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. — Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Friday, August 28, 2015

Convergent Evolution Through Convergent Illogic

Evolution is given credit for all sorts of changes, big and small, even when it's nowhere near reasonable. It is a puny god of the gaps, hailed with EvolutionDidIt® when there is no reasonable scientific explanation. Its equally inane cousin is what they call "convergent evolution". That is, different critters, plants, whatever, have similar characteristics, even though they are not related to each other. Nice policeman's exit (cop out). 

Evolution of the gaps is bad enough, but "convergent evolution" is a cop-out that avoids the logical conclusion that things were created with similar design features.

I can just imagine how they came up with the concept. Hint: not through logic and science. The logical answer is that things were created with similar design features.

Unfortunately, Darwinistas are "seeing" evolution where it isn't all too frequently. To read some of their proclamations, click on "More Examples of 'Convergent Evolution' Claimed". In a way, they're kind of funny.


Thursday, August 27, 2015

Finke River Troubles Uniformitarian Geology

G'day, Pilgrim. Beginning in the Northern Territory is one of Australia's largest and oldest rivers, the Finke River. But that's a mite misleading, because most of the time, it's not much of a river — except during a flood, then it's impressive. But uniformitarian geologists insist that it carved its way through mountain ranges, and that doesn't make much sense, what with the area being very dry and all.

Australia's Finke River defies old-earth uniformitarian explanations. The Genesis Flood model gives a far more realistic mechanism.
Finke River / Menphrad / Wikimedia Commons
If you plug in the Genesis Flood model, then you'll have a workable (sensible) explanation for the landform without having to explain how the Finke River had enough water to do the job, and with less than "millions of years".
The most remarkable feature here is that the river flows directly through the mountain range, rather than around it as would be expected. This phenomenon provides graphic evidence for the reality of Noah’s Flood, which elegantly explains how it happened. Mainstream geologists, although many of them went to Sunday school and church as kids, do not take the account of Noah’s Flood seriously in their professional work. Consequently they have to come up with fanciful scenarios to explain the impossible: how a mostly-dry, intermittent, river like the Finke could carve its way through high mountain ranges.
. . .

The landscapes of Central Australia are astounding, and provide stunning evidence for the reality of Noah’s Flood. The big issue that throws people off the trail is the dates that are quoted for the different geological events, dates of millions of years. However, not one of the geological features in the area has a label attached stating the date it was formed. All such dates are based on assumptions, by asserting that Noah’s Flood never occurred, and that continent-wide catastrophes never happened. Hence they assume millions of years.
To read the article in context, which also includes some important observations, click on "The Finke River near Hermannsburg, Central Australia, reveals evidence for Noah’s Flood".
   

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Sexual Reproduction and Evolution

Sexual reproduction is an ongoing mystery for evolutionists to explain. They make attempts, but give only speculations, and even leave out important information.

The primary purpose of sexual activity is reproduction, and very few animals seem to actually seek it out as a form of recreation (unlike humans). It is one of the most baffling problems for evolutionists to explain is sexual reproduction. They try to explain its origins, but fail. In some ways, it's inefficient, and asexual reproduction may be better. 

There was a study where evolutionary scientists claimed to have an explanation as to why sex persists, but to keep evolutionary mythology going, these owlhoots conveniently left out a key observation. The fact remains that this method of procreation was designed by the Creator, and did not evolve. I reckon that since materialists do not believe in the afterlife, sexual reproduction is their attempt at having immortality by having young 'uns and passing along their genes.
Biologists from the U.K. conducted a 10-year-long experiment on common flour beetles to help understand why insects keep on using sexual reproduction despite its inefficiencies. Though they interpreted the results as supporting evolution, a key observation on the immutability of reproductive systems calls that into question.

In the experiment, European biologists controlled and monitored different beetle populations.1 For each of several generations, 90 males were selected to compete for 10 females in a "strong sexual selection" population. But in a second "weak sexual selection" population, the ratio was one-to-one. After many years of these two regimes, offspring from each population were selected for inbreeding.
To read more about the study and the answers not given, click on "Why Do Animals Use Sexual Reproduction?"
  

