't all die, too. There are actually many guesses as to why the dinosaurs cashed in their chips, and some parts of the "theories" that scientists are not so forthcoming about, as you'll see in the article linked below.


Asteroid, Volcano, Dinosaur Extinction, Evolution, Age of the Earth, Creation Science
Image assembled from components at Clker clipart
Some are going to volcanic activity for the demise of the dinosaurs. Or maybe a combination of volcanic activity, long-term decline, and the asteroid. Oh, boy. May as well add in the constipation theory to the volcanoes and fireball from the sky. Or we can use the biblical creationist models of the Genesis Flood, the Ice Age and so on. But that is unacceptable to evolutionists, because Creation and the Flood were recent events, and secular worldviews require billions of years to wish evolution into happening.
An impact drove the dinosaurs extinct; or was it volcanoes?

For decades, the most common tale about dinosaur extinction has been the impact hypothesis: a meteorite finished them off. There’s the smoking-gun crater in the Yucatan, isn’t there? This theory gets treatment as “received knowledge” by the press. It’s simply assumed, as in PhysOrg’s headline, “Asteroid that wiped out dinosaurs may have nearly knocked off mammals, too.” This article claims that early marsupials perished in the flames of the impact, somehow giving placental mammals their chance. Result: humans.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Dinosaurs and the Battle of Killers".





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

Labels