Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman

Welcome to the home of "The Question Evolution Project". There is no truth in goo-to-you evolution. We are bombarded with dubious evidence for the "fact" of evolution. Contrary evidence is suppressed. That is against the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Using an unregistered assault keyboard, articles and links to creation science resources are presented here so people can learn something besides materialistic propaganda. בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.

Friday, May 22, 2015

Outer-Planet Moons Give Further Signs of a Young Solar System

Darwinian evolution is a belief system about the distant past that cannot be observed or duplicated. It is philosophical and religious in nature, an effort to account for life, the universe, and everything without God the Creator. For Darwinism to work, huge amounts of time are needed. To keep this view, secularists ignore or excuse away evidence for a young earth — and a young solar system.


The moons Enceladus and Europa are dashing hopes of supporting an old solar system and finding signs of life out there. This has repercussions on the "deep time" required for Darwinian evolution.
Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/SSI/PSI
There have been several indications of youth from the solar system, especially the moons. But scientists keep seeing potential for life to evolve out there, and are repeatedly surprised by geologic activity on moons. Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, was erupting jets into space, which should not be possible in an ancient solar system. Now it looks like the hot water eruptions are more like curtains rather than jets, which would cause even more problems for deep time proponents. Also, Jupiter's moon Europa was considered a hopeful place to find some kind of life because of a water plume. Ain't happening, old son.
The geysers of Saturn’s little moon are like sheets instead of jets, spelling trouble for theories of its ancient age and possible life.

Enceladus has been in the news lately. Astrobiology Magazine (a NASA public outlet) is one of several news sources that reported on a new interpretation of the little moon’s south-pole geysers. New analysis of the plumes suggests that the eruptions come out in sheets or curtains, rather than individual jets. “Many features that appear to be individual jets of material erupting along the length of prominent fractures in the moon’s south polar region might be phantoms created by an optical illusion, according to the new study.”

Although the paper in Nature does not explicitly say so, the appearance of “broad vertical curtains extending over many kilometres of fracture” would seem to imply a greater volume of expelled material than previously thought. If so, this would require accounting for the mass loss over time.
To read about Enceladus, Europa, and a small bit about the asteroid Ceres, click on "It’s Curtains for Enceladus". Further, take a look at "Saturn's Enceladus Looks Younger than Ever".
  

Thursday, May 21, 2015

DNA in 3-D

New research on transcription factors and DNA binding utilized a three-dimensional model, and gave better results than previous studies. Amazingly, no foolish references to evolution were invoked.

Proponents of Darwinian evolution are known to claim that amazingly complex DNA is friendly to their belief system. That's the opposite of the truth. We had the "junk DNA" fiasco, where evolutionist studied some of the genome, didn't understand a lot of it, had that relegated to "junk" status, and were embarrassed when proper research refuted the "junk" claims. The fact is, a great deal of DNA is not yet understood.


Scientists have attempted to determine how transcription factors bind to the genome so they can switch genes on and off. This has had poor results. However, it looks like they've saddled up the right horse this time, with new research and a three-dimensional model. And this time, scientists were more interested in doing science instead of being Darwin's Cheerleaders — no silly claims about evolution. Maybe because the research itself was very complex, and gave them a bit of proper perspective about the design skills of the Creator.

Scientists have long been baffled as to what actually tells proteins called transcription factors (TFs) where to bind in the genome to turn genes off and on. However, new research incorporating the three-dimensional shape of DNA has revealed an incredibly complex system of interacting biochemical codes.

We know that genes are turned off and on across the genome by intricate networks of transcription factors which bind to DNA in strategic places in and around the genes. But discovering what tells the transcription factors where to bind has proven extremely difficult.
You don't need 3-D glasses to read the rest. Just click on "Three-Dimensional DNA Code Defies Evolution".

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Origin of Life Science Fiction Without the Science

Some owlhoots claim that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. If they had knowledge to go with their enthusiasm, they would know that the origin of life is foundational to evolution. Attempting to distance themselves from the insurmountable problems of abiogenesis (including the law of biogenesis that indicates life only comes from life, and irreducible complexity) is disingenuous at best.


