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, March 9, 2019

Gender Differences, Science, and the Bible

Years ago, I was involved in online groups that supposedly promoted manliness. Questions arose as to what made a man a man, and was based on our activities. Some men wanted to go back to the old days of shaving with the blades and styles that granddad happily rejected in favor of more modern razors. Others talks about sports, automobile engines, books and movies men should experience, and so on. By their criteria, I am not much of a man. Add to the confusion is that women joined the groups and enjoyed many of the things that men like.

It is not news that our Creator made us different, but the secular science establishment is both verifying those differences and supporting political movements.
Credit: RGBStock/Scott Snyder
Supposedly, science is about the search for knowledge. It is a tool for determining how our Creator designed things, how they work, to make predictions, and so forth. Unfortunately, the secular science industry is riding for the politically correct brand, which is clearly seen when used regarding gender confusion. These same people also demonstrate what we already know: there are differences between men and women. Those difference are important.

Here, are three articles for your edification. First, the public has a strange relationship with science, a mix of adoration and suspicion. The adoration is misplaced because scientists are human, subject to the same vices as the rest of us, and that affects their judgment. However, the adoration is also earned because scientists come up with some wonderful things. Suspicion is justified because scientists are agenda- and finance-driven, and they are also involved in politically correct movements. This is especially noteworthy with trends in gender choices and confusion. Here is the beginning of the first article:
Political correctness has invaded one of the most clear observational facts about humans: we come in male and female forms. One of the PC strategies has been to divorce sex and gender. Rather than helping the tiny fraction who have ambiguous genes, or counseling those with gender dysphoria to cope with their feelings, the PC police expect all of society to change. Everyone must now use gender-neutral terms, learn new invented phrases like “gender fluidity,” build gender-neutral bathrooms, avoid using ‘sexist’ terms like’ men and women’ or ‘boys and girls,’ and say they are in favor of sex reassignment surgery—even on young children. Failure to jump on this latest cultural bandwagon brands non-cooperators ‘haters’ who must be punished. Totalitarians that they are, PC police will not tolerate disagreement. Some who don’t go along have already lost their jobs, even when they attempted respectful forms of accommodation.
To read that one in its entirety, click on "Gender PC Tugs at Scientific Objectivity". Next, we see that the very real, scientifically verified differences are indeed important. In fact, the differences are hardwired between males and females, but not just humans.

People who are striving for "equality" are missing the point. Not only are we created in God's image (Genesis 1:27), we are different from each other. That does not mean one sex is superior to the other. Yes, women have been in oppressive cultures, but many people don't realize that many cultures — including in the western world — have given women preferential status in many ways. You don't hear much about that because of political and cultural correctness, but it does exist. One sex is not "better" than the other, you savvy that?

Secularists tend to have their views tainted by evolutionary thinking and thereby rejecting the Creator. If they humbled themselves and read the Book he gave us, they would see that God treats women higher than they are treated in cultures, ancient and modern. Let's begin the second article:
Efforts to enforce “equality” between the sexes can go awry with fake science, and consequences can be severe.
Clueless politicians, devoid of common sense and drunk on political correctness, try to pretend that genders are socially constructed. Some scientists go along with the fad . . . but others use their eyes to observe the obvious.
To finish reading and learning, click on "Male-Female Differences Matter".

The final article tells us more about the differences between sexes that are built in and necessary for our development. This is not only in our development during our time living within our mothers, but in our growth afterward.
Male-female differences are a matter of science fact, not political ideology.

Perhaps no political movement has become more anti-science (other than the neo-flat-earth) than the idea of “gender fluidity,” the notion that people can choose whether to act male or female. Their bodies, genes and brains say otherwise.
To read the rest, click on "More Science Behind Gender Differences". As for the remarks I made at the beginning of the post, there are no real established standards for "manliness". The posts and comments were subjective and based on personal preferences. Despite current trends of confusion and making up "reality" that is anti-science and in opposition to our Creator's design, there is a spectrum of behaviors for both men and women. When I was reading the manliness material, I was never confused that I was a man trapped in a woman's body; that was true for nine months, then I was born. (That observation is not original with me.) We are fulfilled when we learn and follow God's plan and are not rebelling against it.

