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

Thursday, November 12, 2020

That Hot Exo-Neptune Should Not Exist

Once upon a time, it was dark and there was nothing. Suddenly, nothing exploded for no reason. This gave us an orderly universe with predictable planetary patterns, and eventually atoms-to-astrophysicist evolution. But the naturalistic origins myth is continually being shown to be just a fairy tale.

An exoplanet has been described as a hot Neptune that should not exist. Secular scientists cannot explain it, but biblical creation can do so.
Made with Paint dot Net, then at PhotoFunia

Materialistic cosmologies expect order and predictability from the Big Bang, but our own solar system belies those notions. We have planets and several moons out yonder that rotate in a manner that doesn't fit secular models. For that matter, secularists have trouble explaining why the composition of the inner planets is rocky, outer planets are gas giants, then rocky stuff out even further. Then there's that gigantic wall of superhot plasma that surrounds our solar system like a bubble. 

No, don't let secularists buffalo you when they pretend they have everything figured out.

"So what about that hot Neptune thing, Cowboy Bob?"

Good timing, that was next. There are, in astronomical terms, bunches of exoplanets. That is, planets beyond our solar system. Secular astronomers are constantly being surprised because exoplanets are recalcitrant to their expectations and predictions. They've found gaseous "hot Jupiters" orbiting close to stars and got used to that idea. They have atmospheres and are usually expected to hang onto them.

A "hot Neptune" should not exist at all, but they found one and it has an atmosphere. That should not exist, either. It should not be there after billions of Darwin years, but there it is. Mayhaps they should cowboy up and discard their presuppositions of cosmic evolution and deep time? After all, evidence persistently points to recent creation.

An exoplanet 260 light-years away is being described as the first of its kind ever detected.1,2 This exoplanet, catalogued as LTT 9779b, is called an “ultra-hot Neptune” because of its large size and nearness to its host star. This exoplanet is so close that its surface temperature is over 1700° Celsius, and the length of its year—the time it takes to orbit its star—is just 19 hours! Astronomers think the planet lacks a solid surface and that its atmosphere is substantial, about 9% of the planet’s total mass. But the atmosphere is so hot that, by secular reckoning, it should not exist:

The system itself is around half the age of the Sun, at 2 billion years old, and given the intense radiation, a Neptune-like planet would not be expected to keep its atmosphere for so long, providing an intriguing puzzle to solve; how such an improbable system came to be.

To read the rest, set course for "Hot Neptune Atmosphere 'Shouldn't Exist'". Another short article of interest is "This Exoplanet Shouldn’t Exist".

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

Wednesday, November 11, 2020

Worldviews and the Bad Legal Judgment at Dover

The Kitzmiller v. Dover legal decision was one of the worst miscarriages of justice and violations of American freedom of our time. Atheists and other anti-creationists have celebrated it for years — which is both ironic and instructive for us.

Anti-creationists are still thrilled about the Kitzmiller v Dover legal ruling. It was fraught with poor logic and biases that were contradictory.

The ironic part is people having Atheism Spectrum Disorder cheer the ruling, saying that the judge was wise in declaring Intelligent Design a religious movement (and other words to that effect). Darwin's handmaidens will also tell creationists that we have no business discussing flaws in evolution if we are not scientists — but Judge Jones was not a scientist. Two standards, no waiting.

Let me make this worse for them: they have no business promoting evolution because they are not scientists themselves, nor can they criticize the Bible because they are not theologians. They get shot with their own guns that way.

This decision was not binding outside of the school district, but anti-creationists have acted like it was a Supreme Court ruling. They sure do put a great deal of work to deny the Creator his due.

Some vitally important things come out when reviewing this historical event that apply to discussions of origins. One is something that we've dealt with several times, and that is worldviews. Everyone has one, and our worldviews have many presuppositions. This judge had his worldview, and was biased toward those fond of atheistic naturalism.

