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, May 8, 2018

Light from "First Stars" Supposedly Detected

Some secular astronomers are excited about light from the "first stars" in the universe that they supposedly detected. The research took several years, and they put a great deal of work into it. This was based on the presumption that the Big Bang was the origin of the universe, and this light was to have been emitted at the "cosmic dawn" several hundred years after the event. It is indeed unfortunate, since secularists know that their cosmology is useless.

Some secular astronomers put a great deal of time, money, and effort into trying to detect the supposed "first light" after the Big Bang
"Old" stars, Hubble image credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The astronomers took many precautions, and wanted to make sure they were not getting readings from Earth or from the galaxy. Unfortunately, the results had a "dip" that was different than predicted, the results include the fallacy of affirming the consequent, and several unwarranted assumptions were made. Good science does not involve making pronouncements that require further evidence like they did in this case — models are dependent on the information provided. Once again, we see a great deal of time, money, and fallacious science used to deny the Creator.
“Astronomers detect light from the Universe’s first stars” is the headline of a Nature news article, which appeared 28 February 2018. It relates to observations made by a team of astronomers led by Judd Bowman of Arizona State University in Tempe. The team published their results in Nature the same week. According to Bowman,
This is the first time we’ve seen any signal from this early in the Universe, aside from the afterglow of the Big Bang.
They used a small radio-telescope situated in the Western Australian desert, far away from human settlement to minimize interference from radio signals generated by human technology.
To read the rest, click on "Has light from the first stars after the big bang been detected?"

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

Monday, May 7, 2018

"Genesis: Paradise Lost" Video Review

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The idea of making Genesis: Paradise Lost dates back ten years. It began in 2007 when Eric Hovind of Creation Today had a discussion with Ralph Strean, who would later become the director and a producer. They wanted to reach younger people with the truth of the gospel and its foundation in creation. After years of writing, CGI work, filming, and fund raisers, the project was completed and released in cinemas for one-night showings on November 13, 16, and December 11, 2017. Now it is available for the rest of us. This is the first part of a proposed trilogy, and is focused on the opening chapter of Genesis.

The movie Genesis: Paradise Lost i takes a unique approach to presenting the truth of Genesis
Image courtesy of Creation Today
"Did you say fundraisers, Cowboy Bob?"

Yes, yes I did. After all, they don't have a $200-400 million USD budget like secular film studios have.The internet and its surly kid brother (social media) are conducive to many activities, including this kind. Several sites are established for these purposes. (For that matter, Dr. G. Charles Jackson, who is a speaker in this movie, has one going for a project called Quantum, which is a biblical creation science alternative to evolutionary propaganda.) Crowdfunding for all sorts of things is becoming increasingly popular.

The final title of Genesis: Paradise Lost was decided late in the process. If you've noticed, the web site is Genesis Movie, which I believe was the original title, and then it was going to be called Genesis 3D to emphasize the graphics. However, most people would not be able to see it in 3D outside of select cinemas. People can still watch it in that format if they have a Blu-ray 3D player, get the Blu-ray 3D disc, and have a current-model television. I watched it a standard format.

Making the movie in 3D was a major part of getting people interested in watching it. After all, CGI is dominant in the film industry nowadays because that's what people want. The production crew went to great lengths in making scenes of the creation and the early earth visually appealing. They also wanted to stay true to the Bible. Since there are not many details given in the Bible, some artistic license was necessary, but constrained by not violating scriptural principles.

Genesis: Paradise Lost is not just a special effects fest. Not hardly! There are several reasons that this movie takes a unique approach to presenting the truth of Genesis. We begin viewing a map of sorts, and Voddie Baucham begins his narration. (Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, and others are good, but I wouldn't trade Voddie for either.) The view zooms in on Eden while we hear Pastor Baucham saying, "...until we go back to the beginning". At this point, we're seeing the CGI early earth and some brief credits.

Then, we are in Answers in Genesis' Creation Museum to listen to some of the dozen or so speakers, including scientists, educators, theologians, and so on. This happens very quickly, in a sentence or two (sometimes they cut to another speaker who continues the same thought). Then we are returned to the graphics and narration.

It is interesting that a newer approach was taken in speaking parts: not looking at the camera. Different angles are used, but I didn't notice anyone talking to the camera. I have seen this used with increasing frequency, though not as extensively as it was here. I thought this approach added something to the film.

