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, September 3, 2019

The Beginning of Multicellular Organisms

The standard story told by adherents of universal common ancestor evolution about the rise of multicellular organisms is that sponges clumped together and took a notion to evolve. We may wonder how such knowledge was obtained. Don't you know who they are? They're evolutionists, so they're right.

The standard textbook explanation for the evolution of multi-celled organisms has been challenged. However, the new idea raises many unanswered questions.
Credit: NOAA / G.P. Schmahl (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Darwinists are mighty fond of passing along speculations that fit the evolutionary narrative as if they were actual science, now they want to move it up a notch. Some researchers disagreed with the whole clumpy sponge idea, so they had some guesswork of their own: stem cells. That's right, multicellular organisms came from stem cells. However, stem cells are very complex and evolutionists cannot account for their origins. Of course not. The most logical explanation is what biblical creationists have been telling us all along.
One of the problems inherent in the evolutionary dogma is going from a single-celled organism, once such a thing exists, to a multi-celled organism. Evolutionists have proposed all sorts of outlandish ideas to solve this predicament, but none of them have been workable. However, because their worldview requires this evolution to occur, they continuously search for a mechanism to go from single-celled to multi-celled.
To read the full article, click on "Origins of Multicellular Organisms". 

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

Monday, September 2, 2019

Loss of Flight Claimed as Evidence for Evolution

Like cattle rustlers who refuse to admit that they got lost riding the wrong trail in the dark, Darwin's disciples keep claiming that they have evidence for evolution where none exists. It is both pathetic and amusing when they deny their own belief system and claim that loss of traits shows onward and upward evolution.

Evolutionists claim that loss of traits is evidence of their beliefs. A bird called the white-throated rail lost its ability to fly, but they actually show evidence for creation.
Cropped from Wikimedia Commons / Francesco Veronesi (CC by-SA 2.0)
One of the most giggle-worthy examples of this is the use of troglomorphism, the loss of sight and pigmentation in cave animals (see this article, Part 1 and Part 2). Another example is a flightless bird called the white-throated rail.

"Are these people for rail, Cowboy Bob?"

Don't do that.

Supposedly, flight evolved several times in different ways, even though evolutionists really have no idea how it happened. Stuff happens — it's a law, you know. Instead of the hallucinations of the Darwinian elite, observations actually work against evolution and support special creation.
A recent paper in an esteemed zoology journal caused a stir in the science media. Its authors claim that fossils of a species of bird called the white-throated rail . . . show evidence for the repeated loss of flight in this bird in several islands in the southwest Indian Ocean near the island of Madagascar.  . . . 
What is special about these species of birds is that the loss of flight capabilities has occurred several times rapidly, under specific conditions. These include the lack of land predators and other animals which could compete with the birds, principally for food. The authors of this paper claim that flightlessness has “evolved” several times. The online journal Science Daily reports these findings as birds coming back from the dead. But is this really a demonstration of de-evolution followed by re-evolution actually happening? What is really going on here?
To read the entire article, click on "Rails derail evolution — The loss of flight is not evolution!"

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

Saturday, August 31, 2019

Providing Evidence for the Creator

In several places, I have written about how unbelievers often demand that we prove to them that God exists. Apologists can see that this insistence is actually a justification for their rebellion against the God that they already know exists (Romans 1:18-23), and irrationally requiring scientific, material evidence for God.

Unbelievers demand evidence for God, often with illogical requirements. We can give evidence for the Creator to honest seekers, but only in the proper way.
Credit: Freeimages / Maxime Perron Caissy
For the most part, the people that comment at The Question Evolution Project are antagonistic and hard-hearted, rejecting any attempt to answer their questions. Once in a while, we (and Bible-believing Christians) encounter people who have saddled up to ride the long trail to seeking truth. If they get up on the hill for the bigger picture, they can see that there is a wagon train-load of evidence for God's existence as well as his character. He is our Creator and has made himself known.

