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, September 7, 2020

Lava Flows of Known Age, and Radiometric Dating

It has been shown many times that radiometric dating has a passel of difficulties. These include circular reasoning, presupposing deep time, unwarranted assumptions, and more. Samples tested by various methods provide wildly differing results, including lava rocks of known ages. Does the eruption make a difference?

Radiometric dating has numerous flaws. Tests of rocks with known ages give wildly differing results, and some people wonder if there is a kind of reset with lava.
Tungurahua eruption image credit: FreeDigitalPhotos / xura
This does seem like a reasonable question on the surface. I saw a comment at The Question Evolution Project about radiometric dating and lava of known ages. He figured that everything would be reset to zero, so old rock that became molten would appear young but is actually very old; a kind of reset. Arbitrary assumptions based on lack of knowledge raise more questions than they solve. Biblical creationists point out these flaws in uniformitarianism because the evidence indicates a young earth.
Once again, our feedback is about radioactive dating, which seems a major roadblock against Christians believing the world is the biblical age of 6,000 years. The basics are simple, but the process is complicated, and supporter Larry R wrote and asked about the issue.
I have a question about radiometric dating. I understand how the process works, and the various assumptions that go into it. My question is, would the age of the magma have any bearing on the age of the rock created from it?
Like, when Mt. St. Helen’s erupted in 1986, obviously we know when the rock was formed. If we were to send in various specimens for various testing, obviously the testing would indicate ages that are much larger than the actual age. My question is, do the isotopes (if any) in the lava/magma play a roll, and if so, how (or how not, if it doesn’t have any effect)?
Thank you for your time.
Larry R.
CMI’s geologist Dr Tasman Walker responded (edited for the web):
Hi Larry,
Thank you for your email and your question.
You said, “I understand how the process works, and the various assumptions that go into it.” I would not put it that way. I would say, “I understand how they say the process is supposed to have worked!”
To read the rest of the response, head on over to "Is radioactive dating affected by the age of the magma?"

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

Saturday, September 5, 2020

Biological Legacies Restoring Mount St. Helens

Biblical creationists have been using the 1980 eruption at Mount St. Helens as a powerful illustration of the Genesis Flood on a smaller scale. However, minerals-to-mineralogist thinking has been befuddled by the rapidly-recovering ecosystem. What has been observed is well in line with creationist views.

We know that Mt. St. Helens provides evidence related to the Genesis Flood, but its recovery illustrated the design work of the Creator.
Credit: Flickr / Pacific Northwest Research Station
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Scientists understandably believed that the blast zone was destroyed of all life. However, biological legacies that existed before the eruption still existed. Since the Master Engineer designed living things to keep life going, little things began to thrive and replenish the soil, then other organisms joined in. Adlers and other trees are growing next to the remains of dead trees. What is observed fits neatly into the creation paradigm.
United States Geological Survey research hydrologist Jon Major has published several reviews in remembrance of the radical eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington State. He described rapid recolonization of the utterly devastated landscape.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Biological Bounceback at Mount St. Helens".

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

Friday, September 4, 2020

Apemen Mythology and Darwin

When we hear about apemen in Western countries, our thoughts probably first turn to the speculations of Charles Darwin. We know that Darwin did not invent evolution because it was an ancient pagan religion. The concept of apemen, cat-people, and others also predates Darwin.

The idea of apemen actually predates Darwin. Inaccurate descriptions of orangutans and such were added to mythologies, which helped Darwin's ideas of evolutionism.
Orangutan can be translated as "man of the forest"
Credit: RGBStock / Adrian van Leen
There have been myths in many places of odd creatures and people attached them with pagan beliefs. Today we have scientific methods of analysis, but when people tried to categorize these creatures, sightings of orangutans, baboons and such were corrupted into other characters. When people began to be scientific about it, they didn't have much to work with. Then Charles Darwin was influence by these to deny the Creator's work to plug into his version of evolution. The whole thing was a confused mess.
This paper discusses the presence of belief in ape-men, and ape-women, prior to Darwin. Beliefs regarding various mythological creatures with human-like physical form were present in antiquity, but persisted even into the 18th century, and displayed in drawings of various quality. Lack of knowledge was filled in with speculation from mythology and influenced early science. For instance, poor quality drawings of Egyptian baboons became corrupted and modified in 17th and 18th century images, with their subsequent depiction as loose-living forest-dwelling people, sometimes known as satyrs, orang-outangs, or Homo sylvestris.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Orang-outang or Homo sylvestris: ape-men before Darwin".

