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

Saturday, December 8, 2018

Inselbergs and the Genesis Flood

In previous posts, we have looked at several instances of geomorphology, such as planation surfaces and the like. Today we are going to focus on inselbergs. No, Inselberg was not a musician in a German rock band (that I know of), but it the word came from German and means island mountain. We have a passel of them in the USA (such as Stone Mountain), but there are many of them around the world, and they puzzle deep time geologists.

Those island mountains that are all around the world cannot be explained by deep time geology.
Eningen unter Achalm, Baden-W├╝rttemberg, Germany
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Vux (CC BY-SA 3.0 DE) (enhanced)
You could be eyeballing a plot of land and suddenly see a huge bump or series of bumps. According to uniformitarian geology, everything happens over long periods of time. Geologists cannot adequately explain how they appeared. To make matters worse, inselbergs are showing signs of erosion that do not fit deep time speculations. The global Genesis Flood provides the most logical explanation for what we observe — which means that Earth is far younger than secularists and stalkers want to believe.
As the world’s continents were uplifted from the waters of the global Flood, they were greatly eroded. During this massive erosion, the rocks that weren’t pulverized were transported hundreds of kilometres toward the oceans. The enormous power of the receding water, relentlessly shaving off the surfaces it flowed over, left behind large flat areas known as planation surfaces, along with coastal Great Escarpments, large natural bridges, and freestanding arches. Scientists studying conventional geomorphology find all these features puzzling because they ignore the Flood and rely only on slow erosion over millions of years, which does not work.
To read the rest, click on "Inselbergs — Evidence for rapid Flood runoff". I think Inselberg would be a good name for a rock band.

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

Friday, December 7, 2018

Evolutionism and Word Games

Creationists seldom object to the word creationISM, evolutionists react to the word evolutionISM. Both are valid words, and evolutionists themselves use evolutionism.
In discussions and debates, people can present their arguments with terminology that is designed to draw emotional responses from people who are listening or reading. Some manipulative debaters attempt to provoke their opponents into making mistakes with ad hominem remarks and loaded words.

There are times that loaded wording in debates, discussions, or various presentations can be painfully obvious. In other cases, the wording can be subtle and not necessarily manipulative; it may simply be a reflection of the speaker  or writer's feelings. We tend to frame our views in the best light and cast a shadow on a contrary viewpoint. People do that.

A subtle but manipulative tactic in using loaded words is using something that ends in -ism. Atheists and evolutionists have been known to contrast science with creationism, which may imply a feeling that creationists are members of an aberrant cult that has no science supporting it.

Proponents of universal common ancestor evolution tend to get on the prod when they encounter someone using the word evolutionism. They may even accuse biblical creationists of using a nonexistent word to denigrate evolution. Darwinism? That's okay, because it's a philosophy or worldview, but evolution is science in their view. Unfortunately for their position, evolution is an -ism, it is more than just a study of biology — it is indeed a worldview.


Interestingly, although some dictionaries tend to downplay the word evolutionism or ignore it entirely, but evolutionists themselves use it. Also, creationists don't pay no nevermind to the word creationism for the most part, and we use it ourselves. Also, Darwin's social media warriors claim to believe in evolution because it's "settled science", but they show ignorance of the science they claim to support. (I reckon that they're actually being dishonest as well as ignorant.) The "facts" of evolution keep changing (as links in the posts on this site will show you), and some folks just don't want you to know that we were indeed created. God is the Creator, and he makes the rules. Better find out what he has to say, whether you like it or not, and while there's still time. Eternity is a long time to be proud, arrogant, and wrong, old son.
Why is it we often encounter the comparison of creationism vs. evolution but rarely creationism vs. evolutionism? Is there no such thing as the word evolutionism? Surprisingly, many English language dictionaries, including even some large unabridged dictionaries, fail to define the word evolutionism and some don’t even list it as a word. For example, the unabridged edition of the Random House Dictionary of the English Language I have in my library weighs ten pounds and has nearly 2,000 pages of definitions yet fails to include the word evolutionism. Those dictionaries that do include the word generally leave it undefined and merely list it as a noun related to the main entry “evolution.”
To read the rest, click on "Evolutionism—Is There Such a Word?"

