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, January 13, 2020

Naturalists Hiding the Truth

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Although Western civilization claims to value free speech, that commodity is being trampled like sawdust on a saloon floor nowadays. The secular science industry is heavily biased and increasingly involved in leftist causes. To have the freedom to present evidence supporting recent creation and refuting evolution presented in the secular science industry? Fuggedaboudit. They want to control the narrative and the information.

Atheists and evolutionists try to silence Christians and creationists through various means. They are promoting groupthink and suppressing free speech.
Background image furnished by Why?Outreach
For example, much of the information presented by climate alarmists is tainted, and they reject not only contrary information, but logic itself. If you offer scientific information that is suppressed by climate cultists and leftist science, expect to have those tinhorns shout you down. You may hear something like, "I don't care if there is documentation! Ignore the false predictions! I can tell you that deniers are all liars, even though I don't read or understand their material! Listen to me!" So much for honestly evaluating the data in the spirit of scientific inquiry. Leftists causes must be promoted at all costs — including resisting freedoms of speech and thought. I kinda doubt that they would support Question Evolution Day, don't you?

Creationists have been horsewhipped (figuratively, since doing the real thing is still illegal — for now) and ridiculed by atheists and evolutionists for many years. When Clinton Richard Dawkins refuses to debate creationists, it's supposedly because he doesn't want to give us attention and credibility. Good thing for him, because in the article linked just above, he displays loaded terminology ("real" scientists), his fundamentally flawed presuppositions, and blatant bigotry. "Real" scientists are equated with those who embrace naturalism or materialism, so creationists are excluded by arbitrary, self-serving definitions.

I saw a complaint about a creation science post from a jackanapes who tries to drive a wedge of religion between creationists. He indicated that "real" science supports an old earth and evolution, and that "honest" Christians accept such views (if you're honest, you agree with him — that's the fallacy of bifurcation). He cited a pseudo-christian organization and linked to material that you have to pay to see. Also, to join and pay, you are required to agree to their "statement of faith" and be approved. Unbiased science, you betcha, Sweetcakes. 

Indeed, atheists and evolutionists are known to dodge debate challenges more often than not, such as the challenge by Creation Ministries International at an atheists convention. Remember the Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate? Nye ignored a challenge to debate Dr. Georgia Purdom of Answers in Genesis. He eventually settled for Ken Ham, but atheists were frantic about that.

Do not think that naturalists are guilty of moving the goalposts. When things are not going their way, they hire four Germans (all named Hermann, coincidentally) to remove the goalposts entirely. It is thought that they are hidden somewhere in Surbiton.

Many village atheists try to silence Christians and creationists through ridicule, which only shows how they beclown themselves through their lack of integrity, lack of knowledge of science, and lack of civility. For that matter, we often have to educate them on their own mythology. If things are this bad among the commoners, perhaps the aversion to debates among the self-proclaimed intelligentsia is rooted in similar apprehensions. Consider this: if creationists had nothing to say, then someone like Dawkins could stop dodging and take a formal debate with a creation scientist and shut us down.

No, ridicule, hiding, misrepresentation, and ignoring inconvenient truths will not silence us or make us go away, old son. Evidence for recent creation and the global Genesis Flood is plentiful; truth is on our side. Leftist science is non-science, dumbing down the public through groupthink.
Big Science assumes you will be assimilated. Don’t even think about disagreeing. You have no voice. You don’t exist.
Study the following renewal ad from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). It’s not really surprising to anyone familiar with Big Science these days, but perhaps it should be:
To read the rest of the excerpted article, click on "Ignoring the Opposition: How Big Science Descends into Groupthink". You may also want to peruse "Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism".

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

Saturday, January 11, 2020

Informed Creationists Affirm Natural Selection

This title may be alarming to some creationists and startling to believers in scum-to-skeptic evolution, but things should be clarified if you stay with me. Like any other science, creation science has had some errors and had to deal with misconceptions from opponents.

Some creationists reject natural selection because of Darwin, but his hijacked and redefined version is not true natural selection - which we do accept.
Credit: Good Free Photos
When creationist Carl Linnaeus developed his classification system, may creationists believed in what is sometimes called the "fixity of species". There are evolutionists who think that's what creationists believe, but they obviously are using extremely outdated material. Modern creationists know that natural selection, speciation, and variations are a part of God's design.

I have encountered uninformed creationists who hold to that view. Perhaps they believe that admitting natural selection exists is a compromise in favor of evolution. That is understandable to some extent because Papa Darwin hijacked a legitimate concept and redefined it for his own ends.

Unfortunately, there is also confusion about natural selection and the created kinds of Genesis. Add to this that there are evolutionists that disagree about the definition of species, and the waters are muddied further. No, creationists, you have no reason to deny that natural selection exists. God designed it, after all.
“Do you believe in natural selection? Do you believe that animals and plants change at all?” If you say you believe in creation and a young earth, you’re likely to get questions like this. The young-earth creationist view has been so maligned in popular culture that many people think creationists deny basic facts of life.
Do they? Is natural selection fact, or is it a fantasy invented by Charles Darwin? Should Bible-believing Christians reject change in nature as a lie?
Unfortunately, many non-creationists base their answers to these questions on outdated views of creationist thinking. Consult modern biology textbooks or popular books on evolution, and you’ll likely find a description of creationism that is more than 150 years old. Contemporary attitudes toward creation are anything but modern.
To read the rest or get the audio version, click on "Is Natural Selection at Odds with Creation?"

