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, April 16, 2019

Extraordinary Claims and Rejecting Evidence

When dealing with atheists and other anti-creationists, they often try to bushwhack us with statements or questions that are designed to put us on the defensive. The assertion that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (attributed to Carl Sagan) is downright viperine.

We expect scoffers to want us to support our claims, but they use tactics to put us on the defensive. We can turn it around.
Credit: Pixabay / moritz320
Biblical creationists are often challenged to defend our positions, which is to be expected. When asked about a subject under discussion, creationists often provide discussion, logical points, and links to relevant material. These are ignored much of the time and the subject is changed, which makes people like me think that they are not interested in learning. Worse, we are erroneously told what we believe which is rooted in the scoffer's prejudicial conjecture and not from honest examination of our point of view.

Some owlhoot will invariably drag out the platitude about claims and evidence. We may respond, "What evidence are you willing to accept?" Sounds good, except that not only are we letting them make up the rules and set the odds, they're dealing from the bottom of the deck and hiding cards. That is, we're letting them take control and put us on the defensive! We can turn it around and use the same demand on them.

The whole thing is subjective. The scoffer is calling the shots and deciding what evidence suits his or her fancy; anything you offer can be dismissed as being insufficient. The "extraordinary evidence" requirement is also hypocritical because they believe in cosmic and biological evolution, deep time, and other things that are based on assumptions and biases.

A biblical creationist will probably be told to argue from "neutral ground" and leave the Bible out of it. Not hardly! This trick is simply to manipulate us to give up what we claim we believe and go to their naturalistic game: they are in no wise neutral, and the Christian should not be, either. We are to presuppose that the Bible is true, and they presuppose their naturalism. You can hardly make any progress if you admit defeat at the get-to, pilgrim.
Since all evidence is interpreted from within the framework of a person’s worldview, don’t expect that when we, for example, are arguing for the reliability of Scripture, or for the evidence of God’s existence from nature, that the skeptic will suddenly ‘see the light’ just because you mention things like early independent attestation (in the case of New Testament reliability) or the incredible design in nature (in the case of God’s existence). They already have ways of looking at these things through their ‘agnostic/atheist glasses’ that render these things unremarkable, or ‘not extraordinary enough’, in their eyes. Yet at the same time, they will embrace all manner of highly extraordinary claims (like chemical evolution or ‘abiogenesis’ and undirected evolution of life from single cells up to human beings) with very weak or no evidential backing.

The ‘extraordinary claims’ maxim is a double standard. You can usually be sure that the person uttering this statement is not willing to apply it to their own claims! If you play their rigged game and it proves unfruitful—as it almost certainly will—try a different tactic instead.
To read this article in its entirety, click on "Do ‘Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence’?"

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

Monday, April 15, 2019

What is the Antimatter with Cosmogony?

We have seen in several posts that the Big Bang story has been Frankensteined for many years, but it is still deplorable. In fact, efforts to imagine a universe without God (I lack belief that a universe without God can exist) actually defies basic laws of physics. Then there's that pesky antimatter problem.

Another problem for cosmic evolution and the Big Bang is antimatter. There is not enough of it, and some scientists are admitting it.
Credit: National Science Foundation (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
According to the non-science story, there should be a passel of antimatter in the universe equivalent to the same amount of matter (possibly to satisfy affirmative action laws). Good thing this is not the case. Matter and antimatter collide and release energy. The universe would destroy itself, but scientists cannot detect very much of the stuff at all. Certainly not enough to power a warp core.

Some scientists are admitting that the lack of antimatter does not fit their cosmic evolution expectations. Since the narrative is more important than the truth, we are told things like "something happened". Perhaps if they were willing to drop their naturalism for a spell and realize that the evidence shows the universe has a Creator, they may be able to commence doing some useful work.
An astrophysicist explains that the predominance of matter in our universe is just weird, and has no explanation.

The big bang should have produced equal parts matter and antimatter, but it didn’t. If it had, our universe might not be possible, because the oppositely-charged particles would have annihilated each other in a blaze of energy. Antimatter is so rare, that if it survived, annihilation events would be visible throughout the universe, but we don’t see them. This failed prediction of the big bang theory has been known for decades. What is the latest thinking about it?
To read the rest, click on "Still No Explanation for Matter/Antimatter Imbalance".

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

Saturday, April 13, 2019

Asteroids, Volcanoes, and Dinosaur Demise

Secularists really have no idea what caused dinosaur extinction, and that is a thunder lizard-sized reason their stories keep changing. The alleged Chicxulub asteroid impact down Mexico way is the dominant explanation, but not all scientists are in agreement on that. Perhaps it was volcanic activity. Mayhaps it was a combination.