Each narration and CGI segment covers a section of Genesis 1, then we are returned to the discussions. While there is science and theology, we are not overwhelmed with technical lingo. We are given the creationary interpretation of scientific evidence, and shown how Darwinian interpretations do not withstand scrutiny. 

Yes, we hear about dinosaurs, and get some excellent graphics involving them. Atheists and other evolutionists object to this concept, unwilling to set aside their materialistic presuppositions and tolerate creationists making presentations from the biblical perspective. The Bible describes dinosaurs, and they were made on Day Six. Some of us are not going to compromise the plain reading of Scripture in favor of atheistic interpretations of science.

Biblical kinds and natural selection are discussed, and how there is no observable science for Darwinian evolution. Natural selection is a limiting factor for what is already in existence, not a cause for vertical change into something else. After all, God did not say, "Go ye and change into something else", but instead, see Genesis 1:24-25.

Our alleged evolutionary ancestors such as Lucy the extinct ape are discussed in a bit more detail. As regular readers of this site have seen, Neanderthals are demonstrated to be fully human. When examined, the human evolution timeline and evidence is absurd even on the surface. I thought Dr. G. Charles Jackson had an excellent remark about the lack of speaking ability of monkeys: "They have the hardware, they just don't have the software drivers to actually talk".

When we reach the segment on the creation of man, I found the graphics startling. (Elsewhere, the CGI of birds in flight seemed a bit odd to me.) Getting on to the other animals and Earth before sin, the graphics were very impressive again.

The last few minutes of Genesis: Paradise Lost tells us why it all matters. Genesis tells us about creation, sin, and the promise of the Redeemer. The Fall was a real event with real people, and it affected us all. The gospel message is clearly presented. I'll offer a speculation: mockers will not see this film or others like it because they hate the gospel, and their worldview is threatened by the truth. They are likely to go haywire, calling us all "liars" and seeking succor from evolutionary excuse mills. I'll allow that a few may be intellectually honest enough to consider the content, however.

Although I did not mention all of the subjects that were discussed, such as paleontology, geology, radiometric dating, and others, I do recommend this movie. (My omissions were not from dissatisfaction, but in the interests of time, because this article is getting a mite long.)

There are several ways to order or view it. As I mentioned, there's the 3D option that requires specific equipment. Not everyone is into that — some people cannot watch 3D for any length of time. (I took the 2D option and still had a good viewing experience.) You can also get it on 2D DVD and Blu-Ray. I took another option that was just introduced: I bought my copy at Christian Cinema (you can also rent it from them). I hope you'll get a copy, which can be obtained from the movie site, Creation Today, Answers in Genesis, and probably others. Also, the site has several resources available, including a free discussion guide. Watching the video with that on hand should get you thinking, old son.

Someone may be watching and shout, 'Prove it!" after every claim that a creationary scientist or theologian makes, but Genesis: Paradise Lost was not made to prove every point. Yes, evidence was presented, but not footnotes. For honest seekers of the truth, there are several creation science ministries to seek out that will provide scientific and theological evidence. The science is on our side, and in evolution is unfounded.

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

Saturday, May 5, 2018

Spider Webs and Biomimetics

Do you like the feeling of taking a stroll and being surprised by a spider web in your face or on your arms? Me neither. Be glad that the strands are so small, because if they were about the diameter of a garden hose, they would not only stop you and the horse you rode in on, but some commercial jets as well!

Spider silk is proportionally one of the strongest things in the world
Credit: Unsplash / RĂºben Marques
On television shows and movies, you may have seen someone get shot but the vest stops the bullet. When realism is intact, the recipient is often knocked down and injured. Again in proportion, if spider web strands were larger and could be used in this way, they would be stronger than man-made fibers for bullet-stopping power.


Scientists have been puzzled by spider webs, including how they get stronger after being stressed, and that these clever arachnids have different kinds of webbing for different purposes. The study of creatures and such in nature for use in human applications is called biomimetics or biomimicry. Our Creator has given us many things to consider, but naturalists wrongly give Darwin the credit for the things we try to imitate. Spiders have given scientists a great deal to think about, and they still have a long way to go.
Spider silk owes its amazing strength and elasticity to its ‘complexity that makes synthetic fibres seem crude.’ Man-made fibres are usually just simple strands of material, but a silk fibre has a core surrounded by concentric layers of nanofibrils (tiny threads). Some layers contain nanofibrils aligned parallel to the axis, while other layers contain nanofibrils coiling like a spiral staircase. The coiled ones allow the silk to be stretched, because they simply straighten up rather than break.