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

Friday, January 10, 2020

Microbes, Methane, and the Young Earth

If your wagon train ends up near Siljan, Sweden, that you made a heap of wrong turns. But you might want to check out that lake. It's part of the Siljan Ring, which is part of a crater area. Scientists found microbes feasting on the oil and giving off methane.

Researchers investigating the Siljan impact area found microbes eating oil and releasing methane. Results fit with what creationists have said for a long time about the age of the earth.
Credits: Wikimedia Commons / Vesta / NASA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by anyone listed above)
Avoid telling climate change cultists though, they would probably try to regulate and tax microbes and get Greta (who seeks to give her life meaning in activism, which will ultimately fail) to yell at us some more. While research and new discoveries are often interesting in and of themselves, in other ways they are not all that exciting. In this case, microbial communities have been discovered at far deeper levels than those near Siljan. In addition, this find also supports creation science evidence for a young earth.
Scientists have reported the presence of methane-producing microbes living deep beneath the Siljan impact crater in Sweden. Although the researchers stopped short of claiming the impact somehow brought the microbes to Earth, they do assert that impacts can create favorable habitats for colonization.
The 30-mile wide Siljan impact site is ringed by Ordovician and Silurian sediments, including black shales that appear to be source rocks for oil. In fact, oil seeps have been known around the crater for hundreds of years, dating back to reports by the great Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus in 1734.
To finish reading, click on "Microbes at Siljan Crater Are No Surprise". 

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

Thursday, January 9, 2020

Designed to Walk Upright

Consider the apes. They are more comfortable walking on all fours (quadrupedal) while humans are more comfortable walking on two legs (bipedal). When people with deformities or mental aberrations that walk on all fours, it is off-putting for us because it is clearly unnatural.

Evolutionists cannot present a convincing account of how humans went from walking on all fours to walking on two legs. Recent fossils do not help.
Credit: Freeimages / skarlyt
Proponents of universal common ancestor evolution insist that we originally walked on all fours and then evolved so that we are upright. There are many changes that would need to be made, but there is a prairie schooner-full of speculations, but not much in the way of actual evidence.

Evolutionists think they may have something that could be an example of a bipedal ape. Despite the hysterical shrieking of the secular science industry press that the bones illustrate evolution, that's not quite the case. Actual evidence is still missing, and some scientists are not convinced that the finds are significant. In fact, they may be a mix of human and orangutan bones, since they were scattered. Humans and apes walk differently because each was created separately by God, and Darwin was not consulted.
The evolution from quadrupedal to bipedal walking requires many major anatomical changes. Some of the many morphological alterations to the human skeleton that are required include major changes to both the arrangement and size of the bones of the foot, changes in the hip size and shape, the knee size, the leg length, and both the shape and orientation of the vertebral column. Even the ribcage must be altered. Specifically, the Chimpanzee ribcage is cone-shaped to house the gut and yet provide a great range of motion around the shoulder to allow them to walk on all fours. In contrast, the human ribcage is barrel-shaped, allowing arms to swing freely from side to side which is required to effortlessly maintain balance when walking. A few other alterations required to walk upright include the following:
You can read the entire article by clicking on "Bipedal Ape Fossil Falls on Its Face".

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

Wednesday, January 8, 2020

Forensic Science has Limitations

The two types of science used in discussions of origins are forensic and operational, the latter being used to describe science that is testable, repeatable, observable, and so on in the present. Forensic science attempts to explain the past by working backward from evidence in the present.

Forensic science is invaluable in researching historical matters. Unfortunately, it has flaws and can be trumped by eyewitness accounts.
Credit: RGBStock / wernerb
Suppose you came upon some rubble that included broken bricks, a shoe, and other things. Is there an interesting story or did someone just throw things there? Someone involved in forensics would attempt to piece together the details if there was a need to do so.

I recently saw an episode of CSI where there were no witnesses and no suspects in a murder investigation. The crime lab team members were attempting to reconstruct the sequence of events and getting nowhere. Then they realized they were doing things backward, and this led to finding a crucial piece of evidence. While only a story, it illustrated how people can make wrong assumptions and have to change when they have new ideas — and new evidence.