Research in volcanism and the alleged Chicxulub asteroid impact area have received some research. Strip away flawed dating methods, and the information supports creation science Flood models.
Image assembled from components at Clker clipart
There is an area in India known as the Deccan Traps that has significant lava flow layers. Geologists got a hankering to do some research, and tied this volcanic activity with the Chicxulub impact. Wait, what? There is quite a bit of distance between the two points of significant geological activity. If you take out the circular reasoning and fundamentally flawed presuppositions in radiometric dating, the relative timeframe can be useful. Bad news for old Earth advocates, though: the evidence actually supports creation science Flood geology models.
In its October 2nd, 2015 issue, Science published a report announcing a more detailed study of the many lava flows in the Deccan Traps located in Western India. The Deccan Traps are a massive igneous province—think of it as a lava flood plain—comparable in size to the US states of Oregon and Washington combined and composed of numerous lava flow layers having a total depth of over 6,500 feet (2,000 meters). The strategy was to examine the mineral composition of the lava flows from older samples on the bottom, to younger samples near the top of this thick sequence of lava flows. According to the report, the lava flows show differences in composition, and the timing of their eruption, according to the radiometric dating methods used, coincide remarkably well with the 66-million-year-old conventional date of the Chicxulub impact (within 50,000 years). The volcanic fissures in the area are interpreted to have been active before the impact, but with much smaller eruptive events. Lava flow rates appear to have markedly increased at roughly the same time as the asteroid impact.
It would be right neighborly of you to read the entire article. To do this, click on "Asteroids Hit First, Volcanoes Deliver Knockout Punch to Dinosaurs?" You may also like "Dinosaur Extinction and Chicxulub Revisited".

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

Friday, April 12, 2019

False Claims Supporting Evolution are Refuted

We have seen numerous times that the hands at the Darwin Ranch near Deception Pass have a nasty habit of dealing from the bottom of the deck by conflating evolution with natural selection, variation, and speciation. This time they took the rag off the bush by being dishonest about Darwinian evolution.

C. reinhardtii algae were falsely reported to be seen evolving. Nope. In fact, we see support for a creation science model!
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii algae image credit:
Dartmouth Electron Microscope Facility, Dartmouth College via Wikimedia Commons
Secularists cannot explain the origin of life, nor can they explain how it allegedly developed. They certainly cannot explain how or why single-celled life commenced to becoming muti-celled. There's an alga known as Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, a single-celled thing that buzzes around with a pair of flagella. Now we get to the part that got researchers so excited they were dishonest.

Using circular reasoning, the report claims that we "know" evolution happened from single-to multi-celled organisms. Good job, Hoss, you assumed evolution to prove evolution.

Even algae want to avoid being food for something else. A group of them will effectively circle the wagons and clump together. Dishonest Darwinists claim that they have witnessed evolution in action. Stop shooting holes in the saloon ceiling in your celebrations, because that's just not so. Good thing we have biblical creationists around to keep those owlhoots honest.

They saw activities in a controlled environment that they induced that are still not evolution. Worse for them, they inadvertently supported the continuous environmental tracking (CET) model by the Institute for Creation Research. C. reinhardtii responded in a way that demonstrates the work of the Master Engineer. Yippie ky yay, evolutionists!
Recent headlines claim, “Scientists Have Witnessed a Single-Celled Algae Evolve Into a Multicellular Organism.” In reality, the experiment showed that nothing more than a crude clumping together of individual cells had occurred. A new multicellular organism was not created, nor was any real evolution observed.

One of the major hurdles in the grand story of molecules to man evolution is how life first transitioned from unicellular to multicellular organisms. Plants and animals are complex systems of interlocking cells that form tissues, structures and whole bodies. How could creatures like bacteria or algae make the grand evolutionary hurdle into complex multicellular creatures? There is no evidence of this ever occurring in the fossil record and we don’t see this sort of thing happening now.
To read the rest of the article, click on "Algae Multicellular Evolution Study Debunked".

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

Thursday, April 11, 2019

Basilisk Lizard Sprints on Water

There is a lizard down in Central and South America called the basilisk. I wonder what prompted Carl Linnaeus to name it after a creature that could kill you with a its gaze or breath. Maybe it looks like the art from mythology. Anyway, this critter has baffled scientists for a mighty long time because of the way it runs across the water. Funny to watch, but it works.

The basilisk lizard baffles evolutionists by the way it runs across water. Also, it is clearly the product of the Master Engineer.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / The Rambling Man (CC by-SA 3.0)
It doesn't just take a leisurely stroll, because that won't work. It has to be moving right quick. Even then, its feet sink in a little bit.

