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, April 8, 2019

Plate Subduction and the Ice Age

Although secular scientists and their pals believe there have been many ice ages in the past, they cannot provide evidence for their claims. Indeed, they are unable to furnish a plausible model for any ice age in their scheme of things. Biblical creationists postulate that the Genesis Flood precipitated the Ice Age.

Secular geologists do not have a plausible model for the Ice Age. Biblical creationists, however, postulate that the Genesis Flood and plate tectonics played a large part in it.
Credit: United States Geological Survey (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The Flood was not just a huge amount of rain for forty days and nights. It was catastrophic and changed the face of the earth. In Genesis 7:11 we see that the "fountains of the great deep burst open", which provides the answer to something secular geologists cannot explain: the beginning of plate tectonics. This involved plate subduction —

"You mean like when I do math, Cowboy Bob? I do my gazintas, where three gazinta eighteen six times. Then I do my subduction, when I subduct twelve from eight and get four".

We'll leave your advanced mathematics out of this geology study for now, okay? Subduction is when a plate is pushed under another one. This contributed to volcanic activity. The Ice Age could not be caused by some volcanic activity. There was a passel of it during the Flood, plus heat caused by subduction that led to warmer oceans. Let's take a look at a short overview.
Creation meteorologist Michael Oard has written extensively about what it takes to make an ice age. The first requirement is much warmer oceans than we have today, which would provide the extra evaporation needed for heavy winter snowfall. The second requirement is cooler summers that allow snow to build up from year to year and eventually transform into thick ice sheets.

But what would warm the oceans? And what could cause cooler summers for many years in a row? Catastrophic plate tectonics provides the answer for both warmer oceans and cooler summers.
To read the rest, click on "Subduction Was Essential for the Ice Age".

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

Saturday, April 6, 2019

Evolution and Genetic Determinism

When Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him) was initiating the science of genetics, it is doubtful that he envisioned that evolutionists would misuse it to the point of determining human behavior. They say, "Excuse me while I whip this out", start spinning their Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Rings™ for "scientific truth", and conjured up genetic determinism.

A dangerous amoral philosophy of Darwinism is genetic determinism. This tells us that even our morality is genetic and biblical creation tells us the truth.
Background image furnished by Why?Outreach
plus a modified graphic from Clker Clipart
These materialists try to find immaterial things such as consciousness which is contrary to the dogma of your behavior is in your genes. Some speculate that even your morals are genetic. Let's just slow this pony for a moment. Although thinking people reject such a notion, it would be the ultimate in postmodernism with no ultimate truth. This is consistent with evolutionism, since they say we are the results of cosmic explosions, primordial slime, random chance processes, time, and so on.

For that matter, if they say biblical creationists are wrong and worthy of ridicule, they are flaming hypocrites; we're born this way, and they were born that way. That would also mean that you have no responsibility for your own actions — except that some tinhorns would set themselves up as the arbiters of truth and morality, which would contradict the paradigms. However, there is ultimate truth that begins at Creation as seen in God's written Word. Wonder what part of the pasture secularists will wander into next?
One of the most dangerous philosophies in the history of mankind is still embedded in modern Darwinism.

In a recent post, we laughed at two evolutionary just-so stories that extrapolated animal behavior into human behavior. Remember, though, that animal behavior is encoded by their genes, and that’s no laughing matter when genetic determinism is extrapolated to humans. It sucks all the air out of morality, making humans pawns of an amoral, aimless natural process with no accountability.
To read the rest, click on "Darwinians Still Justify Genetic Determinism".

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

Friday, April 5, 2019

Falsely-Feathered Dinosaurs

As usual in evolutionary speculations, the narrative takes prominence. Disciples of Papa Darwin see what they want to see. This happens quite a bit, and is especially prominent in their desire to find dinosaurs with feathers. There are two examples of bad science and evolutionary wish making in this area.

The quest for dinosaur feathers has two more examples of bad science and dreadful logic. Worse for evolutionists, the evidence supports creation.
Anchiornis image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Kumiko (CC by-SA 2.0)
Why are they so determined to see feathers on dinosaurs? Those owlhoots demand them for their unfounded belief that dinosaurs evolved into birds, and they sure can't allow that God created everything. So they find some filaments and cry, "Yee haw boy howdy! Feathers on dinosaurs!" Of course, they conduct poor science and use bad logic by ignoring other possible explanations for what they have found. The evidence actually refutes their claims and also supports special creation.