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

Thursday, December 6, 2018

Worldviews and Beauty

You know the old saying about beauty being in the eye of the beholder, which basically means that what may look good to you may not look so special to me. On a larger scale, there are things that people generally agree upon that contain beauty. This applies to architecture as well.

Materialists influenced indirectly by Darwinism affected architecture, and they detested past beauty.
Credit: Pixabay / Robert Jones
There was a time when people made an effort to design a building that was pleasing to the eye, and people wanted a house "with character". With the advent of modernism came utilitarian approaches to building. Bland houses and apartment complexes that were scarcely above the aesthetic value of things resembling bunkers ensued. Some of the designers were actually opposed to the beauty of what went before.

Modernists tended toward materialism, and intertwined in that were atheism and Darwinism. I think they also sacrificed quality of work. This utilitarian approach is a tenet of evolutionism. While we have ugly buildings and cheapness in construction, there is a bit of a rebellion happening. People want beauty, and the concrete jungles we call cities are having more parks so there is a bit of nature. This is actually good for people. After all, our Creator designed many things to be pleasing to us, his creation. Ever notice that many of the great buildings of the past were made to be beautiful by people with God in their worldviews?
Materialism brought forth modernism, which glorified bland utility. Some want to bring back the Christian virtue of beauty.

Walk through housing tracts and commercial centers built in the first half of the 20th century, and you are likely to get depressed. Plain horizontal lines predominate. Cubical, unimaginative forms with flat roofs and and bare walls devoid of ornamentation draw the eye nowhere. Colorless steel and concrete, far removed from nature, give a feeling of walking in Soviet factory cities. The relationship is as plain as the architecture: materialism brought forth communism as well as modernism. Architects of the period, like German architect Bruno Taut, were on a campaign to destroy beauty:
 To read the rest, click on "Materialism Destroys Beauty".

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

Wednesday, December 5, 2018

The Many Sizes of Catfish

Catfish are considered good eating in the southern United States and are often fried. That should not be surprising since they are found in the Big Muddy (Mississippi) least ways, and this continent has quite a few catfish in rivers and such. By the way, watch out for the dorsal and pectoral fins, because many of them are venomous — some dangerously so, which means get treatment.

Catfish have many sizes and varieties. Many are good eatin', some fit in a home aquarium, others are extremely large. This is variation by design, not evolution.
Credit: Unsplash / Milos Prelevic
Catfish are found on almost every continent in varying sizes and shapes.Aquarium fanciers can have those that are smaller than the ones served up on a plate just before the sweet potato pie is served, and there are also some monsters in the wild. The Mekong Giant Catfish is huge, but endangered, so don't be eating those because they're endangered. Savvy that?

Sometimes people are surprised by new critters, but thousands of species are discovered every year. That means we don't know all there is to know, you know? Places like the Mekong River have more treasures waiting to be discovered, aside from huge catfish.

Proponents of fish-to-fool evolution incorrectly refer to speciation and varieties as evidence for their belief system, but that is not the truth. Creationists agree with speciation, and we know that the Master Engineer built adaptability into the biblical kinds referred to back in Genesis. Genetic information is not being added by "selection" or other unseen forces that Darwin's disciples imagine. Those catfish are not turning into cats, so there is no evolution to see here, folks.
The variation in size among these is extraordinary—one of the greatest ranges within a single order of bony fish (order Siluriformes). The Mekong Giant dwarfs the diminutive cory catfish (Corydoras spp.) at only 8 cm (3 in) or so—ideal for the home aquarium. Some catfish species reach sexual maturity at just 1 cm (0.4 in).
 To read the entire short article, click on "Catfish, big and small".

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

Tuesday, December 4, 2018

Antimatter and Baryon Befuddlement

Particle physics is one of those areas that can be useful, but only look good on paper when applied to Big Bang guesswork. Secular cosmologists and cosmogonists are constantly attempting to conjure up rescuing devices for the Big Bang, appealing to their own "miracles" that only make things worse. Antimatter and baryons are bucking broncos that secularists cannot tame.