EDIT: You may also like this sermon by Adrian Rogers, "Celebrate the Difference". Since Pastor Rogers died in 2005, some of the science facts may be doubtful, but the overall focus of the message is still on-target. The video is here, and you can download the MP3 or listen online here.

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

Friday, March 8, 2019

Algae Makes Evolutionists See Red

If someone keeps records, then those records should be orderly and reliable for reference. Believers in universal common ancestor evolution rely on the fossil record because they believe it shows an orderly progression from simple to complex life forms. This is not the case, and red algae is yet another frustration.

Red algae has created a big problem for evolutionists. It is not only a living fossil, but has been found in inconvenient places in the strata.
Limespot butterflyfish, with  soft coral and coralline red algae image credit: Derek Keats (CC by 2.0)
This stuff is important for coral reefs, and was given an age by evolutionists. Coralline red algae fossils were alleged to be over 400 million Darwin years old — much older than previously thought. Also, the fossils are just like the algae that live today. When something disappears, then reappears, they hijack a biblical reference and call it the Lazarus Effect. (This may be another name for ghost lineages.) Evolutionists have no explanation, but the Genesis Flood is the real explanation for (out-of-place)  and living fossils.
Red algae form one of the main components of coral reefs and were originally thought to have appeared on Earth during the middle of the Cretaceous system about 100 million years ago. At least that’s what the standard evolutionary story claimed until the same type of fossils were just discovered in Silurian system rocks they dated at about 430 million years. This is a whopping readjustment of the ever-flexible evolutionary story by over 300 million years. For a secular paleontologist, this would be roughly equivalent to finding a Jurassic dinosaur fossil in the Cambrian. 
The Great Barrier Reef off the east coast of Australia, and nearly every other large reef across the world, owe their massive bulk of biomass in large part to a type of red algae that grows on and strengthens the corals. The algae stimulate and enhance reef growth by attracting coral larvae to the growing reef—serving as a source of food for these and other reef animals. 
To read the entire article, click on "Red Algae Lazarus Effect Can't Resurrect Evolution". Also, you may be interested to see that green algae has created problems for evolutionists at "Ancient Algae Amazes Evolutionists".

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

Thursday, March 7, 2019

The Origin of the Universe and Laws of Physics

The simplest form of the first law of thermodynamics is that matter can be neither created nor destroyed. The second law is that everything goes from order to disorder and energy becomes less useful (also called entropy). Materialistic speculations of the origin of the universe and cosmic evolution fly in the face of these established laws.

Despite the claims of secularists, the origin of the universe defies the basic laws of physics. They end up working outside of science and into metaphysics.
Flame Nebula image credit: NASA/DSS
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Secular owlhoots invariably tell biblical creationists that we do not understand those laws and try to evosplain why we are wrong with atheistic talking points. However, village secularists end up demonstrating that they are the ones who do not understand these laws.

I'll allow that some well-meaning creationists have misused the laws of thermodynamics, so caution is advised. Fortunately, the article linked below was written by someone who knows his way around physics and astronomy.

The Big Bang has been Frankensteined repeatedly over the decades. It would be comical except that materialists are so locked in to their Creator-denying schemes. Get up on the hill for a broader picture, and you can see all the rescuing devices. One of these is that the laws of physics did not apply at the moment of cosmic inflation. Not only is that unscientific, it is blind faith and metaphysics, old son.
The first and second laws of thermodynamics are well-established, and they appear universally to apply. Of course, there is no problem with the two operating simultaneously today, but a startling conclusion results if we extrapolate them into the past. If the first law of thermodynamics has always been true, then the universe must have always existed. Otherwise, sometime in the past energy must have spontaneously appeared when none had previously existed. But this would violate the first law of thermodynamics. Hence, the first law of thermodynamics requires that the universe be eternal. But what if we extrapolate the second law of thermodynamics into the past? If the universe was eternal, there would have been more than ample time for the universe to have already reached its maximum state of entropy, with no useful energy remaining. The fact that today we can use heat engines and that biological systems operate today reveals that the universe is far from the maximum entropic state. Therefore, the universe cannot be eternal, and hence the universe must have had a beginning in the finite past.
To read the entire article (you're bright folks, you can follow this), click on "The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and the Origin of the Universe". You may also like "Creation, Evolution, and Entropy", which has a few worthwhile links.

