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

Friday, December 27, 2019

Questioning the Reports

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This is going to be a different kind of article. Instead of refuting evolution and supporting creation, we will be using some of the thinking skills that have been discussed for the past few years. Hopefully, people are using healthy skepticism and asking questions of assertions and reports from scientists.

A simpler article about how we can use our reasoning skills and use healthy skepticism when scientists make bold proclamations.
Modified from a graphic at Clker clipart
After all, scientists are not the unbiased purveyors of truth that many people seem to think. They are full of avarice, pride, greed, altruism, nobility, and all the other characteristics that the rest of us possess. (For a recent article on this, see "Scientists Are Only Fallible Humans".) While many are corrupt and seeking the next big money, others want to do actual science stuff. As we have seen many times, however, the secular science industry has many instance of fake science news, even putting words in the mouths of the scientists.

There seems to be a report to support anything: atheists are smarter than Christians, a contrary report says atheists use less brain power than the rest of us, going outside in the cold weather after taking a shower makes you sick, vitamin C is a great cure, vitamin C benefits have limited scientific support... You've see those things.

We often see how decent scientific research is blemished by homage to Darwin, whether by the scientists or the news services. Also, researches tend to get excited about a bit of work and make bold pronouncements that are not supported by the evidence. Here are a couple of simple articles for your intellectual dancing and dining pleasure that are untainted by evolutionism.

First (you may be disappointed in me for this one), "‘Planet Nine’ may actually be a black hole". This one seemed to be rather interesting. No big proclamations or hitting the readers over the head with cosmic evolution. It is clear that there is speculation happening. I'll be curious to see if there are further developments.

We can ask how a survey or study was done. This includes who did the research, what questions were asked, who was being asked the questions, the procedure of the research, and so on. Do you like chili peppers? Maybe the cause your face to turn red and fire shoots out of your mouth like in the old cartoons. At any rate, there are reports that they are good for you. In a surprising article from CNN, "Eating chilies cuts risk of death from heart attack and stroke, study says", the author does some of the work for us by asking questions and pointing out that the report has serious limitations. More research is needed.

While we must have reasonable skepticism and ask questions, sometimes reports are straightforward and even show where some research is incomplete. Not so much when it comes to matters of fish-to-philosopher evolution, however. While science is necessarily developing and changing, we need to be aware that fallible humans are operating from their worldviews. So are biblical creationists, who are asking the hard questions and pointing out the flaws that secularist often overlook. It seems that they often do these things willingly.





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

Thursday, December 26, 2019

Carbon Dating and the Biblical Timeline

Mockers reject the biblical timeline for several reasons, most of them superficial. Some will say that there were civilizations in existence thousands of years before the Old Testament was written, but scoffers accept questionable sources while rejecting biblical material out of hand. Sumerian kings were listed as living thousands of years, and the Egyptian chronologies are in doubt. Add to questionable history the inaccurate results of carbon dating, and mockers have their biases confirmed.


People scoff at the biblical timeline, partly due to carbon dating. There are several details that need to be considered.
Triceratops image source: Good Free Photos
Elsewhere, we considered dealing with discrepancies between secular geology and the global Genesis Flood. This post brings up related material. Although most readers probably know this, carbon dating does not work for deep time or the age of the earth. It only works on things that are or were organic. That means dinosaur bones and pottery discovered in rock layers that are assumed to be millions of years old can be tested, but they yield far younger ages.

Carbon dating requires several assumptions and scientists reject the influence of the Genesis Flood as well as changes in Earth's magnetic field. Indeed, living things have been dated at thousands of years old, and there have been discrepancies from samples of the same thing. When properly understood and pertinent data are included, carbon dating is not a threat to biblical chronology.
Many reporters and scientists treat carbon dates like facts. Of course, the more recent dates work well enough. But news reports, textbooks, and even movies present enormous ages like “47,000 BCE” all the time.

Yet, the Bible records only about 6,000 years from creation until today. Does the science of carbon dating disprove the Bible’s reckoning? To find out, we need to peek into the carbon dating process that specialists use to arrive at tens of thousands of years.
To read the rest, click on "Do Carbon Ages Refute a Biblical Timeline?" You may also be interested in "Dating of 'oldest pottery' from China is based on assumptions".


Each year, it’s fun to celebrate birthdays. If we’re not sure of someone’s age, we can always check their birth certificate. But can any reliable methods determine the age of an object without a historical record?