We do not need to spend time trying to present evidence to mockers and those who define "reality" through materialism and evolution, but we can have fruitful discussions with people that seem to be sincerely wanting answers. Then we can help remove stumbling blocks to their faith, but need to do so in a presuppositional framework. That means we do not let them sit in judgement over God, nor do we leave the Word of God out of it (see "Question Evolution Day and Presuppositional Apologetics"). There are some things to keep in mind when doing this.
Interact with people long enough online when discussing God, and the inevitable demand for “evidence for your sky daddy” (or other pejorative) will arise. So, let’s talk evidence.

. . . another prerequisite, how do we define God. God as revealed through his creation, through his Word, and through Jesus as The All powerful, All Knowing, and All Loving Eternal Creator.

We need to talk about three more things before we talk about evidence:
To read the entire article, click on "Evidence for the Almighty". Another by the same author should be helpful, "It is Irrational to Demand Evidence For God".

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

Friday, August 30, 2019

Now Extinction is Evolution?

The Darwin death cult has many strange ideas. Now they are saying that death leads to evolution.
The Darwinian death cult keeps on getting stranger, quite possibly because their efforts to deny the Creator are downright irrational. We are bombarded with the canard, "It evolved" without models or evidence when reading articles, watching documentaries, and so forth.

Not only is evolution assumed in order to provide evidence for it (the fallacy of begging the question), but Darwin's dark dream is often presented as an irrevocable force: things must evolve. Except when they don't. These are the same tinhorns who brought you you, as "science", that parasite manipulation just may have influenced human intelligence. Yes, really.

There are many living fossils (an organism was fossilized many evolutionary years ago and its living counterpart is essentially unchanged), so the lack of evolution is evosplained with the unscientific excuse of "stasis": it didn't feel the need to evolve. Some addlepated evolutionists actually use lack of change as evidence for evolution. Wait, what? I think these are the same tinhorns who also claim that loss of traits also supports the Bearded Buddha. Isn't evolution supposed to provide new and improved traits? Must be another evolutionary miracle happening.

We know that death leads to change. Animals are food for other animals (or us), and we stand before our Maker in the greatest change we experience. Yet Darwin's disciples are claiming that death leads to life through evolution! (I still say those folks have been ingesting peyote buttons.) Their speculations conveniently ignore important information and do not provide plausible mechanisms for this alleged evolution. They also raise a prairie schooner-full of questions.
How can scientists and reporters write articles on “evolution” when evidence shows organisms died or didn’t change?

What’s going on here? Frequently, evolutionists classify papers and articles as being about “evolution” when the evidence is opposite of evolution. Darwin needs life to evolve from bacteria to human beings. He doesn’t need them to stay the same or die out. What’s evolution got to do with it?
To read the rest, click on "Extinction is not Evolution".

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

Thursday, August 29, 2019

Atheism and Irrationality

The original definition for atheism is the denial of God and any other supernatural beings, but since they cannot support their claims, they redefined the word to the fatuous "lack of belief" claim. They also pretend to be the paragons of logic and reason, believing in "reality". However, they are not consistent with their worldviews.

Atheists claim to believe in reality and reject God and spiritual matters. However, many admit to belief in the supernatural, which affirms what the Bible says.

There are times when people call themselves atheists and say, "You don't know what atheism is!", then proceed to presumptuously speak for all atheists, painting them with a broad brush. Not so fast, Phyllis. Back in 2008, an article in the Wall Street Journal called "Look Who's Irrational Now" cited a survey where atheists admitted to belief in the paranormal and pseudoscience, including astrology. The original article is here, and is reproduced here.

More recently, another survey revealed that professing atheists and agnostics believe in some form of the supernatural, including fate, karma, and reincarnation. This shows what Bible-believing Christians have maintained all along: belief in God is built in. Since atheists reject biblical creation, they (and their compromising religious allies) substitute  falderal such as the Big Bang and evolution mythologies to account for the origins of the universe, humanity, and everything else.