We saw a previous report that scientists "saw" something that kinda sorta looks like maybe it could be related for feathers, but looks nothing like real feathers. They haven't made any progress in saving face. Also, another critter has been dubbed a dinosaur, so hooray for feathers (yawn). Of course it has feathers, ya idjits, it was a bird in the first place.
Descriptions of feathered dinosaurs continue to wing their way into scientific literature. While most researchers see each new example as another link in a Darwinian story of reptiles somehow evolving into birds, others fit these fossils into more classical categories. Two new discoveries give owners of these opposing views new opportunities to peck at each other’s ideas of bird beginnings. Both cases are easy to land on a creation-friendly perch.
To read the rest, click on "New Fossil Feathers Affirm Created Kinds".

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

Thursday, April 4, 2019

Continental Margins and the Genesis Flood

Uninformed and willingly ignorant anti-creationists often claim that there is no evidence for the Genesis Flood, then seek rescuing devices that they believe confirm their biases. Creationists have done a passel of research and pointed out flaws in uniformitarian beliefs. One of these is the formation of continental margins.

Huge amounts of sediment are found on the continental margins. Secular geologists cannot explain this fact, but it fits with biblical creation science Flood models.
Credit: NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio et al.
Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents. Click for larger.
For the most part, continental margins are the continental shelf and slope. Proponents of long-age geology are unable to formulate a plausible model for the huge amounts of sediment on the continental margins; the could not have been formed by oceanic activity seen today. Indeed, using a computer visualization that "drains the oceans", one of the first things you see is this conspicuous boundary. Biblical creation science Flood models give a plausible explanation.
During the last half of Noah’s Flood, the rising continents caused the Flood water to flow into the sinking ocean basins. These fast-moving, massive currents eroded vast amounts of sediment that had been laid earlier in the Flood, and carried it away. The water travelled so fast that little sediment was deposited on land. It wasn’t until the currents reached the oceans that they were able to slow enough to deposit their load.
To finish reading, click on "Continental margins — Their rapid formation during Flood runoff". Instead of being detrimental to biblical creation science, geology is actually a very effective tool for demonstrating the truth.

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

Wednesday, April 3, 2019

Speciation and Polyploidy in Animals

This is another post that links to an article that is intended for people with a good working knowledge of biology. Most cells are diploid, meaning the cells have two sets of chromosomes. When an organism or cell has more than two sets of chromosomes, you have polypolidy. An earlier post discussed plant polyploidy. Now we are going to take a look at it in animals.

Cells or organisms that have more than two sets of chromosomes give you polyploidy. This is rare in animals and is contrary to evolution. It is also consistent with a biblical creation worldview.
African banded barb image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Citron
Polyploidy has not received as much study as other areas, but it is known to be more common in plants than animals. What is known so far is that polyploidy in animals is rare, and often fatal. Get some biologists discussing whether or not the changes are harmful, beneficial, or neutral, and you may have an entertaining dustup. The mysteries of polyploidy are not helped when researchers are intellectually dishonest and make assumptions, but some research on various critters has been interesting.

When polyploidy leads to speciation, it happens very quickly, but does not add new genetic information. It may come as a surprise, but not only is polyploidy unhelpful to Darwinists, but it is consistent in a biblical creationist worldview.
Animal polyploidy does exist, though it appears to be far less common than it is in plants. As in plants, polyploidy arises as a reproductive mistake. During sexual reproduction, two diploid parents exchange genetic information. If one of their gametes produces diploid instead of the usual haploid, there is a chance that gamete will lead to a polyploid offspring. If the diploid gamete combines with the other parent’s normal haploid gamete, a triploid offspring will result. This offspring will likely be reproductively isolated. This process occurs infrequently, but it does happen.
To read and consider the entire article, click on "Animal Polyploidy: A Mechanism for Evolution?"

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

Tuesday, April 2, 2019

Darwinism and Chinese Communism

Some people wonder why the fuss about origins. After all, Darwin proposed a naturalistic view of origins, so let the scientists slap leather on that and we can just go on about our business. Unfortunately, evolutionary views have been applied to many areas, and even prompted tyrants and wars.

Darwinism has fueled a host of evils in societies, including racism and war. People may not know that not only is communism based on atheism and evolutionism, but the Chinese Communist atrocities were based on Darwinian thinking.
Mao Zedong ca. 1950 via Wikimedia Commons
If you search this site, you will find links to articles on many outgrowths of Darwin's death cult, including eugenics, abortion, "scientific" racism, and more. It is worth noting that Darwin's sidewinders saw fit to get into wars. Darwinism played a prominent role in World War One, the Nazi race holocaust, communism, and more.