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

Wednesday, December 25, 2019

The Birth of Jesus and the Curse

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

It may be a surprise to learn that that extremely famous Christmas hymn "Joy to the Word" was not written by Isaac Watts to be about Christmas. He wrote it about the return of Christ. Like many other hymn writers, it was based on Scripture. In this case, the 98th Psalm. So many things work together when singing this song at Christmas.


A popular Christmas hymn is not actually about Christmas, but about the return of Christ. It ties in with creation, the Resurrection, and Christmas.
Credit: Pixabay / Ria Sopala
Indeed, there is a great deal of strong theology in many hymns, especially those about Christmas. (I think that's one reason that cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses isolate their people; you won't have them coming along to your Christmas Eve service. After all, they may hear, "Hail the incarnate Deity!" and similar lyrics.) Dr. James R. White pointed out that "We Three Kings" is also deep, despite the erroneous traditions that we do not know how many "kings" there were, only that there were three gifts.

A line in the song "When He Comes Back" by DeGarmo and Key is, "Remember that kid from the manger scene? When he comes back, he's gonna reign as King!" Well, we celebrate his birth, which was necessary for his crucifixion for our sins and redemption. "Joy to the World" has,
No more let sins and sorrows grow
nor thorns infest the ground:
he comes to make his blessings flow
far as the curse is found.
This verse brings us back to the fall of man in Eden. Genesis 3:17-29 refers to thorns as part of the curse. Let me remind you that our Savior wore a crown of thorns. The Creator, God the Son (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16) humbled himself and died for us, but is glorified now and will return (Philippians 2:5-11). When we celebrate his birth, we can remember the fall of man, the crucifixion and bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the fact that he has promised to come back for us.

What I'm going to do now is link to The Briefing by Dr. Mohler that inspired this article. (He's done that several times, hasn't he?) In the first part, he discusses the tragedy involving the aberrant teachings of Bethel Church. (For those who want to dig deeper on this, there are four audio sessions on the Cultish podcast, look for the discussions with Elijah Stevens. Dr. White also discusses this on The Dividing Line.) The next part from Dr. Mohler is what applies to our discussion here. I hope you'll check it out and get his insights. To listen, download, or read the transcript of the third segment, click on "Friday, December 20, 2019".

I want to wish you and yours a blessed Christmas!







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

Tuesday, December 24, 2019

Stellar Dust and Cosmic Evolution

If I am cognating on this proper-like, there are potential planets under my bed. Them there dust bunnies need static electricity. There is quite a bit of static in this place, which can be quite shocking to my visitors. Static and dust can form planets. Sound ridiculous? It is as sensible as some research.

Strange research on cosmic dust and static electricity is used to rescue cosmic evolution. It fails on several levels.
Do NOT go to that link in the picture. The original lapsed and has been taken over by someone else.
Secularists presuppose naturalism, so when the evidence testifies of creation (Rom. 1:18), they try to find rescuing devices rather than admit the truth. Going back to the best of the failed planetary formation speculations, researchers insist that dust has to stick together instead of bouncing off other dust particles. Add static electricity, and in a controlled environment, balls of dust were produced. A passel of assumptions are included, and then other aspects are left floating around. The whole thing just won't slide down the chimney and give naturalistic presents to secularists.
In secular theory, going way back to Laplace’s nebular hypothesis and its offspring, planets came into being out of orbiting dust around stars. It sounds natural until you look at the details. Planetary scientists have long known about the “bouncing barrier” to planet growth. Previous experiments have shown that at about one millimeter size, dust grains stop accreting and bounce off each other – even at low collision speeds of a few millimeters per second. They’ll never get planets at that rate, until they overcome the bouncing barrier.
To read the entire article, take an electronic sleigh ride to "Energized Dust Bunnies Make Planets?"





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

Monday, December 23, 2019

Darwinists Lay Egg with Bird Fossil

Those desperate evolutionists and their wacky ideas. You rub them out, scrub them out, logic them out, science them out — and their bad ideas still leave unsightly stains on science. They tried and failed with Archaeopteryx, now a new bird fossil that looks a great deal like Archie has joined the fun.

Despite their efforts, Archaeopteryx was not successful for evolutionists. A more recent fossil bird, F. prima, is damaging to evolutionary mythology.

Rather than deciding to cowboy up and admit that evidence supports recent creation and the Genesis Flood, evolutionists keep trying to prop up poor science. In this case, these jaspers want to find evidence of bird evolution, so they took a gander at Funky Prima Donna. Oh, wait. That's Fukuipteryx prima, found in 2013 and the paper was published in November 2019. F. prima is damaging to evolutionary concepts. It is in the "wrong" place in the strata, and more.
The scientists found that the new bird species was quite similar to the so-called “first bird,” the Archaeopteryx, found in Upper Jurassic rocks in southern Germany. It had a similarly large wishbone, an unfused pelvis and claws on its wings like Archaeopteryx. But unexpectedly, the new Japanese specimen had a well-developed pygostyle instead of a long bony tail. A pygostyle is a fused bony plate at the end of the backbone that supports tail feathers in living birds.