Evolutionists know that the origin of life is foundational to their belief system. New approaches to old ideas about abiogenesis remain free of facts.
Adapted from "swampyWater3" by mconnors / morgueFile
The failed Miller-Urey experiment is being zombified with some fanciful fact-free new ideas, and I reckon that nearly anyone can see that the new presentations are chock full of assumptions. Some of these involve the conditions of their fantasy primordial Earth, the world being ancient in the first place (Papa Darwin's scum-to-sculptor ideas require a lot of time), disagreement within the ranks of other Darwinians, nothing can be plausibly demonstrated, and more. You'd think they'd think about evidence indicating the Creator, but their religion forbids that. They have mighty big imaginations, though.
Riddle-solving researchers from the University of Cambridge “may have solved origin-of-life conundrum,” announced a recent headline. They propose a scenario by which life’s essential chemical building blocks could have been produced simultaneously, providing the raw material for life to evolve. John Sutherland’s Cambridge team resolved this foundational chemical conundrum using simple molecules they contend would have been deposited on the early Earth by heavy meteorite bombardment.

“The key thing about the network is that although it looks complicated, it’s all the same reactions,” Sutherland explains. From hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen sulfide, phosphates, and of course water, the organic building blocks of many important biological molecules can form. The same sorts of reactions, using various metallic catalysts, can produce 12 amino acids, nucleotides, and a lipid precursor. Thus, using the sun’s energy, it is possible to generate many of the simple molecules from which the far more complex biochemical molecules comprising living cells are built. That would “only” leave the problem of getting those molecules to assemble and organize themselves into living cells, but more on that later.
You can read the entire article by clicking on "Attempts to Trace Life Back to Chemical Origins Still Maps the Willful Ignorance of the Hunters".

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Radiometric Dating, The Genesis Flood, and the Age of the Earth

Secular geologists (and some Bible compromisers) accept fundamentally flawed radiometric dating methods to determine the age of the earth. Creationist scientists show that the Genesis Flood ruins uniformitarianism.

Secular geologists (and some Bible compromisers) accept fundamentally flawed radiometric dating methods to determine the age of the earth. These are based on uniformitarian presuppositions, which are in turn based on several assumptions, including a constant decay rate. In addition, they not only give wildly varying results, but outrageously bad old-earth ages for young rocks of known ages! This is science? Not hardly. But they cling to this because they are locked into naturalism, and cannot allow a divine foot in the door, even though their methods are unreliable. Evolution requires a great deal of time, and uniformitarianism is essential to that.

Creationist scientists have demonstrated that the rate of decay is not constant, which ruins one of the primary assumptions of uniformitarian dating methods. The biggest causes of change was the Genesis Flood. In addition, there are many other indicators of a young earth that are conveniently ignored by old earth geologists and evolutionists.
In an address in Adelaide, Australia, Dr Justin Payne, a lecturer within the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide, set out to ‘disprove’ objections to long-age radiometric dating including material from CMI. His talk was to Reasonable Faith Adelaide, a group that describes themselves as fundamentally a Christian association and that invites and welcomes non-Christians, skeptics, and atheists to their gatherings. At the request of one of those who attended Dr Payne’s address, physicist Dr Jim Mason, from Canada, reviewed the video plus all the material from the meeting and prepared the following detailed response.
To read the rest of this detailed and highly informative article, click on "Response to Geochronology: Understanding the Uncertainties, a presentation by Dr Justin Payne". For those who want additional information, links to the seven-part series "Radiometric Dating and Reason" are here.
    

Monday, May 18, 2015

Why Do Evolutionists Suppress Critical Thinking?

It is easy to see that evolutionary education is misnamed. It is not education, it is indoctrination, and if evidence for Intelligent Design or creation science was presented, it might "confuse" students, and they would dare to doubt Darwin. The vigilant Evo Sith are on patrol to silence opposition and protect "science" by disingenuously equivocating "evolution" with "science". These sidewinders must be an embarrassment to evolutionists who actually think, and want to examine the evidence instead of being told what creationists say.

If people learned critical thinking and how to spot logical fallacies, they would not be so easily duped by profound proclamations by evolutionists. Some claims are examined after the link.

Some of us reckon that if people were allowed to see evolutionary thinking with it's flaws and with evidence that supports creation, there would be far fewer Darwinists. Creationists want people to learn critical thinking, and some of us emphasize learning logical fallacies so people are not deceived by profound pronouncements by scientists and the science press.
Reporters often credit Darwinian evolution for explaining mysteries in biology. Let’s play teacher and grade their papers. Here’s what we’re looking for.

A good scientific explanation:
Hold on, Hoss! To get yourself educated, you need to follow the trail over to "Grading Evolutionary Success Claims".
   

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Sea Sponge Microfossil Supports Genesis Flood, Not Evolution

The Cambrian Explosion (where complex fossils suddenly appear) has been a problem for Darwinian evolutionists for a mighty long time. They come up with some strange ways to explain it, but those aren't satisfying. They still cling to their faith despite observed evidence, though. To make the Cambrian Explosion more baffling for evolutionists, the deeper Precambrian area is sparse with fossils, and creationists are excited about research into a seventh megasequence. Using advanced technology, paleontologists are soaking up the excitement about a tiny sea sponge fossil.