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

DNA is No Friend of Evolution

Every once in a while, Darwin's Drones will make simplistic remarks like, "Evolution is true. DNA proves it!" They are probably fans of Clinton Richard Dawkins, who made similar disingenuous remarks himself. Problem is, that tinhorn knows better.

DNA has an amazingly complex and sophisticated code, which indicates the design of the Creator, and has nothing to do with evolution.
PublicDomainPictures / Pixabay.com
DNA is amazingly complex, its code is very sophisticated. It has several important functions to not only keep living things alive, but to help us reproduce after our kind. No, DNA could not possibly be made by evolution. Instead, the Creator designed it for very intricate purposes.
According to leading atheist Professor Richard Dawkins, the most compelling evidence for evolution is found in DNA. In his book, The Greatest Show on Earth, he states that the DNA code (that is, the DNA language) is the same in all life forms—a fact, he claims, that “shows more clearly than anything else that all living creatures are descended from a single ancestor.” This statement, however, is very misleading, as there are a number of exceptions to this ‘fact’—some creatures use a variation of the code. Moreover, these exceptions, along with the nature of the code itself, actually provide one of the strongest arguments against evolution.

DNA is found in every cell of our bodies (in at least some stage of its development) and has a beautiful appearance, having the shape of a spiral staircase. The steps (or rungs) are like letters in our alphabet and, ascending or descending the staircase, the letters taken together spell words which have meanings. Altogether, there are around three billion letters in human DNA, which amounts to a lot of information—about a thousand books the size of the Bible. For example, it contains the information needed to grow a baby from a fertilized egg—how to build the heart, lungs, brain and so on. As adults, we need DNA too, as it stores the software that controls much of what goes on inside us.
To read the rest, click on "The remarkable language of DNA".
  

Monday, August 24, 2015

Snake Fossil with Four Legs Puzzles Paleontologists

Another fossil of snakes with legs has been found. At first, the response might be, "Big deal", until people realize that the critter had four legs. This has received attention in both creationist and secular circles, especially since it's causing slime-to-snake evolutionists some consternation and dispute.


The fossil of a 4-legged snake is causing confusion among evolutionary paleontologists. They have several disagreements, and the fossil does not fit well with their assumptions.
The "image Generator" picture does not do justice to French newscaster Melissa Theuriau. This one is more flattering.
The dispute is whether or not the fossil is that of a snake. It has many snake features, but also not snake features. Although it had legs, don't get it fitted for cowboy boots because those legs weren't walking legs, but appear to be used for grasping. It is considered a terrestrial snake, not a marine one, which adds to difficulties for evolutionists to place it in the proper alleged transitional sequence. But they can't find an evolutionary order for it because snakes were created, they didn't evolve.
The four short legs on the 20 cm (7.8 in) snake-like fossil from Brazil’s Crato formation remained unnoticed in Germany’s Museum Solnhofen until spotted by University of Portsmouth paleontologist David Martill during a field trip. “The fossil was part of a larger exhibition of fossils from the Cretaceous period,” Martill says. “It was clear that no-one had appreciated its importance, but when I saw it I knew it was an incredibly significant specimen.”

Martill recruited Helmut Tischlinger and Nicholas Longrich to help study the fossil. “The preservation of the little snake is absolutely exquisite,” Tischlinger says. “The skeleton is fully articulated. Details of the bones are clearly visible and impressions of soft tissues such as scales and the trachea are preserved.” Longrich adds, “It is a perfect little snake, except it has these little arms and legs, and they have these strange long fingers and toes.”

Their photographs and description recently appeared in Science. So did their evolutionary conclusions.
To read the rest of the article, click on "Four-Legged Snake Fossil Found in Museum". In addition, you might want to supplement your knowledge by heading over to "Snakes with Legs?" and "A four-legged fossil snake: A serpentine version of Archaeopteryx?"
  

Saturday, August 22, 2015

Podcast — The Dangers of Modern Psychology

Psychology has been around in one form or another for a long time. We wonder why we act the way we do, why tinhorn anti-creationists want to "prove" their superior intelligence by acting like angry children (which includes libel, lying outright, and trolling), why the woman in the upstairs apartment throws leftover chicken on the lawn instead of using a garbage bin, and more. Sometimes, psychology is fun to ponder.