The nanofibrils themselves are very complicated, containing tiny protein crystals in an amorphous (shapeless) matrix of tangled protein chains. These nanocrystals contain electrical charges that stop the chains from slipping, so providing strength, while the amorphous material is rubbery and allows the fibre to stretch.

To read the entire article, click on "God’s webspinners give chemists free lessons".

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

Friday, May 4, 2018

Denisovans Further Thwart Human Evolution

Those mysterious Denisovans did not leave us much to examine,  not so much as a weblog post. With advances in science and technology, however, their DNA has been examined. The DNA of other people groups has been examined, and Denisovan material has been found in Tibet, Papua New Guinea, and other places. Quite the travelers! Like their cousins the Neanderthals, Denisovans were fully human.


Denisovans throw a monkey wrench into human evolution speculations because of not only their travels, but because the secular timeline has significant overlap. Try as they might, Darwin's faithful cannot evosplain away the facts that affirm recent creation and refute long-ages and evolution.
Denisovans are ancient humans represented by various teeth and a finger bone found in a Siberian cave. Their claim to fame is largely based on the DNA extracted from these few fragments of human remains. According to evolutionists, they are more closely related to Neanderthals than modern humans. But their DNA is essentially human, and people all over the world today carry many of the same gene variants found in Denisovans.
To read the rest, click on "Denisovan DNA Shown to Be Human...Again".

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

Thursday, May 3, 2018

Little Things Producing Big Changes in the World

Small things by themselves may be unnoticeable, but the aggregation can be important. If one honeybee died, it is not likely that anyone would notice. However, if they all died, the world would notice. I'll allow that the analogy is flawed, but I reckon you get my point.

A study indicates that krill and brine shrimp stir up the oceans and spread nutrients
Antarctic krill image credit: NOAA NMFS SWFSC Antarctic Marine Living Resources (AMLR) Program
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Just last week, I was talking with Rusty Swingset, the foreman of the Darwin Ranch. (They rode into town for supplies, and I happened to be there.) He was saying that little things like brine shrimp and krill do not have much biological turbulence to affect ocean life. He admitted that the oceans need mixing so that living things could get nutrients and such. Then he had to go back to Deception Pass and I was left to do some woolgathering.

Just after this, I learned that research indicates that those brine shrimp and krill (possibly others as well) are probably doing quite a bit at stirring the oceans. Of course, the author of an article gave misguided credit to Darwin (blessed be!) by referring to the effects of earthworms. Non-Sequitur City, as his reference had nothing to do with the issue of oceans.

In a similar bit of research, it was learned that microbes and such are releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Has anyone notified the global climate change alarmists like Bill Nye the Pseudosciences Guy? (If so, let him know about the study that reveals, "It's not as bad as we thought". Just like climate changes skeptics have been saying for years.) Nye probably has enough sense to not set himself on fire in protest like this guy in New York.

It occurred to me that since the rate of oxidation from these microbes increases erosion, it may have a negative effect for proponents of deep time. Let's see what happens.

The Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring© invariably gives the explanation that "it evolved that way", whatever "it" is. Instead of that non-science, how about starting in the opposite direction? The Master Engineer put things where they are for a purpose. The little things are adding up to benefit our lives on Earth.
If minerals, gases and nutrients had to mix by diffusion, the process would be very slow. Wind and currents could help somewhat. Now, Houghton et al., publishing in Nature, have added a lively solution that is potentially big and reliable: tiny planktonic crustaceans provide a world-wide benefit by mixing the waters for the creatures of the sea. They swim down at night tens of meters, then come back up in the daytime. This diurnal activity could have a profound influence on the ocean environment, causing ocean mixing three times more powerful than diffusion alone.
. . .
A new paper in Science Magazine by Hemingway et al., though, says that microbes “eat rocks” and release a lot of that CO2 back into the atmosphere.
To read the entire article, click on "Tiny Life Benefits the Whole World".

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

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

"Is Genesis History?" Video Review

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There have been a few biblical creation science movies made lately that have been released in cinemas. Those have been through special arrangements for one night only, but audiences have received them enthusiastically, and there are occasional extra showings added. Unfortunately, they have not been in locations where I can attend, so I have to wait for the videos to be released. One of these was Is Genesis History?, first shown in the United States on February 23, 2017.