Evolutionary paleontologists are soaking up the excitement over a Precambrian sea sponge fossil. Bad news for them, the sequence of events is based on evolutionary presuppositions and circular reasoning. Worse for them, the scenario supports Genesis Flood models of biblical creationists.
Sponges and coral / NOAA
Now the sponge (the sea sponge that is, not my weird neighbor) is back in the running as the oldest human evolutionary ancestor. Yes, they really think that. Their excitement is based on circular reasoning and presuppositions about the age of the rocks and their evolutionary sequence paradigms. The sponge itself? Pretty much the same anatomy as modern sponges. No evolution here, folks.

To make matters worse yet for evolutionists, creationist geologists show how the rock layers and other evidence support the Genesis Flood.
A “nearly pristine” Precambrian sponge fossil—the size of a tiny bead—has been recovered from China’s Doushantuo Formation. About a millimeter across, Eocyathispongia qiania is not just a flattened trace or fragment but is preserved in three dimensions, essentially frozen in time.

The fossil came from the uppermost layer of this Precambrian rock unit, supposedly deposited 600 million years ago during the Ediacaran Period. With its exquisite details preserved by phosphorus-rich sediment, modern imaging technology reveals hundreds of thousands of cells in the fossil and a very modern-looking sponge anatomy.
You can squeeze out the rest of the article by clicking on "'600 Million-Year-Old' Sponge Said To Show When Multicellular Animals Evolved".
  

Friday, May 15, 2015

Dark Matter Doesn't Really

If I was involved in a longhorn cattle drive back in the old days (say about 1870), we'd get 2,000 or more head of cattle to Kansas. Let's go with Abilene. We reach the destination and are offered $4.00 per hundredweight. I don't cotton to that price, so I check around a few more places. Yep, that's what others are offering. What if I decided that the price is the same everywhere? I might be correct about the rate in that part of Abilene, but could be missing out on another dollar per hundredweight elsewhere. Or maybe even much less. You can only apply your observations just so far.


Hubble Finds [alleged] Dark Matter Ring in Galaxy Cluster. Despite claims that dark matter has been "found" in the universe, there is actually no direct observational evidence. In fact, dark matter is a conjecture based entirely on bad logic and naturalistic assumptions.
Supposed dark matter ring in galaxy cluster Cl 0024+17
Source: Hubblesite.org
Evolutionists, whether Darwinian, cosmological, or other, tend to make numerous logical fallacies. This includes extrapolating from a limited amount of observed data and assuming that the observations extend further. "Dark matter" (and it's relative, "dark energy") supposedly make up most of the universe —

"Isn't 'Dark Matter' a 1974 song by Cher?"

Nope. That's "Dark Lady", a song about adultery and fortune telling. Stay far away from both of those, old son (Prov. 6:32, Deut. 18:10).

Where was I? Oh yes. Dark matter is something you can't see it, touch it, or anything else, but it's assumed to be there. The assumption comes from atheistic naturalism: the Big Bang, an ancient universe, no Creator (the universe created itself), and so on. What are claimed to be empirical observations are actually based on assumptions, circular reasoning, and affirming the consequent. (For an excellent article on logic and the Christian, see "Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation".) It's interesting that one of the first to conjure up dark matter was Jan Oort, who also gave us the entirely imaginary "Oort cloud", but I reckon we don't need to go there now, except to say that dark matter and the Oort cloud are both rescuing devices to avoid evidence for a young universe.
Why is dark matter assumed to exist in the cosmos? From reading news headlines you would think it has been clearly identified and that we now know so much about this once elusive stuff. It has been sought in many different laboratory experiments for more than four decades now, but never found. Why then are astronomers so confident it is out there? Let me try to put this into context and I hope it will become clear.

Two types of physics

In my realm of interest there are really only two types of scientists:


  1. Experimental physicists carrying out experiments in laboratories,
  2. Astrophysicists (or cosmologists) who use the universe as their ‘laboratory’.
Both construct mathematical models to describe their observations. Both test their models against those observations.

However the experimentalists (type 1) can interact with their experiments in a way the astrophysicists cannot. For example, they can send in a light signal and measure the response in the system, i.e. see what comes out. But the astrophysicists (type 2) cannot interact with what they are observing in the universe. The universe is just too large to do that.
To read the rest, click on "Why is Dark Matter everywhere in the cosmos? — A product of the Dark Side". For information on serious problems with the Big Bang, including the "supervoid" difficulty, click on "Supervoid Challenges the Big Bang".
 

Labels