Baryons are conserved, and the amount of antimatter in the universe cannot be explained by secular imaginings.
Baryon decuplet image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Trassiorf
Sometimes, they simply say that there is a difficulty, such as the baryon asymmetry problem, but they don't let details interfere with good storytelling, yee haw boy howdy! In the case of baryon conservation, there should be equal numbers of matter and antimatter colliding and giving energy. Not happening. That's because the Big Bang did not happen in the first place, and the universe was created by God. That is the logical conclusion, and our Creator told us about it in his written Word.
Everything is made of matter. Matter is made of atoms, and atoms are made of smaller particles. Baryons are one of these subatomic particles, and the most common are protons and neutrons. They’re important because they make up most of the mass in the observable universe.

Baryon Conservation

The conservation of baryons means that the total number of baryons in any given nuclear reaction remains the same. In other words, the initial number of baryons involved in a reaction equals the number of baryons remaining afterward.
The article is short but technical. To read the rest, click on "Baryon Conservation and the Antimatter Mystery".

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

Monday, December 3, 2018

Super-Floods of the Distant Past

Evidence for the Genesis Flood is plentiful. Smaller floods in history show the power that large amounts of fast-moving water.
Our Creator has made himself known. Just look around and see the wonders of his work (Rom. 1:18-23), unless you are suppressing the truth. Likewise, there is a great deal of evidence all around us for the global Genesis Flood. Unfortunately, people prefer atheistic interpretations of geological information and choose to deny the Flood — which is something we were told would happen (1 Peter 2:3-7).

Inselbergs and other planation surfaces might be easily dismissed as anomalies, but they are found all around the world. Fossilization itself is evidence of the Flood as well, since there are billions of things buried all over and this requires a great deal of sediment and quick action. Indeed, secularists believe in long ages despite fossils that are found in "wrong places" according to their paradigm .

There are also many smaller floods to consider. I'll allow that these by themselves are not conclusive proof of the Genesis Flood, they add to the cumulative evidence. Some of them are residual effects of the Flood, such as the Lake Missoula flood,  the formation of the English Channel, and others. These also show the power of large amounts of fast-moving water on smaller scales than the big Flood.

This is where I will turn you over to another article, which is only slightly larger than this introduction. To read that, click on "Power of Past Super-Floods".

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

Saturday, December 1, 2018

Evolutionists and Statements Against Interest

One way to get someone mighty cranky is using his or her words in refutation of a stated position. If you spend some time looking at the sites of creationists and Intelligent Design proponents, you will invariably find quotes of Darwinists that work against evolution. When we do that, screams of "Quote mining!" can be heard at impressive distances.

Evolutionists get upset when creationists use their statements against them. Not only is this legitimate, but it is established in US law.
Made at Atom Smasher
You can often catch owlhoots like that in their double standards when they quote mine the Bible and misrepresent what is written.

I'll allow that some creationists imply that some quotes mean an evolutionists has gone over to creationism, and they should be clear. Imagine:"Fellow scientists, since we have to keep changing the evolutionary timelines every time a discovery is made, we have a serious problem." It would be a mite disingenuous to omit, "However, we still believe in evolution and reject a Creator" in this fictitious example. Illegitimate accusations of quote mining by citing George Wald prompted me to write, "That 'Quote Mining' Monkey Business".

The use of quotes of evolutionists against evolutionism (and atheists against atheism) is completely valid, despite sidewinders like Dan "Don't Quote From My Books Even Though They're For Sale in the Foyer" Barker. In fact, using these quotes correctly parallels US law, a thing called the statement against interest. Something is written or uttered outside the courtroom can be allowed in a proceeding when the statement works against the person making it.
Is it fair to refute evolutionists’ claims with their own words?
“For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Yes, it’s fair to counter and judge someone’s argument by their own words. As Christ’s admonition quoted above shows, people invite condemnation by their own words. This applies to controversies involving evidentiary apologetics.
To read the rest, click on "Can and Will Be Used Against You".

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