The video "Is Genesis History?" is available. It is definitely worth watching.
DVD cover from Is Genesis History?
The short description:
More than a Documentary

The film is the first step on a journey toward understanding the history of the Earth according to Genesis. Follow Del Tackett as he travels across the continent with over a dozen scientists and scholars to see fascinating new evidence for creation and a global flood.
I was able to rent a streaming version of the video and watch it on the television through our Roku device, and I regret not watching it sooner. It is available for purchase or streaming/rental through their site. They also have extra materials available for purchase or for free. Don't be getting skittish about a creation science film, we're not bogged down with a great deal of technical jargon. Does it go the other way and get condescending? Not hardly! Reasonably intelligent people can understand it.

Much of the material presented will probably be familiar to those of us who have studied creationary material for a spell, but of course, there was still a prairie schooner of other things to learn. I felt like many of the people interviewed were old friends in a way.

The main theme of Is Genesis History? seemed to be about paradigm. That is, someone's framework for interpreting data and making sense of the world. It is not a matter of "You have your facts, we have our facts", or some such. We all have the same facts, the same evidence, and what matters is how we deal with all of it. For an article on knowledge, see "How Do You Know It Is True?"

Let me take a side trail for a moment. Think back to the last Perry Mason or other show you saw that had courtroom scenes. Both sides of a case have the same evidence, and usually question the same witnesses. The origins controversy, like legal matters, is forensic — it is using evidence and reason in an effort to determine what happened in the past.

Okay, we're back again.

The interviews with scientists and scholars were not shot in a studio or auditorium, but in various locations where they displayed their specialties. This helped keep the 1 hour and 40 minutes movie from getting bogged down.

Del Tackett conducted quite a few interviews, as indicated above. (Is it just me, or does his voice sound a bit like Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs and the secular How the Universe Works fame?) Scenic locations, labs, views of specialty work, and more helps keep the viewer's interest. Also, something that I thought was clever and appealing was the use of what looked pencil sketches that were very quickly drawn. These were used for illustrations, and as transitions between scenes. Highfalutin special effects are fun, but this nice change was effective. I'll continue after the short clip below.

More clips like this are available on their site and on YouTube.

Since a great deal of biblical creation science involves the Genesis Flood and recent creation, a large part of Is Genesis History? is spent on geology, paleontology, fossilization, and the like. However, we also get into biology, dinosaurs, dinosaur soft tissues, the meaning of the creation account in Hebrew, archaeology, the Ice Age, and more. Del brings us to the main point on why all of this matters in a proper understanding of Scripture and salvation.

The use of Scripture is vital, and I am glad the film makers did not fall for the myth of neutrality. I take a presuppositional approach to apologetics, and the most basic form is to believe the Bible. You can convince someone that there is a Creator, but that isn't much help if they are not told about who did the creation, and about our Redeemer.

An angry tinhorn can watch this and ignore the collection of evidence for our position. Someone like that needs to settle down and just consider the science and theology of a recent creation, and the evidence that shows the paucity of fish-to-filmmaker evolution. It is difficult for atheists and anti-creationists to be intellectually honest and see evidence for our point of view, but it's certainly worth a try.

I hope people will watch Is Genesis History? and even buy it. There is discussion material as well as a guide to the film available.

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

Tuesday, May 1, 2018

Adaptation is not Evolution

Votaries of minerals-to-microbiologist evolution are confused by the meaning of evolution, and they spread their tohubohu to the public. We often see them conflating evolution with variation. In a similar way, adaptation is interpreted as evolution. They conveniently skip over basic science and observational skills.

Creatures were designed to adapt but not to change into something else
Red-browed finch image by John Manger / CSIRO (CC BY 3.0)
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
When you see finches, you can see variations and adaptation. When you see dogs, you see variations and adaptation. You do not see anything changing into something else. Big and little, long and short, different colors, speciation — each staying within the boundaries of its own kind with a little help from genetics.


Darwin's disciples generally follow his teachings that some vague, undefined external pressures caused organisms to change. As we have seen in the articles linked here on engineered adaptability (such as "Engineered Adaptability or Intangible Evolutionary Forces?"), critters were designed by the Master Engineer to be able to adapt. They change because they were built that way. External pressures are not the leading cause of change, and Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with it.
Due to the bombardment of evolutionary propaganda, most people think the terms evolution and adaptation basically represent the same thing. But nothing could be further from the truth. When one has a proper understanding of how creatures adapt and the incredible complexity of the mechanisms that enable them to do so, logic points to an all-wise Creator as adaptability’s cause. The scientific reality of the engineered complexity of adaptation is actually contradictory to the man-made myth of step-by-step gradual evolution over time.
To read the rest, click on "Are Evolution and Adaptation the Same?"

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