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

Thursday, September 3, 2020

Whale Genetics Refutes Phylogeny

When Darwinists tell the tale of whale evolution, people should be able to liken it to a just-so story without much effort. But no, naturalism demands stories that resemble, "Life evolved in the sea, some went on land and evolved further, others went back into the sea and became whales". Because evolution.

The fake science used to support whale evolution continues with the circular reasoning of phylogeny and misuse of genetics. Real science refutes these.
The Whale Beached by Esaias van de Velde, 1617
Since they have no actual science to back up their story, evolutionists began blubbering until they came up with the idea of using phylogenetics. However, we already saw that this is based on personal preferences, omitting important information, and circular reasoning (see "Phylogenetics — Based on Worldviews"). Piling up speculations and fake science has become far too common in evolutionism, but hey, give the people what they want, right?

Although phylogeny is easy to dismantle by knowledgeable people, Darwin's cheerleaders attempted to use genetics. It's interesting. Some genes are not the same in genes and cows. Because evolution. Papers were written to solve problems, and may seem to do so on the surface, but still left out information, indicating ignorance of whale physiology. All this wasted effort to deny the truth that whales were created to be whales despite Darwinism.
Whales are claimed to have proved one of the most popular so-called evidences for evolution. Whale evolution is presented in most biology textbooks as absolute fact, often with inaccurate depictions of the supposed transitional forms.
In the secular worldview, the currently accepted whale evolution model is that the hippopotamus is the closest living relatives of whales. But supposed “early” whales have little in common with hippos or living whales.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Whale Genetics and Evolution". You may also be interested in a previous post, "Telling Evolutionary Whale Tales".

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

Wednesday, September 2, 2020

Hijacking Science, then Lying and Cheating for Darwin

According to the narrative of atheists and evolutionists, God has no place in science. They conveniently suppress the fact that the foundations of modern science have a Christian basis, and an atheistic environment is antagonistic to its development.

The pandemic of lying for Darwin has been growing for decades. Then, atheists and evolutionists presume to determine moral and ethical standards without God based on fatally flawed materialism.

Indeed, the fact that Charles Lyell wanted to set geology free from Moses gives lie to the claim that natural philosophy (the word that was used before science) was always materialistic. We have a trio of articles about how materialists have kidnapped science and tied it up in the root cellar at the Darwin Ranch, then drag it out when they can pretend it supports their worldview. Ironically, science is impossible without God!

Merchants of minerals-to-materialist evolution celebrate people who support and promote their agendas. John Tyndall was an activist that sought to remove science from its true origins, and other sidewinders in the X-Club helped him along the way. Later atheistic philosophers are cheering his efforts and adding their own blatant misrepresentations of Christianity.
British naturalist John Tyndall (1820-1893) actively sought to turn science away from God, and succeeded beyond his dreams.
If you are unfamiliar with John Tyndall, you should learn about him and his influence. This contemporary of Darwin got good press . . . on The Conversation by his biographer, Roland Jackson, who is helping digitize 7,000 personal letters for the Tyndall Correspondence Project. On the project’s “About” page, he is introduced as a co-conspirator of Darwin:
To read the first of our trio, click on "John Tyndall’s Vision of Science Turned it to Atheism". Be sure to come back for the next articles!

It is one thing to disagree about interpretations of evidence, but quite another to have atheopaths say that we are "lying about evolution". To make such a claim, they need to have a consistent moral standard, but atheism is incoherent and lacks the necessary preconditions of human experience. Worse for them, they have a habit of using borrowed capital — that is, they stand on the biblical worldview!

Meanwhile, atheists and evolutionists are twisting concepts to fit their own worldview, saying wrong is right, and that it is morally acceptable to lie to children in order to hornswoggle them into accepting evolutionism. The secular science industry is unrestrained in evosplaining observed evidence by injecting evolution stories into papers to obtain the True Science® imprimatur. They actually deny real science in favor of their naturalistic narrative. COVID-19 is nothing compared to the Lying for Darwin Infection.
One symptom of the infection in humans is hot air that creates fogma in the halls of academia and press offices. The scientists are so used to it, they assume it is normal. Today’s scientists have all but forgotten the fresh air of truth and morality. Truth to them is whatever keeps the pandemic going. Morality to them is censoring any attempt to stop it.
The attractive thing about Darwin’s god is that there is no hell for liars. And what lie is more atrocious than the story that nothing times nobody equals everything? . . . Today, we see them building on that lie with additional lies about the origin of complex life. This one from Lancaster University is a whopper.
To read the full article and see some examples, click on "Lying for Darwin: A Global Pandemic". We have one more important item to discuss, so be sure to come back for the final part.