Remember, the religion of atheism has evolution as a cornerstone, and millions of people were murdered by atheist evolutionists. What people may have forgotten (or neglected, since evolution is adored by "wise" people and many scientists) is that the atrocities in Communist China under Chairman Mao Zedong (Mousie Dung) were also inspired by evolutionism. These people actively embraced atheism and rejected our Creator, the God who is explained in the Bible.
As history separates us from Darwin’s death, the media is more willing to expose the harm of his ideas. This, plus the release of once-sealed records have revealed a great deal about the atrocities of recent history. This is the case of the horrors of Mao Zedong in Communist China.[1] That Darwin was a major influence in communist China should not surprise us. Darwin not only supported the survival-of-the-fittest ideology, but even
divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair color. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy.
To read the entire article, click on "Darwinism Inspired China’s Communist Holocaust".

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

Monday, April 1, 2019

Double Standards Hobble Atheists and Evolutionists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One of the most exasperating situations to encounter is when people have double standards. These are rampant among atheists and evolutionists.
An aspect of discussions, debates, or even everyday life that can get almost anyone on the prod is when someone says or acts like something is all right for them but not for someone else. This can be referred to as special pleading, but a broader term is double standards. I reckon that we all have double standards to some extent, but Christians and biblical creationists need to be careful to minimize them, especially in apologetics encounters.

Political Double Standards

We see examples of "fine for me but not for you" in political situations, especially from those on the left. When Judge Brett Kavanaugh was being confirmed as a US Supreme Court justice, some women accused him of sexual misconduct from a previous decade. Although their stories had no substantiation, Americans were told to "believe the women". Why? Because they were women? Genetic fallacy. The blatant hypocrisy in this is that a Moslem, Keith Ellison, was accused of sexual abuse by women in recent history, and these were swept away even though they had evidence. The same thing happened when Bill Clinton was running for president, and his accusers were made to go away in one manner or another.

We hear that reports of "hate crimes" are increasing lately. No kidding, Sherlock! The category did not even exist a few years ago. (It is also a stupid designation. Someone once asked, "Ever hear of a love crime?" It requires the ability to know what is in the hearts and minds of the perpetrators to determine a hate crime.) If there is a complaint by a woman, a homosexual, an ethnic minority in the favored status of the left, it gets a large amount of attention. We don't hear much about how "hate crimes" turn out to be fake.

Actor Jusse Smollet faked a hate crime that kept the Chicago police busy for quite a while. After it was determined that the crime never happened, he was indicted. Amazingly, the charges were dropped. Is it because he is a homosexual and black? We may never know, but the suspicions remain.

Interesting that large-scale murders of Christians go mostly unreported.

I normally try to keep political things to a minimum in these posts and articles, but I wanted to show how double standards are rampant in political areas. Especially from leftists.

Atheist Double Standards

Not long ago, I purchased a video download by Ray Comfort called The Angry Atheist, which should be available for public viewing in a few weeks. Mr. Comfort was street preaching again. One particular atheist hated God more than many that I have seen and encountered and argued loudly with him.

As usual, he sang from the sheet music of the Atheist Tabernacle Choir. One of their favorite stanzas is about how there are bad people who profess to be Christians, therefore, there is no God. (This is a version of the problem of evil; "How can a loving God allow...?") I have seen atheists and anti-creationists demonize Christians and creationists by pointing out adulterous preachers, embezzlers, weirdos who let their children die because they believe in healing by faith (or somesuch). Meanwhile, those religious folk who willfully indulged in sin as well as other bad things done by the church were claiming the Bible is true, but not living like it: a double standard. Unbelievers have also taken the bit in their teeth over something said or written that they disliked, but personal their personal preferences do not constitute valid arguments.

Christians show that the greatest mass murderers in history have been in the atheist spectrum: Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler (his pantheism could qualify his as essentially being an atheist), and others. Special pleading is engaged with remarks like, "They didn't say, 'I'm killing people in the name of atheism!'" They hated God and his people, seeking to either eradicate Christianity (and other religions, but mostly Christianity) or subjugate it for their own purposes. Atheists have no consistent moral standard that would give them pause in their atrocities. While it is true that many professing Christians do rotten things, there is a difference: they are not acting in accordance with the teachings of the Bible.

Darwinist Double Standards

Evolution is not simply an academic discussion about biology and origins. Social Darwinism has given us eugenics, abortion, and a host of other evils. Indeed, Darwin's ideas have been applied to Nazism, Communism, Socialism, "scientific" racism, and a host of other evils.

The Norwegian terrorist is a social Darwinist, and one of the Columbine murderers wore a shirt that said "Natural Selection", which was consistent with his Nazi influences and hatred of humanity as a whole. Their worldviews made them de facto atheists. Evolution is being force-fed to students in those Western indoctrination centers known as schools. When kids are being taught that there is no Creator, life is by chance, there is no purpose, no final Judgement, no ultimate justice, they are just animals, when you die you're worm food — honestly, what kind of behavior do you expect from them?