Of course, a reliable eyewitness can supplement the forensic work, or even trump it. Sometimes science regarding the past can be tainted by agendas (especially when secularists want to prove evolution) or have conflicting pieces of evidence. Historical records by eyewitnesses become increasingly important the further back in time that something is being investigated. The Bible is the eyewitness account of creation by God, who was there and did the creating. A great deal of forensic evidence supports this (as well as the global Genesis Flood), and faulty secular science goes in circles.
Yes, forensics is a useful tool and often “gets” the bad guy. But it has severe limitations, and overestimating its power can result in a tragic miscarriage of justice, especially when it is wrongly elevated over truthful eyewitness testimony. My mind went back to a former case, where I learned this lesson all too well. I like to call it “The Case of the Bloodless Bullet Wound.”
You can read the entire article (written by a forensic scientist) or download the audio by clicking on "The Case of the Bloodless Bullet Wound". You may also be interested in this video on fingerprint design presented by a forensic science educator.

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

Tuesday, January 7, 2020

Rejecting the H. naledi Ancestor

Something that has caused a great deal of controversy among both creationists and believers in atom-to-anthropologist evolution is H. naledi. Although we have discussed this before (the last post is here), some of the dust has settled and a couple of more thorough articles are available.

Evolutionists tried to present H. naledi as an evolutionary link, which caused controversy among both evolutionists and creationists. Now we can tell it is unimportant.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Lee Roger Berger research team (CC BY 4.0)
(Usage does not imply endorsement by copyright holders of site contents)
Before we commence to digging, I want to say that there is a balance to be kept. My usual counsel to folks who get all het up about evolutionary news is to wait a spell until more information is presented. However, if stories are big enough, they need to be presented — but with a note of caution. Such was the case with Homo naledi.

There were many suspicious elements about the H. naledi stories, especially the part about remains that appeared to have been buried in a cave chamber with difficult access, implying that the creature was somewhat intelligent. Instead, the best explanation is that the remains of humans, apes, and animals (all jumbled together) were washed in by flood waters for the most part.

Another suspicious fact is that Berger, who was the purveyor of this excitement, failed to mention that he didn't bother with another part of the cave and its contents. It was much easier to access.

Also, the human bones in the mix probably suffered from the developmental pathology of cretinism. This would have had noticeable physical effects that are consistent with the remains.

No human evolution to see here, folks. Just another attempt to grab grant money and fame. The science was poor, and the ethics seem to be the moral equivalent of dealing from the bottom of the deck. Well, that's what they do, based on their naturalistic worldviews. Hopefully, we can leave this stuff buried.
One of the most confusing and enigmatic “ape-man” discoveries of the 21st century has been Homo naledi. Its discoverer was Lee Berger, a controversial American paleoanthropologist working at Wits University in Johannesburg, South Africa. The claims surrounding this discovery have been extolled, criticized, and debated by both evolutionists and creationists. In fact, a 2015 science news piece in The Guardian highlighted the raging controversy among secular academics over H. naledi. It was titled “Scientist who found new human species accused of playing fast and loose with the truth.”
To finish reading, click on "Homo naledi: Another Failed Evolutionary Ape-Man". But wait! If you act now, you can read another article that includes some additional material, "Making sense of ‘Homo naledi’.

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

Monday, January 6, 2020

Science Arose by Rejecting Faulty Views

It seems possible that the scientific principle of Making Things Up™ originated with the ancient Greek philosophers. Like scientists, those philosophers based their speculations on observations and their theological views. Biblical scientists managed to liberate science from the predominant Greek ideas.

Science was stifled by ancient Greek philosophies and theology. It took scientists who believed the Bible to liberate science and help it advance.
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
They had a belief that matters had a divine substance and that the gods were subject to that and to other laws. The Stoics thought that objects had souls, and had occult qualities attached to them; sympathy would cause a man to be attracted to a woman like a iron is attracted to a magnet (I wonder if Walter Egan knew this). The Epicureans (Paul the apostle debated Epicureans and the Stoics) had evolutionary ideas. Plato and Aristotle also had some odd concepts, and this child wonders if logic had developed enough for people to ask, "How do you know that?"

Later, people believed the Bible instead of just-so stories, and many of those people were scientists. They wanted to know about how divine will and law affected nature. Of course, not all of them were orthodox. Although Isaac Newton is considered by many to have been the greatest scientist of all time, he believed the Bible but his theology was heretical. It was observed that creation is orderly and designed by the Creator, so science began to grow. Indeed, modern science is rooted in the work of people who believed the Bible. Christian theology liberated science from the foolishness of ancient Greek philosophies. Now if modern secular scientists would put away evolutionism...
In order for science to progress, it was necessary to reject the erroneous view of nature handed down by Greek philosophers, and which dominated among the intellectual elite during much of the medieval period. Leading historians of science acknowledge that the Christian doctrines of God and Creation played a pivotal role in this process. The Greek view of nature as a living organism was replaced by the biblical view that only people and animals have souls. This led to the rejection of the Greek explanation for motion as arising from tendencies internal to objects, and its replacement with the concept of external, divinely imposed laws. The Greek view that natural processes are governed by eternal principles binding even on the gods was replaced by the biblical view of God’s omnipotence and His freedom to create as He willed. This led to the belief that the laws of nature were determined entirely by God’s choice and could, therefore, only be discovered by observations.
To read the rest, click on "Christian theology and the rise of Newtonian science—imposed law and the divine will".

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