Another important point is something else that we've examined, and that's the importance of definitions. As you should know by now, evolution has several definitions, so evolutionists can be sneaky in conflating words in order to "prove" fish-to-fool evolution. Atheists have conveniently redefined atheism from the long-accepted definition of "believes that there is no God or gods" into the nonsensical "lack of belief". They also deny that atheism is a religion, but that is completely false. Redefining words and denying the facts do not change reality.

A key element in the Dover case is how the Intelligent Design movement was mischaracterized as a kind of creationist covert operation. The ID people detest being called creationists, as that group is under a wide umbrella that includes biblical creationists, old-earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, agnostics, and people from other religions. 

Judge Jones knew that creation is a foundation for Christianity, but neglected that evolution is foundational to the religion of atheism. To reject the falsely-redefined ID material because it is allegedly a part of the Christian religion, thereby violating the establishment clause in the Constitution, was actually favoring the religions of atheism and it's ugly kid brother, Secular Humanism. The false belief of Jones was a double standard.

He also presumed to know what was going on in a typical student's mind, but refused testimony from students.

Now that I've made my points, I want to turn you over to an article on this case that was written by a lawyer. It's extremely interesting and should be helpful when you encounter misotheists and other evolutionists who want to act like this case was somehow conclusive and not just subjective opinions.

On November 19, 2004, the Dover County Area School Board in Pennsylvania passed a resolution requiring ninth grade biology teachers to read their students a disclaimer concomitant with their mandatory teaching of evolution.The short disclaimer made three basic assertions: (1) that evolution was a theory with gaps in the evidence and, like all theories, was subject to continuous testing as new evidence was discovered; (2) that the idea of Intelligent Design (ID) provided an alternative explanation for the origin of life; and (3) that, with respect to any theory, the students should keep an open mind. No questions were permitted, nor any further discussion of ID allowed.  In a decision issued December 20, 2005, and after a six-week non-jury trial, United States District Court Judge John E. Jones, III, declared the resolution unconstitutional, opining that it violated the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, et al., 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005). Thereafter, eight of nine school board members lost reelection, and the school board president announced that the board would not appeal. I believe Judge Jones’ ruling to be among the worst decisions never appealed.

I really hope you'll read the rest of this. It's a mite long, maybe half an hour's reading time. Kindly go to "The Worst Decision Never Appealed".

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

Tuesday, November 10, 2020

Depictions of Dinosaurs with Humans

Although the dirt-to-dinosaur evolution narrative precludes humans coexisting with them, there are historical evidences. We have examined some of these before, such as "St. David's Dragon", the dinosaur on Bishop Bell's tomb, and others. There are others to consider.

Evolutionists are generally outraged when creationists present evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. There is abundant evidence.
Spinophorosaurus image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Nobu Tamura (CC BY 3.0)
Because of naturalistic evolutionary and deep-time presuppositions, Darwin's disciples evosplain away written historical accounts and biblical depictions of dinosaurs. If you strip away the storyline and assumptions to look at the evidence, it is not so easy to dismiss the fact that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

In addition to arguing from presuppositions, materialists argue from silence and ignore other possibilities. Is that a carving of a stegosaurus? No, because of this and that. Other possibilities neglected would be that it's a different dinosaur altogether, the carver was unskilled or made some adjustments, male and female dinosaurs are different (note that paleontologists pared back the numbers of dinosaurs listed because they were doing extra counting for adults, juveniles, male, female — all the same species) and so on.

The article linked below discusses different kinds of evidences: most reliable, need more verification, should be avoided, and to definitely be avoided. There are disagreements among creationists about some of these questionable entries (such as the Ica stones or a certain pterosaur pictograph), and I agree that we should present the strongest evidence in discussions and so forth. However, if we do present some of the more questionable areas, we should use caution.

One area on the list to avoid was the Paluxy river tracks. This area is famous for dinosaur footprints, but there is contention that there were also human footprints there. For various reasons, creationists decided that the evidence was not conclusive and shelved the idea. This is an area of dispute that some folks couldn't put out to pasture.