Referring to the evolutionary view of origins (which is both historical and metaphysical) as "science" while suppressing evidence for creation is contrary to the goal of real science. The double standard can be seen when biblical creationists and Intelligent Design proponents are bushwhacked by the secular science industry and the science press, and it is extremely difficult for these scientists to have papers accepted for major scientific journals and for peer review. Creationists had to establish their own peer-reviewed journals. Yes, some creationists are published in scientific journals, but evidence for the Genesis Flood or recent creation is allowed in them.

Dr. Jason Lisle publishes the occasional exchange between naysayers and himself. One featured Colin, an atheist who had the focus of a ball bearing in a blender. He began with his uninformed complaints that the Bible is unreliable and erroneous. Whenever Dr. Lisle challenged his remarks with the truth, he would change the subject. Sometimes he would resort to personal attacks. (I would have banned a jasper like this early on, but then, I am not a scientist and have a day job.) The discussion soon turned to evolution, since that is a cornerstone for the religion of atheism.

We need to ride down a side trail for a moment. One blatant example of special pleading is when atheists only use a narrow definition of religion so they can dispute those of us who use logic, philosophy, current events, and the courts who have defined atheism as a religion. Here, the rulings are considered ridiculous, but they hail the Kitzmiller v Dover caricature of law as a brilliant ruling, even though it is only binding on a local scale.

Okay, we're back. Colin the atheist made assertions about origins and had accusations against Lisle's qualifications as a scientist. (We see this repeatedly: when they cannot prevail, atheists and leftists resort to ad hominem, ridicule, red herring, genetic, straw man, and other fallacies. Oh, and appeal to motive. They adore that one!) Colin had a prairie schooner-full of fallacies and used dreadful thinking. It's rather long but worth the read. See "More on the Bible’s Historicity".

When reading the popular science reports, it is easy to see that evolutionists are presenting incomplete research, conjectures, fudge factors, and speculations as actual science. Variations and simple changes are conflated with evolution, and Darwin's Flying Monkeys© grab this stuff and troll creationists using a "Gotcha!" attitude.

I'll allow that there are some areas where creation science needs more work. Scientists do not have all the answers, I don't care what they use for their starting presuppositions; it's the nature of science itself, old son. A favorite "Gotcha!" of materialists is the distant starlight "problem, which is under development by creation astronomers and physicists. Ironically, their "smoking gun" against creationists is saturated with bad science and insurmountable problems. Atheistic and evolutionary "reasoning" concludes that since they have no answers to areas of difficulties, we cannot know either, so there is no Creator.

I have seen and experienced tinhorns who actually believe it is their duty to protect the world from the evils of biblical creationists! They claim to believe in free speech, but seek to have ours suppressed. If not through legislation, then through social media complaints, email spam campaigns, and so on. Their shooting irons are loaded with defamation, misrepresentation, ridicule, and recruiting others to join in. Why? Because they are "right" and "tell the truth"; the end justifies the means. Well, those tyrants listed above thought the same things (Jer. 17:9, Rom. 1:21, Matt. 12:35, Isaiah 64:6).

Old-Earth and Theistic Evolution Double Standards

One of the purposes of apologetics is to show that the Bible is true and that we can trust it for our salvation and in all subjects that it touches on — including science. Theistic evolutionists and old-earth creationists accept atheistic interpretations of scientific evidence and science philosophies, then subjugate the Bible to those views.

William Lane Craig is supposedly known for defending the Resurrection of Jesus, but then he blatantly misrepresents biblical creationists. Hugh Ross has some strange views that involve both the twisting of Scripture and of misuse of science. A dodgy theistic evolutionist associated with the anti-creationist group Biologos contacted one of my Fazebook Pages and wanted to set both a creationist scientist and me straight on a few things.

These sidewinders actually claim that biblical creationists are hindering the gospel message, but that is the opposite of the truth. If you ponder it a bit, it is absurd to believe someone who claims to believe the Bible and then tells you that some sections need interpretation through atheistic science filters Such approaches are hidden reefs for the faith of Christians as well. Two standards, no waiting. For a related article, see "The Biases of Evolutionists and Creationists".

Atheists, evolutionists, and religious compromisers all need to humble themselves and repent.

Do Not Horse Around

When atheists and evolutionists protect their version of science from us bad ol' biblical creationists, they are actually hobbling themselves, serious scientific inquiry, and intellectually honest searches for knowledge. They preach in their fiefdoms to the faithful but suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18-22). People who engage in critical thinking and can spot logical fallacies see double standards. Again, those of us from the Christian and biblical creationist worldviews need to ride herd on each other to remind us that we have to avoid special pleading as much as we can.

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