This combination of so-called “primitive” bird features found on both Fukuipteryx and Archaeopteryx (e.g., claws on the wings) along with the more “modern” pygostyle on F. prima has ruffled the feathers of evolutionary scientists. It’s simply out of place for their model. But that’s not the worst of it.
To read the entire article, click on "New Bird Fossil Doesn't Fit Evolutionary Story".



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

Saturday, December 21, 2019

Parasites in the Plant Kingdom

When people mention parasites, various things can come to mind. Pet owners may think of white spot disease in tropical fish or fleas and ticks in furry friends, humans can get lice and internal parasites, and so on. Something that surprised this child is the fact that there are many kinds of plant parasites.


There are plants that can be parasites to other plants. Evolutionists have no adequate explanations, and creationists have some ideas as to how this came about.
Mistletoe image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Pauline Eccles (CC by-SA 2.0)
You don't need to worry about a plant attaching itself to you like a leech, however. Plant parasites parasite plants. That is, it is an "in house" thing in the plant world. They are found in many places and there are numerous species. You can ask a Darwinist how parasitic plants came to be, and they will evosplain with convergent evolution and fact-free speculations. Interestingly, parasitic plants are not a problem for creationists who discuss God's very good creation.
Parasitism is a subject that not many people think about and even fewer address from a biblical perspective. Parasitic plants are even less frequently addressed. Most of us think of plants as stationary and inactive rather than actively seeking nutrients. Yet parasitic plants do exist, comprising about 1% of flowering plants. They are notorious crop pests, particularly in developing countries. Witchweed alone does an estimated three billion dollars of crop damage per year. In light of a perfect pre-fall creation, parasitic plants may appear to be a thorny issue for a biblical worldview. However, digging a little deeper reveals a different, more biblical understanding.
 To continue reading, click on "Parasitic Plants".






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

Friday, December 20, 2019

Flighty Evolutionists Invoke Adaptation as Evolution

Knowledgeable creationists tend to understand Darwinism more than typical village atheists and evolutionists. However, sometimes unskilled anti-creationists are more consistent with evolutionary ideas than the professionals in the secular science industries. Your typical internet troll is committed to naturalism and rejects teleology while Darwin's handmaidens are making fabricating goal-oriented entities.

Evolutionists mix up natural selection, adaptation, and evolution. Some of it is confusion, some is deception. Several examples about birds illustrate the problems.
Credit: PIXNIO
There is a great deal of confusion among evolutionists about the workings of natural selection and adaptation. While writing their evoporn, secularists will often refer to natural selection, adaptation, and evolution interchangeably. They will even make one or all of them into deities, which is contrary to the nature of evolution (along with teleology).

Part of this definition confusion is the result of not understanding the concepts they are proclaiming, secularists are also committed to dealing from the bottom of the deck to trick people into believing in evolution and doubting the Creator. Yes, we do see natural selection and adaptation. Those are concepts that biblical creationists promote because they are part of the Master Engineer's plan for organisms. Let's whittle this down a mite and look at how evolutionists are discussing birds, although the activities there are also used in other areas.
Darwinians use adaptation and evolution almost interchangeably. Is that justified?

Adaptation, strictly defined, refers to the matching of an organism to its environment. Think of a woodpecker. Its claws enable it to cling to tree trunks, and its tongue can reach into deep holes in the wood. The tongue, moreover, has a sticky tip able to glue onto bugs inside the hole. Its head is protected from the hammer-like blows of its beak, which is pointed for penetrating wood. The woodpecker, all would acknowledge, is well adapted to its lifestyle. A hummingbird, by contrast, has specific adaptations for hovering in the air while sipping nectar in flowers, including its nectar-trapping tongue.

Such amazing matches of organisms to their environment have been observed for thousands of years. Only since Darwin, however, has the word included linkages to evolution by natural selection. At Dictionary.com, two of the biological definitions embed natural selection in the definition of adaptation:
I've given you enough of a preview already. To finish reading this enlightening article, click on "Evolution for the Birds: Must Adaptation Be Evolutionary?" The music "video" below is a parody by ApologetiX of the song "Cumbersome". The new lyrics are based on the personification of Wisdom crying out to people to learn. The lyrics are here.






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

Labels