Bob Helfinstine and Jerry Roth of the Twin Cities Creation Science Association did research and wrote a book in 1994, Texas Tracks and Artifacts, which was revised in 2007 with additional information. Ian Juby also believes that the evidence should be reexamined and reconsidered (including the Delk track). You can see his interview with Dr. Carl Baugh who also conducted research on the Paluxy tracks here.

What all this means is that there are serious creationists who debate some of the issues while keeping the authority of the Bible in focus. It also means that we do have strong evidence for the concurrent existence of humans and dinosaurs. We we can lead with the best points in such discussions, and use qualifiers when mentioning areas that need research. Definite bad stuff should be left alone.
Biblical creationists have often pointed to some ancient accounts or legends of battles with dragons and dragon legends as based on real events. But dragon legends are not the only evidence of mankind living with dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and marine reptiles. There are often pictorial representations of these creatures on cave or canyon walls, carved into brass or clay, and drawn onto pottery.

Scripture itself testifies that all land animals were created on the same day as mankind, with sea and winged creatures created just one day prior (Genesis 1:20-28). Therefore mankind did live with dinosaurs, marine reptiles, and pterosaurs before the flood. Scripture also states that Noah was commanded to bring two or seven (or seven pairs) of all terrestrial air-breathing animal kinds and the seven (or seven pairs) of all winged creature kinds aboard the Ark (Genesis 6:19–20, 7:2–3). Therefore we definitely know that mankind lived with dinosaurs and pterosaurs after the flood, and with the biblical mention of Leviathan in Scripture, at least some types of marine reptiles also survived the flood. Outside of these sure testimonies of Scripture, some of the best and most-reliable evidences for man living with these creatures will be discussed and pictured in this article. . . 

To read the rest, click on "Humans with Dinosaurs Evidence (Depictions and documentation of dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and large marine reptiles living with man).

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

Monday, November 9, 2020

Geology and the Doomed Cities of the Plain

A post was made about how archaeology supports the Bible, and an atheopath said that it never has, never will. To be blunt, that is stupid as well as bigoted. Geology also supports the Bible. In fact, the cities of the plain in Genesis 19:29 KJV that God destroyed have apparently been located.

Lot and his family leaving Sodom, Peter Paul Rubens, 1625
Sodom was a big place, and it had some smaller states around it. In fact, it was a nice place, and that's why Lot chose to live there when he parted from Abram (Genesis 13:8-12). When Lot was warned and forced to evacuate the exceptionally sinful area, they fled to Zoar

The Bible tells us about fire and brimstone that destroyed the area, and geological evidence has been found to support this. By the way, when Lot's wife looked back and turned into a pillar of salt, it wasn't just a quick glance over the shoulder. It would have been a case of lagging and longing. Remember, the angels compelled Lot and the others to leave.
To this day nothing grows there because of the salt.

But is it really possible that salt can shoot up from the ground? Is the biblical account geologically sound? Absolutely. Geologically we know there is plenty of salt there. Salt is often found in underground salt domes, especially where there are fault lines.

To read the whole article, see "Geology and the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah". For the following video, you can see the lyrics on the YouTube post.

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

Saturday, November 7, 2020

Movie Review: Dismantled

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

During October 9-11, a free online viewing of Dismantled: A Scientific Deconstruction of the Theory of Evolution was announced. It was publicized here as a component in an article to discuss false accusations by atheists of Christian profiteering. We will focus on the movie itself now.

The movie Dismantled covers several areas of science showing how evolution is impossible. Science supports recent creation and the biblical timeline.
Image taken from a screenshot of the trailer by Back2Genesis
Dismantled raises the question early on, a question that people have wondered for millennia: Where did everything come from? There have been many speculations throughout time, but the main considerations can be narrowed down. One is that life, the universe, and everything are the result of blind natural processes and chance; we are lucky accidents. The other idea is that the book of Genesis is real history. Rational people want evidence to support ideas.