This jasper gave a hint that he did not want rational discourse:
Like others with atheism spectrum disorder,
this one chooses to blatantly misrepresent "religion"

This one lashed out with unbridled hate:
This bitter demoniac also misrepresents the Bible; click for larger
(used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes)
Unfortunately, some professing Christians who are not well-grounded in the faith believe in occult things. One of these is a pseudo-karma cause-and-effect along the lines of, "I parked in a handicapped spot for fifteen minutes yesterday, today my car won't start. God is punishing me!" Both the religious and irreligious know that the truth about our Creator and life is found in his written Word.
A recent study on atheists and agnostics (those who say we cannot know whether or not a God or gods exist) showed that they are not quite as naturalistic as most might believe. Despite not believing in a God (or gods), neither of these groups seem to have completely rejected supernatural beliefs about issues such as “life after death, astrology, and the existence of a life-force.”
. . .

But for most, it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile atheism or agnosticism with a religion that believes in God—like Christianity. Nevertheless, atheists and agnostics still borrow many aspects from a biblical worldview—whether they realize it or not. For example, logic, truth, knowledge, morality, and science—which are predicated on the Bible being true—do not come from a materialistic and naturalistic view of things. Atheists and agnostics often agree that logic, truth, morality, and so on exist, but it cannot be justified in their worldview.
To read the article in its entirety, click on "Atheists: Believers in Fate, Reincarnation, and Karma?"

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

Wednesday, August 28, 2019

Concluding the Engineered Adaptability Series

We have been exploring the Continuous Environmental Tracking engineered adaptability model from the Institute for Creation Research. It has been fascinating to see how the Master Engineer has built adaptations and variations into organisms.

To concluded the Engineered Adaptability series, we are given an overview of what the creation science model is displaying.
Modified from a photo at Freeimages / Tolga Kocak
Charles Darwin bushwhacked natural selection and made it his own so he could take God out of the picture. His paradigm is that external forces cause creatures to evolve into something else, but that is not the case. Instead, the CET model shows that adaptations are front-loaded into living things to not only adapt, but anticipate changes. This affects not only individual organisms, but entire populations.
For the past two years, the Engineered Adaptability series of articles has explored ways in which scientific methodology and understanding benefit when engineering principles are applied to how living things function. In the process, we have built a conceptual framework for a design-based model called continuous environmental tracking (CET), which focuses on the mechanisms through which organisms express traits that enable them to closely track changing conditions and adjust accordingly. This final article will take a bird’s-eye view of what the series has presented.
To read the rest, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Continuous Environmental Tracking Wrap-Up". At the end of the article is a link to the entire series. We have seen other instances of engineered adaptability here, but they were not "officially" a part of the series. I have found it exciting and am looking forward to further developments.

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

Tuesday, August 27, 2019

Genetics and the Creation of Eve

Atheopaths and other mockers often point to the Genesis account of the creation of Adam and then Eve.This is in stark contrast to the fact-free fish-to-fool evolution that they falsely call science, yet still insist that we all accept.

Mockers reject the creation of Adam and then Eve since it does not fit their materialistic opinions. Eve's creation foreshadows aspects of modern science.
Adam and Eve before the Temptation / George Frederick Watts
I'll allow that the creation of Adam from the dust of the earth and not evolving from critters is a mite startling to some folks. They would do well to consider that the Creator does things the way he sees fit, and there are purposes for his methods. Sometimes he tells us, other times we don't really need to know.

The same sort of thinking can apply to the creation of Eve. God showed Adam the animals, but none of them would be suitable עֵזֶר, helper. He was different from them. God essentially used the first anesthetic, and took a rib from Adam's side to make Eve. In a way, this was the first act of cloning by using genetic material. The science of genetics would not be pioneered until thousands of years later by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him.) Some elements of God's making of Eve foreshadow modern science.

 Scoffers lie about the Bible and say that it teaches men have one rib than women, but people who have a basic knowledge of biology know that ribs not only grow back, but inherited physical traits are not passed along to offspring.
Evolutionists claim that a population of human-like creatures evolved from a population of ape-like creatures. However, the true eyewitness account is very different. God directly created the first human being, Adam, from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7).
. . .

But whereas God made Adam from the dust of the ground, this new companion would have an intimate connection with Adam. In a way, this helper would be a physical descendant of his.
To read the entire article, click on "Eve, the rib, and modern genetics".

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