Much of modern psychology is based on evolutionary and humanistic ideas. This and more are discussed in this podcast interview of Valerie Ellis by Michael Boehm.
Sigmund Freud / Max Halberstadt / Wikimedia Commons / PD
Unfortunately, modern psychology is primarily based on materialistic and evolutionary ideas; perhaps that is why there are many schools of thought, and variations on those as well. None of them has the answers, old son. A psychologist present a buffet-style treatment drawn from several sources. Ironically for me, in my apostate time, I benefited from a variation on "probablistic atheist" Albert Ellis' REBT (who said that his views had nothing to do with his therapy methods). Psychology is all about me, it's very humanistic and self-centered. It can benefit people, but so can time and "waiting it out". Talking with a concerned friend can be beneficial and also save a lot of money, but counseling from the Bible gets to the root of the problems — especially if the counselor knows that we are created in God's image, and not just glorified animals.

Sigmund "Frood Dude" Freud is considered to be the founder of modern psychology, and the "father of psychoanalysis". His controversial ideas have lost favor later on, and he had some strange evolutionary assertions about God that lack evidence. He had an influence on other psychologists.

When materialists define science, they set up several of their own rules so they can rule out creation science and Intelligent Design. However, they also rule out psychology and sociology, which are accepted as sciences even though they do not fit the criteria. They are not very testable, measurable, repeatable, observable — medications taking shots in the dark, since the machinations of the mind are mysterious. Diagnoses can also cause problems, such as schizophrenia, which may not be a real illness at all, and may cause people to fulfill the diagnosis. Indeed, it's easy to make up a diagnosis and sound all highfalutin scientific.

My diagnosis of this has nothing to do with psychology, and everything to do with Bible-denying worldviews.
Used under Fair Use for educational purposes.

Michael Boehm of Youth Apologetics Training interviewed Valerie Ellis from the Colorado Biblical Counseling Center. It's a mighty interesting discussion, and you can listen or download here. If you get a pop-up on the download asking you to register, there's a "Maybe Later" button that will let the download continue.





Friday, August 21, 2015

Biomimetics, A Cactus, and Oil Spills

Have you ever been riding down Mexico way, maybe in the Chihuahua Desert, when a snake spooks your horse, it rears up, and you get thrown into a patch of bunny ears cactus? Me, neither. That cactus doesn't have the typical long pointy spines that you see in picture books, movies, and television. No, these bad boys are very fine, and come out in bunches at even a light touch. I reckon they hurt real bad, and people need first aid right quick. And yet, this cactus (Opuntia microdasys) has inspired biomimetics to help with oil spills.

The special design of the unique "spines" of a cactus may prove beneficial in a biomimetics application to help with oil spills. But where did the spines come from?
Opuntia microdasys / Wikimedia Commons / Stan Shebs

Scientists studied the special spines on this cactus and how they relate with water. This in turn may help recover spilled oil below the surface of the water. But where did these special spines come from? They are obviously designed for their purpose, just like the spines on other cacti. The following article discusses the technology of the biomimetics idea, as well as how evolution does not explain their origin. From there, the author discusses some biblical ideas on the formation of the spines.
Oil spills at sea, such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, can be massively damaging ecological events, with oil spreading for many thousands of miles. Biomimetics, the abstraction of good design from nature, is again providing a useful solution, this time to such disasters. Recently published cactus-inspired research is aimed at finding a more effective way of capturing submerged oil droplets, which are normally missed in the cleanup operations, which typically focus on collecting the oil near the surface of the water.

A unique system

The new technology builds upon previous research on the tapered spines of the cactus species, Opuntia microdasys (figure 1), which is endemic to central and Northern Mexico, and found in places such as the arid Chihuahua Desert. It was discovered that the cactus efficiently collects water droplets from fog using a “unique system composed of well-distributed clusters of conical spines and trichomes on the cactus stem”.
To see how Philip Robinson makes his points, click on "Cactus spines, sharper than you may think!"
  

Labels