The movie makes the case for the differences between operational and historical science. Some people get on the prod about this (including a scientist who is a Christian I could mention) but the distinction is quite valid. Operational science is repeatable, testable, and so forth. Nobody can repeat or test the origin of the universe or the evolution of all things from a single-celled organism, for instance. Yes, scientists use methods in the present to attempt to see if past events can be explained (forensic scientists do this in crime labs). Cosmic, biological, and other types of particles-to-paleontologist evolution are history, old son.

Note than nobody, scientist or layperson, is a blank slate. We all have presuppositions from which we interpret evidence and draw conclusions. Both biblical creationists and secular scientists work from them and see if their conclusions are warranted. (Unfortunately, we have seen many times that the narrative of naturalism trumps evidence for secularists.) After all, no scientist goes around gathering evidence and building from that alone.

I took several pages of notes, but those need to be trimmed down. Otherwise, this review will become cumbersome and I don't think I'll be doing justice to Dismantled. Mind if I give you highlights drawn from the seven scientists involved?

I'll slip in a few of my own thoughts as well.

This movie used information from several areas of science. These included biology, genetics, and paleoanthropology. One major fallacy that internet evolutionists and textbook writers persist in using is unfounded extrapolation. Essentially, a little evolution leads to a lot of evolution. They conflate microevolution with macroevolution. There are biological limits. Many biblical creationists avoid these terms, preferring instead to distinguish between variations and full-on universal common descent evolution.

The nature of mutations is discussed and how the overwhelming majority of them are harmful — or at least neutral. ("Beneficial mutations" are often based on opinion, and some alleged benefits are harmful to other areas in the genome of an organism.) Indeed, the assumed common ancestor of all living things needed to have beneficial mutations on an incredible scale over an impossible amount of time. The evolutionary tree of life is increasingly shown to be untenable. 

In paleoanthropology, alleged transitional forms between humans and apes are called hominins. Most are evolutionary dead ends, and much is made of little because things like Lucy, H. habilis, and others were assembled from bits and pieces scattered over wide area, and other specimens submitted for approval are unconvincing — and based on the faulty presuppositions that the other versions actually existed.

Neanderthal man was discussed and the concept itself evolved over the years. Originally, he was a transitional form that was brutish, but now he is acknowledged to have been fully human.

Appeals to geology and radiometric dating are of no help to evolution and deep time.

The fake science about human-chimp DNA similarities are one of the first subjects examined in the genetics section of Dismantled. The original genome sequencing was risibly bad science at the beginning. Today, evidence shows that the similarities are actually closer to eighty-five percent between humans and chimpanzees. That is far too low for evolutionary purposes. 

We also learn that Mitochondrial Eve (not exactly the real Eve of the Bible) studies show one ancestor for humanity on the female side. Y-Chromosome Adam is not helping matters for evolutionists. Interestingly, the secular Adam and Eve are within the same time span.

Genetic clocks are winding down, and genetic entropy rates show that if Earth was as old as claimed, and that if  evolution happened the way naturalists maintain, humans should have gone extinct long ago. The biblical model postulates that Adam, Eve, other created kinds were genetically rich and capable of producing variations and adaptations. The biblical model is supported by honest scientific research. That is, when assumptions and doubletalk are stripped away and the evidence is honestly examined.

Racism is common when different ethnic groups encounter one another. Darwin (whose only earned degree was in theology) ignored the biblical statement in Acts 17:26 that indicates only one race. Naturally, his own white European group was the most highly evolved. While the word race is used as a convenience, the scientific fact fits the Bible: humans are ninety-nine percent genetically identical, and there are no races.

I reckon these points have given you some things to consider, and I hope they prompt you to get the disc. No, I am not being paid or rewarded for writing this; Back2Genesis does not even know I exist (until I send them a link to this review). By the way, for those who want references for points made in the movie as well as additional resources, those are found at the same place that you can order the movie, Dismantled Evolution.