When it gets all tuckered out and can no longer run, the basilisk will be content to swim. Proponents of molecules-to-machinist evolution have trouble explaining ability to run on water, but the specified complexity in the details involved clearly indicate the work of the Master Engineer. By the way, God's design is up for plagiarism again: scientists are studying this creature so they can design machines that run across the water.
A lizard that walks on water? The Basiliscus genus of lizard is often irreverently called the ‘Jesus lizard’, an obvious allusion to the miraculous act when the Lord Jesus Christ walked on water. But a far more accurate description is that the basilisk (as it is commonly known) runs on water.

Basilisk lizards consist of four species ranging from areas of southern Mexico to the northern areas of South America, as well as Florida in the United States. They are excellent swimmers and climbers, but when a predator threatens, escape comes by sprinting across the water’s surface.
To read the rest of this short article, take a stroll over to "The ‘water-walking’ lizard". For some additional material, see "Basilisk Jesus Lizard Frustrates Evolutionists".

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

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

Design of the Tyrant Lizard King

T. rex is probably the most famous dinosaur. It shows design and there is not evolutionary history for it.

Tyrannosaurus rex is arguably the best-known of all the dinosaurs, and has been prominent in movies, television shows, documentaries, and so forth. We only have forensic information from fossils. However, while there is a great deal of speculation about this critter, fossils do tell scientists a great deal.

It had a very large head. Although T. rex did not have big arms and was subject to ridicule from other dinosaurs that could run fast or birds on the wing, it had a large tail for counterbalance so it didn't faceplant when lunging for it's prey. If you were to stare one down face to face, what do you think would get your attention?

It had many large, pointy teeth. These were different from its relatives but could take a huge chunk of lunch. Was it actually a predator? Fossil evidence suggests so and its design was conducive to predation. Rexie may have been a scavenger, especially the older, larger ones. There is no explanation for dinosaur evolution. Instead, we see that T. rex was designed by the Master Engineer. It apparently did well until the global Genesis Flood took most of them away, and dinosaurs that disembarked from Noah's Ark eventually became extinct.
Since T. rex is found only in Flood deposits, our knowledge of this great animal is limited to his fossilized remains from Noah’s time, nearly 1,700 years after Adam’s Fall. We’re all fascinated to learn more, and that’s where the fun of forensic science comes into play. Like crime investigators, paleontologists try to reconstruct organisms and their environments by the partial evidence left at the “crime scene.” Though lots of “ifs” remain, we can learn many amazing things from fossils.

One thing is clear: T. rex was big, and he was well designed for his dominant role after the Fall. But being big didn’t mean that God just scaled up the design of other average-size, meat-eating dinosaurs, called theropods. To understand how T. rex was specially designed, we need to compare him to the “normal” proportions of other theropods.
To read the entire article, click on "T. rex—Fashioned To Be Fearless".

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

Tuesday, April 9, 2019

Heavy Metal Starstuff and Cosmic Evolution

As we have seen several times, it is important to define your terms in certain discussion. In this case, the word metal means something different to astronomers than to us reg'lar folk. For them, it is an element more dense than hydrogen and helium. The terms heavy metal or heavy element are not defined consistently.

Secularists futiley try to explain the existence of heavy metals. Some are finally admitting that they really do not understand it. Again, the biblical creation explanation is the best one.
RCW 86 supernova remnant enhanced image credit: NASA / ESA / JPL-Caltech  / UCLA / CXC / SAO
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
According to Big Bang mythology, that event produced hydrogen, helium, and some lithium. Then stellar fusion produced some of the lighter metals. To rock on to the heavy metals, however, requires supernovas and even kilonovas. Cosmologists deny recent creation and keep digging themselves in deeper because they cannot explain the abundance of useful elements on Earth. They also have other problems that are conveniently ignored. Stuff happens is an accurate summary of "scientific explanations" presented to uphold their presuppositions — even when some admit they have no real clue as to what's going on out yonder.
Elements heavier than iron form in supernova explosions. End of story. We can all rest now. But wait…

The origin of heavy elements via supernovas is one of those facts everybody learns without question. Astronomers say so in textbooks, on TV and in science media without any qualification, like “scientists believe” or “scientists think” it is so. It just is so, we are told. It led Carl Sagan and many of his disciples to quote, “We are made of starstuff.” Stuff happens, and this stuff exploded out of stars. Some of the stuff you might want to gather though; it includes gold and platinum.
To finish reading, click on "How Well Do Astrophysicists Understand the Origin of Heavy Elements?"

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