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, April 5, 2015

Resurrection Perspective

Millions of professing Christians around the world are celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead on this day (1 Cor. 15:3-8). It is also commonly called Easter (sometimes mistakenly attributed to pagan sources). If there was no resurrection, we would all be wasting our time (1 Cor. 15:17-20). But he did rise from the dead, and those of us who put our faith in him are children of God (John 1:12).



Why would creationists be excited about this? Because Jesus is God the Son, the second person of the Trinity. He is the Creator (Col. 1:16, John 1:1-3) of all things. Although we are all sinners (Romans 3:23) and worthy of death (Romans 6:23), we have been redeemed by the blood and resurrection of Jesus (Heb. 9:15, Gal. 4:5, John 11:25). Salvation is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8-9), and those who humble themselves can receive this gift on God's terms, not ours. 

Imagine...the Creator of the universe is living in me, and I am secure in my salvation, even though I don't deserve it.



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

Saturday, April 4, 2015

When it Comes to Ethics, Evolutionists Stand on the Christian Worldview

The realm of values and ethics is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview. Darwinists believe in survival of the fittest where the unfit are eliminated, so why should they care when a scientist actually displays the natural result of an evolutionary worldview?

For that matter, when a disingenuous anti-creationist troll calls a creationist a "liar for Jesus" or an article a "lie fest", he or she is appealing to a non-Darwinian worldview.

When atheists and evolutionists complain that something is wrong, and that there is a better way to live and act, they are actually showing that their own worldviews are incoherent, so they rustle the biblical Christian worldview and brand it as if it was their own. In addition, scientific methods are not just the stuff of using sterile, impersonal facts. Don't get me started on peer review fraud...


Evolutionists and atheists draw from the biblical Christian worldview in a tacit admission that their own worldviews are incoherent. Several examples in the science industry illustrate this.

There are competing philosophies in the scientific community about what defines a law, "tacit knowledge" is inconsistent with evolution, scientists enhancing the "truth" of their findings, admitting that religion played a part in civilization but not knowing how to deal with it now, and more:
It’s a material world, except when you need truth, justice, and the scientific way.

Secular scientists (including journal editors and reporters) like to position themselves as the wise men of modernity. They dish out simplified philosophy for the lay people. They say when it’s time to express moral outrage. They have a mechanical method in a material universe that puts religion in the dust of their rear-view mirror. But every once in awhile, when they feel the need for values, they implicitly cite the Ten Commandments for authority, but without attribution.
You can honestly read the rest by clicking on "Secular Scientists Rely on Biblical Values". 
      


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

Friday, April 3, 2015

The Ledi Jaw and Missing Link Monkeyshines

Another candidate for a "missing link" in the evolutionary chain raises serious questions about dating methods, and about the small amount of material used for large evolutionary conjectures.
No, it's "Ledi Jaw", not "Jedi Law", Luke.

The Evo Sith want it both ways: Either there's an abundance of fossils, artifacts, and transitional forms to make goo-to-you evolution an indisputable fact, or there's still a big search for the "missing link" between humans and our alleged ape-like relatives. Seems that whenever anthropologists and paleontologists come up with something, there's a big uproar in the scientific community and the press proclaiming triumph.

What do they have now? Part of a jaw. Mighty sparse bit of material to make pronouncements by. There's nothing to compare it with, no skull, no way to judge the overbite. Not much at all, but they're still talking "missing link" material. This reminds me of another critter that was built up from very little — watch yourselves, you may wind up with another Nebraska Man fiasco if you're not careful.

Some misotheists got burrs under their saddles when they saw the article linked below (one predictably calling it a "lie fest", presumably because it shows flaws in evolutionists' methods). Not only did this article show serious flaws in the dating methods to show the age of the jaw, it showed several other serious problems with the specious species reasoning of the scientists. Scientists interpret evidence and make speculations based on their presuppositions. We hear from the evolutionists all the time, but this article argues from a biblical creationist perspective. The evidence fits the biblical model more effectively than the cobbled evolutionary ideas. Yippie ky yay, secularists!
The Ledi jaw puts the human stamp on the evolutionary map much earlier than any other fossil. At least that’s what evolutionists are saying. Touted as the transitional form they need to span a pesky gap, the Ledi jaw has been classified as a species of Homo, the genus to which we belong. Paleontologists reporting in Science describe a number of human features that distinguish it from australopithecine apes. They believe this as-yet-unidentified human species fits somewhere in our evolutionary lineage but much earlier than any other Homo fossil.

The fossil, catalogued as LD 350-1, consists of the bottom portion of a left lower jawbone and five teeth. It was found in 2013 by Chalachew Seyoum, a student working with paleontologists William Kimbel and Brian Villmoare. They were working in the Ledi-Geraru region of Ethiopia’s Afar Triangle, about 12 miles from where the original Lucy—Australopithecus afarensis—was discovered.
You can sink your teeth into the rest of the article by clicking on "Is the Ledi Jaw the Missing Link in Human Evolution?"


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

Thursday, April 2, 2015

Radiometric Dating and Reason — Part 6

Radiometric dating methods have serious flaws. Other less known methods have been tried, but those also have serious problems. Circular reasoning and assumption may work in secularist philosophies, but they are not the stuff of real science.

This is the sixth in a series on radiometric dating. (Actually, I think of this one as part 5B since Part 5 laid the groundwork.) If you want to catch up or review, get your bookmarking apparatus and think bones ready: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5. Or you can feel free to read on anyway.