They may have a follow-up movie, and I'm looking forward to that.

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

Friday, November 6, 2020

The Birth and Death of Stars

Stars come and go, or so they say. The most spectacular exit from the cosmic stage is by a supernova. Astronomers have several ideas on how stars make their exits, but nobody has actually seen a star form.

Galaxy NGC 2525 with supernova SN 2018gv - NASA, frame effect by Big Huge Labs
Galaxy NGC 2525 with supernova SN 2018gv
Credits: NASA, ESA, and A. Riess (STScI/JHU)
and the SH0ES team;
acknowledgment: M. Zamani (ESA/Hubble)
Modified at Big Huge Labs (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by anyone)
Sure, secular astronomers and cosmologists make claims that there are "stellar nurseries" and such, but those are based on presuppositions of cosmic evolution. Biblical creationists know that God created the stars during Creation Week, and some creationists think that it may be possible for a star to form because God also created the laws of physics, elements, and all, but that would not really be a big deal. There is no empirical evidence of stars forming. Because creation is running down, we have seen and will continue to see stars expiring.
Well, there goes another star, disappearing into the night as if it had never existed. For an entire year, Hubble scientists used the space telescope to record snapshots of SN 2018gv—a supernova (SN) or exploded star. Experts then edited those images into a NASA video showing the fast fading of the supernova. It’s hard not to wonder, given the astronomical number of stars in the night sky, why we witness more stars fade than form. For that matter, has anyone ever seen a star form?

Koichi Itagaki, an amateur astronomer, first found the exploding star SN 2018gv as a super-bright spot amid spiral galaxy NGC 2525 in January 2018.1 Professional astronomers then trained the Hubble Space Telescope onto the fast fading object. Reporting on the new video, NASA news described the fading process:

If you've taken a shine to this article, the rest can be found at "A Supernova and the Scripture".

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

Thursday, November 5, 2020

Fun with Dragon Teeth by Michael Crichton

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Quite a spell back, I picked up a book called Dragon Teeth because I had a hankering for a Western story. As I commenced to reading it, I realized that this story touches on some areas of my interest and study: dinosaur fossils.

Original image from Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures
Dr. Crichton (he obtained his MD but turned to writing instead) had several manuscripts stored and in process when he died in 2008. Some of them were completed by others, sometimes drawing from his notes. Dragon Teeth written in 1974, but was discovered much later, retouched, and subsequently published in 2017.

Dragon Teeth is about the early years of American paleontology. No dinosaurs running rampant biting heads off. Only fossils. It is a historical novel based on actual events in what is known as the Bone Wars. (It is interesting that Crichton used the word dragon several times in the text. Biblical creationists believe there is a great deal of historical evidence that dinosaurs existed with humans. No, I am not suggesting that Michael was a creationist!) The protagonist, William Johnson, met the two bone war rivals Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope. They were real, but Johnson was not.

There are many novels based on historical events, and some authors attempt to be reasonably accurate with the actual people and settings. Dragon Teeth has references if y'all get the notion to read actual history (some source material is in the public domain, you can start searching at the Internet Archive if you takes such a notion). Similarly, the movie Alleged was about the Scopes trial but had fictional people. It was far more historically accurate than the detestable Inherit the Wind — which some people consider a documentary! Many books and movies have fictional elements but are otherwise accurate.

I said earlier that I obtained this book because I wanted a Western story. As it progressed, the Indian Wars, Wyatt and Morgan Earp, the town of Deadwood, and more were in the story. It definitely had some excitement in addition to the history. If you want a diversion and a bit of learning, Dragon Teeth may very well be for you. The profanity is limited, and sexual situations are implied — they are worse on network television. Also, if you want to see a presentation on the Marsh and Cope rivalry as well as their actual discoveries, see "The Dinosaur Bone Wars".

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