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

Wednesday, March 6, 2019

Rescuing Deep Time for Landforms

Secular geologists riding for the old earth brand are puzzled by landforms that do not respect uniformitarian dogma. They have trouble with features such as planation surfaces (where the tops of mountains are a bit on the flat side) and others. Some continue to publish speculations even though they have nothing new to offer.

Despite evidence to the contrary, some geologists insist that landforms are very old, and try to rescue their beliefs.
Planation at Bayanul, Kazakhstan credit: Wikimedia Commons / Ekamaloff
Using uniformitarian assumptions (present processes are essentially the same over millions of years), some landforms should be worn down far more than they are now; erosion rates today are too high. Part of the insistence on calling them old is because minerals-to-minerologist evolution requires them, and because of their reliance on fundamentally flawed radiometric dating. Also, the truth is too difficult for secular owlhoots to tolerate: creation science models of the Genesis Flood are the best explanations for what is observed.
According to the uniformitarian principle, present day rates of erosion are several orders of magnitude too rapid for the landforms to have survived to the present day. Erosion rates are based mainly on climate and relief and vary significantly, with the highest rates of erosion being in high mountains with high rainfall. . . . At the present rate of erosion, all of the continents would be reduced to sea level in 10 Ma [mega-annum, million years] based on river output to the oceans. However, there are other processes that would slow erosion. Several secular geologists have estimated that this reduced rate would flatten all of the continents in less than 50 Ma.
To read the complete article, click on "Revisiting the problem of very old landforms". The video below of Kangaroo Island in South Australia shows some planation, which is mentioned in the linked article.

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

Tuesday, March 5, 2019

Those Sophisticated Neanderthals

New material added to the end of this post.

There was a time when Neanderthals were considered partly-evolved cavemen, a link to our simian ancestry. Scientists caught up to what biblical creationists have said for decades: Neanderthals were fully human just like us. Evidence continued to mount that showed how they were not only human, but intelligent. Now we learn that they were rather sophisticated!

Though some people still think that Neanderthals were stupid brutes in our path to evolution. Instead, they were intelligent humans who lived far more recently than evolutionists  want to admit.
Modified from an image at Openclipart
Neanderthals were creative and intelligent and fully human. Some scientists were skeptical that there was evidence proving they were the ones who did those high-quality cave wall paintings. While it seems obvious, study on it a spell. Nobody saw them doing the painting, and they could have taken over furnished caves or shared them with Denisovans and modern humans. Nope. Now it is believed the Neanderthals did the painting. This may have been put aside for a spell since they apparently had a proclivity toward sexual promiscuity — like modern humans.

They also had culinary skills (the smells were still in the caves, unlikely after all those Darwin years, huh?) and seemed to be a bit on the intellectual side. I can imagine them having discussions after dinner. Maybe they were discussing how people could get the notion that life came from non-life and evolved upward, and how people could reject the Creator. Then they'd laugh and see if there was any leftover mammoth steak. 

These people were fully human, and do not support Darwin's ideas. Instead, their ancient presence supports recent special creation. They were sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, just like us.
Actually they are not evolving, but our picture of them is. Drastically. Science has moved the picture of Neanderthals from our primitive brutish less evolved evolutionary ancestors to the typical family next door. The latest study concluded they were “people who liked nothing better than spending time indoors around the fire . . .  and having friends over for dinner.” A report in Science wrote “Once seen as brute cavemen, Neandertals have gained stature as examples of sophisticated technology and behavior have turned up in their former territory across Europe.”
A home is important because, as Matt Pope, an archaeologist at University College London, argues, home  “marked a critical threshold in the long march towards civilization. . . . a conceptual leap that shaped the way our ancestors thought and interacted.” For most of prehistory, the assumed time before we have written records, no evidence exists of human presence in caves or even rock shelters.
To finish reading, click on "Neanderthals are Evolving". Also see "The Evolution of Neanderthal Man From Evolution Ancestor to Modern Man". Also, you may be interested in:

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

Monday, March 4, 2019

Sneaky Evolutionary Debate Tactics

One trick that atheists and other anti-creationists use in discussions is to distract us. They use misleading hypothetical situations as well as emotion-based attacks.We have seen many examples of the methods used to promote universal common ancestor evolution, and quite a few are disingenuous. Some are downright sneaky. Creationists frequently deal with straw man arguments, blatant misrepresentation, personal attacks, and so on. Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ often use distractions when the harsh light of truth gets them on the prod.

I have seen atheists and evolutionists who demand evidence for what biblical creationists believe. When it is provided, they bounce around to different subjects (which happens in all sorts of discussions, even informal ones). Anti-creationists and atheists try to put us on the defensive. Sometimes they claim to be asking "honest questions", and invariably trying to slap leather with the creationists with emotion-based distractions and attacks. I'll allow that it is easy to let ourselves follow their lead, but it they get mighty irritated when we keep them on topic.

Some of the distractions are along the lines of, "What if...?" That is, they are hypothetical situations. Scientists and other people have used hypothetical thought experiments for ages, but we have to be careful that the situation is not ridiculous and a set-up for a game of "Gotcha!" It's far better to keep the hoss in the coral; dealing with speculations instead of evidence and the truth of God's Word can easily become foolishness. Anti-creationists take great pleasure in wasting our time. Many times, we have to avoid the trickery and loaded questions. If the subject seems useful, you may want to consider rewording it and presenting it back to the questioner — or refusing altogether.
At a recent ICR event in Massachusetts, an attendee asked a trap-loaded question: “Some say that minor errors in the Bible are okay because they don’t hurt the Bible’s main message—but how do you deal with the Bible’s errors?” The scoffer added, “How do you fix your theology when new scientific discoveries prove that your literal belief in the Bible doesn’t work?”
Notice how the critic’s leading questions included built-in assumptions: “The Bible contains errors. Your theology is broken. Science disproves the Bible. A literal belief in the Bible is unreasonable.” They are similar to this unfair question: “Yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife?”
To read the rest, click on "Beware the Bait of False Hypotheticals". Also, I recommend a related subject at "Countering emotional attacks on creation".

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

Saturday, March 2, 2019

Further Foolishness in Origin of Life Speculations

Many believers in scum-to-sculptor evolution have realized that life could not have arisen on Earth according to their paradigm, so they push the problem out in space and give it to the aliens. Other materialist owlhoots still try to make origin of life speculations seem plausible. How about order from disorder? 

Some evolutionists still attempt to speculate on the origin of life. This latest attempt is an irrational idea that life came from proto-biological clutter.
Credit: Freeimages/Loretta Humble
Keith Cooper headed down to the Darwin ranch and ran an idea up the flagpole to see if anyone saluted it. Not much reason to, since it is loaded with assumptions (even though evolutionists are not skittish about them) and multiple variables. Just take some biological stuff lying around and hope it evolves into something useful, and then upward into humans and things. Not hardly! Aside from OoL refutations, there is not model or mechanism, and the author admits that his idea has problems. The idea is irrational. His biggest problem, however, is that he refuses to humble himself and admit that life was created by God.
OOL without designing intelligence is a fOOL’s errand. Watch smart chemists act like intellectually-fOOLfilled atheists.
Scientific materialism has one ironclad rule: No mind. No God. No supernatural intervention. Stuff happens all by itself. Thus restricted, materialists who may know a lot about chemistry may exhibit utter lack of logic. Professing themselves to be wise, they have become fOOLs.
Take Keith Cooper’s headline from Astrobiology Magazine: “Cleaning up the clutter: how proto-biology arose from the prebiotic clutter.” First, the protagonist in the story has to dispense with designing intelligence.
To finish reading, click on "Clutter Created You".

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