It has been established that radiometric dating methods are unreliable, showing widely-varying results, and even yielding millions of years for rocks of known age. These methods use several assumptions and circular reasoning. There are many other methods that show the earth to be far younger than secularists would like, but I reckon that they have to use bad science in order to preserve their old-earth evolutionary paradigm.

Other radiometric dating methods have been attempted, but these, too have assumptions and are flawed.
This series has summarized radioisotope dating models, their assumptions, and how those assumptions mistakenly lead to a “deep time” picture of our universe. Secularist scientists want us to accept their circular arguments and improbable assumptions as scientific fact, despite the fact these same scientists often push aside the scientific method itself.

Using the various types of radioisotope decay as clocks does not produce consistent results, nor are those results verifiable by observational evidence. If these methods do not properly date rocks of known ages—some less than a century old—how can we trust them to date rocks of unknown ages?
To finish reading this article, click on "Rare-Earth Clocks, Sm-Nd and Lu-Hf Dating Models 2: Radioactive Dating, Part 6"
  


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

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Big News for The Question Evolution Project!

The purchase is final for our headquarters building. We have already moved in and made it comfortable. No, we are not going to vacate the other buildings that we are using for regional offices and warehouse space (partly because relocating upsets the velociraptors), but at least we have a central location. I can't live there (legally), so I'm still in the trailer park. Here is the picture:



The fun continues at full gallop, as we also have purchased commercial property for a gift shop. That's right, a gift shop. You can get your Uncle Pilty keychains, TQEP magnets and a corral full of other goodies. We've even installed a cheese, coffee and tea bar! Here it is:



Here is the manufacturing plant that makes our merchandise:



"That sounds great, Cowboy Bob! How can I find out more?"

Glad you asked, old son. For further information on this momentous event, including hours and locations, click here. To read an important message for today, click on this link.



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

Answering the Fool About God and Evolution

There is a right way to answer unbelievers about creation, evolution, God, the Bible and so on. It is a contrast of answering and also not answering according to his or her folly.

Mockers sometimes say that Proverbs 26:4-5 are a blatant contradiction. If they'd bridle their enthusiasm, they might see that those verses are put together for a reason: It is a contrast, not a contradiction. Unbelievers do not like what God says about them (Psalm 53.1, Romans 1.18-22), but I reckon I'm not going to argue against the Creator of the universe to please others.

Believers are to defend the faith, but we must do it biblically. When someone says, "Leave God (or the Bible) out of this and let's debate on neutral ground", that's saddling up someone else's horse to ride. You're answering the fool according to his folly and being just like him. But you can reflect back to him and show him his folly so he isn't such a clever fellow in his own eyes. (Dr. Jason Lisle has some information on the "Don't Answer, Answer" strategy.) If you bring yourself down to the unbeliever's level, old son, you're not going to get anywhere and you're actually saying that God is wrong, the unbeliever is wise! I like to say that for every evidence, there is an equal and opposite rescuing device (excuse to continue disbelief). Yes, there's a place for evidence, but keep it within a scriptural framework.

This information is for dealing with people who honestly seek knowledge. If you are dealing with someone that simply wants to ridicule, your time is best spent elsewhere.
For many Christians today, it might seem that the Bible uses quite harsh language to describe certain of their friends and loved ones—those who don’t believe in God. It calls them ‘fools’:

“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”—Psalm 14:1 (also Psalm 53:1)

Similarly in Romans 1:18–32, people who deny God as Creator—despite ubiquitous evidence of His handiwork1—no matter how ‘wise’ they (or others) might think they are, actually thereby “become fools”, and their “foolish hearts” are darkened.

But this doesn’t mean we are to love them any less. On the contrary, we are to “have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire” (Jude 22–23a). We are to “be ready always to give an answer” to those who question us about our faith, and to do this with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15).
To continue reading, click on "Answering fools' folly". Don't miss the song by ApologetiX, below.




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

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Paleoanthropology Tall Tales

It's amazing how evolution can be considered scientific when there are so many credulity-straining stories told in its promotion. Speculations are asserted as facts without any plausible models, just piles of stories worthy of entertainment around a campfire on a cattle drive, but not much else. In addition to the speculations, facts are conveniently ignored. Someone may want to ask, "Are you actually listening to yourself, pilgrim?"


Evolutionary scientists are ignoring facts in favor of telling their stories. Organic material still attached to stone tools after huge amounts of time? Ain't happening, pal.
Image: NPS.gov
Proponents of evolution insist on an old earth, even when the evidence is against them. How can animal fat still be on stone tools that are supposedly half a million years old? Organic material has a way of disappearing in a short time; horse apples on the lone prairie don't last very long, and they're not exactly something desired by much more than bugs and bacteria.

Evolutionary thinking has our ancestors being stupid brutes because they recently swung down from the trees and hadn't evolved much intelligence yet (again, despite evidence to the contrary). And they were content to stay primitive for long periods...not hardly. Again, do paleoanthropologists and others actually listen to their own stories? The truth is, there is no molecules-to-man evolution, and man was created as an intelligent being, and created rather recently.
Claimed to be half a million years old, stone tools found in Israel still contain traces of animal fat and vegetable matter.

The two parts of this sentence seem incongruent: “Stone tools that are half a million years old have been unearthed in Israel — and they still have traces of elephant fat clinging to them.” Yet this is what Tia Ghose says on Live Science without blinking an eye. Would not bacteria have removed all organic material from the rocks in just decades? With all the water from rain drenching the site over 500,000 years, it seems inconceivable to claim that any organic material would remain on a rock, yet that is exactly what the science news are reporting, based on a paper in PLoS ONE.
To read the rest, click on "Stone Tools Still Have Animal Residue".
        


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

Labels