Naturalists use reductionism to decide morality, but it is based on their worldview that opposes the Creator; the only sin in secular minds has nothing to do with God. Indeed, these scientists are aloof from any kind of ethics other than what they have decided for themselves and their utilitarian beliefs. They need to repent. It is extremely unfortunate that atheists and others accept the pronouncements of their priestly scientists without critical thinking or reasonable skepticism.
If people are Pavlovian subjects, why are scientists exempt?
Evolutionists, including the theistic kind, are materialists in the sense that anything beyond matter doesn’t matter. If there is a God, he had no involvement whatsoever in the natural outworking of matter in motion. Thoughts of a Creator, or of intelligent design at all, play no role in scientific explanations; everything is reducible to physics. How thoughts about physics escape the reductionism of modern materialists is one of life’s mysteries. Somehow they just know that matter is all there is.
The materialist worldview has detrimental effects on society because it undermines any basis for morality. If neural circuits in a brain predominate to produce cheating behavior in a human, or a monkey, so be it. Whatever is, is right. Who can preach to him that he should stop cheating? “Thou shalt not!” is excluded in Darwin’s world. The behaviors of cheaters and cooperators reduce to exercises of power.
To read the rest of this extremely informative article, click on "To Evolutionists, Cheating Is Natural".

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

Tuesday, September 1, 2020

Comets, the Young Solar System, and Secular Rescuing Devices

Whenever there is a noticeable celestial object in the night sky, people tend to make efforts to see it. As well they should. Annual meteor showers are interesting. Comets, however, garner more attention, possibly because they are less common. Have you ever stopped to consider them?

Consider comets. These fascinating objects provide mute testimony to recent creation, despite poor excuses from secularists to explain away the problems,
Credit: Unsplash / Tim Dennert
F'rinstance, comet C/2020 F3 (NEOWISE) was discovered, and was eventually close enough to be seen with the naked eye. (By the way, it's thought that those annual meteor showers are from the debris of comets.) Comets can only last with an upper limit of 10,000 years, which is far too small to fit old solar system narratives. Various rescuing devices are concocted using the principle of Making Things Up™ and then passed along as science.

So, they have to be replenished. One of the alleged sources for comets is the Oort cloud, which has no observational evidence and the concept is self-refuting; it can't work. (One jasper with Atheism Spectrum Disorder declared that Voyager 1 actually passed through it, but that is utterly false.) Other areas of replenishment are out past the orbit of Neptune, but those fail as well. Gotta keep that cosmic evolution story propped up, you know. The truth is that the universe is not anywhere near as old as secularists wish, and comets give mute but often bright testimony to this.
Although comets are known for their long, beautiful tails, a tail isn’t necessary for an object to be a comet. Comets are defined as solar system bodies that have at least a temporary visible atmosphere, or coma, even if a tail isn’t present.
Comets are comparatively small, with typical diameters of about 10 kilometers (six miles). They are composed of a mixture of rock, dust, and frozen ices, including water ice, and have been described as “dirty snowballs.
To read the full article, click on "Comets: Signs of Youth".

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

Monday, August 31, 2020

When Genesis Flood Models Collide

As stated before, scientists who ride for the biblical creation brand are like their counterparts in the secular science industry. Not only are they educated and credentialed, but are not always in lockstep when it comes to scientific models.

Once again we see that creation scientists, like their secular counterparts, have models to support their views. Linked here is a Feedback article on the Hydroplate Theory of the Genesis Flood.
Heavily modified from an image at Pixabay by Jeff Jacobs
One major difference between the camps is that biblical creationists believe that the Bible is true, but models will come and go. Secularists have been dishonest for money and prestige. There are a few scientific models for the Genesis Flood among creationists, but the two best known are Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and the Hydroplate Theory.

Some people passionately promote the Hydroplate Theory and consider it superior to Catastrophic Plate Tectonics. However, most creationists find serious flaws with it. If it is superior, then it would be the best of the worst — sort of like the nebular hypothesis for the formation of the solar system is bad, but the others fail even more. Most creationists believe the Hydroplate Theory fails in the light of scientific evidence.

One supporter of the Hydroplate Theory rather condescendingly wrote to Creation Ministries International and told them that if they gave it more support, he would donate to them. CMI wasn't having it.
Charles L. from the United States writes:
I’ve read Oard’s critique of the Hydroplate Theory and found that it did have some good points but it is the strongest theory there is. All others are ridiculous.
I was considering donating to you and will in the future if you guys give the Theory more analysis in regards to finding your own answers you have proposed and accept the theory as the leading theory, which it is.
CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:
To read the response and learn some Flood geology, click on "Hydroplate theory: the strongest theory?"

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