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, December 19, 2014

Bill's Un-de-Nye-Able Propaganda

So, Bill Nye wrote a book. Ken Ham, his debate opponent on February 4, 2014, has authored, co-authored and edited dozens of books. Ham writes a lot, nobody bats an eye. Nye writes one book, and everyone loses their minds. The difference is that Nye is a celebrity propagandist for evolution, which he equivocates with "science", and Ham teaches biblical creation science — which is considered "cool" to bash nowadays.

Wikimedia Commons / Ed Schipul

Bill Nye apparently can't stand Ken Ham. In interviews and things, he refers to Ham as "that guy". The question has been raised that if Nye trounced Ham in the debate like his fans claim, why doesn't he promote the video, which is available to watch free online? Perhaps it's because he misrepresented many things, and told several untruths; Answers In Genesis gave several responses to these things. Or maybe because the debate format itself was appallingly bad. Even so, Ken Ham's not afraid or ashamed of the debate.

Why should anyone care about his book, Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation? Because he continues his misleading, disingenuous and sometimes dishonest attacks on biblical creation science, and he uses bad science as well. The following review shows some of these concerns about this anti-creation crusader's writing, with references and additional material to further show how he is misleading many people.
Some people think the “Great Creationism Debate” between Bill Nye and Ken Ham represented a battle between science and the Bible, but the Bible and science are not at war. In the debate and in the ongoing duel of ideas expressed in these two books, the battle is between man’s fallible evolutionary ideas for which Bill Nye crusades with evangelistic zeal and God’s infallible Word, which Ken Ham defends in his book (in accordance with Jude 1:3). Biblical truth is by no means at odds with observational science, and it will triumph over man’s godless assertions—particularly Nye’s caustic caricatures and denial of a straightforward reading of God’s inspired Word (2 Corinthians 10:4–5).
You can finish reading this lengthy but information-loaded article by clicking on "Book Review: Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation". Also, if you have a mind to and some time, you can see the debate itself below (skip ahead to the 13 minutes 14 seconds mark for the actual beginning).

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Astrobiology Fantasies Fading Fast

The pseudoscience of astrobiology has less justification for its existence all the time. Using scenarios that look good on paper but have no evidence, astronomers are speculating that Earth's primordial atmosphere may have been blasted away by multiple impacts when the solar system was forming. (I didn't see any explanation about oxygen's presence in "old" rocks, belying the idea of an old atmosphere that was replaced later on.) These are people that believe in the Oort cloud, you know. The "impacts destroy atmospheres" concept does not bode well for planets elsewhere in the universe, even by evolutionary reckoning.

Additional observations and speculations are hostile to the future of astrobiology. There are people who use Sagan-esque speculations based on the presupposition that evolution is true, then play the odds that since there are so many stars and galaxies, there must be life out there. That hope has been diminished by 90 percent, due to space radiation. Star formation has supposedly halted in some galaxies (as if they were watching stars form in the first place). And more killjoys for astrobiology. Nope, the fact is that Earth was specially created hereabouts, full of life, and God has big plans.

You can read up on the stories by clicking on "Astrobiology Hopes Diminish". Also, what if you take "bio" out of astrobiology? You get astrology. Really, is there much philosophical difference? Click here to read "Astrobiology Has No Bio".

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Can Darwin Give You a Hand?

The human hand is a marvel of engineering. With it, a cowboy can maneuver to throw his lariat, and then hang on once he lassos the critter. Dexterity, sensitivity, strength. Very complex, very useful — there's nothing else quite like it among the animals.

Even with admiring the intricacies of the hand, Darwinists still want to give praise to blind, purposeless evolution and to natural selection. Storytelling is passed off as "science". Amazing how their faith keeps them from giving deserved credit to the Creator.
As part of a television series called Dissected, Britian’s BBC website has published an article written by the show’s presenter Dr George McGavin titled ‘The incredible human hand and foot’.

In it, Dr McGavin outlines several fascinating features of our hand, which gives us a powerful grip but also allows us to manipulate small objects with great precision. This ability sets us apart from other creatures. The muscles in the hand are ‘strangely’ arranged, since most of the hand’s movements are controlled by muscles not located in the hand but in the forearm. The fingers are connected to the forearm by long tendons that pass through a flexible band.

This arrangement gives the fingers movement and strength that would be impossible if all the muscles were in the hand. In short, the hand looks like a bony puppet controlled by the forearm.
You can grab the rest of this article by clicking on "The incredible human hand — Naturally engineered or designed by intelligence?"

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Ciliate Makes Evolution Sillier

Once again, genetics is showing how evolution is increasingly ridiculous. Single-celled creatures that were considered "simple" are, upon closer examination, amazingly complex. A ciliate under study has two genomes, and after reproduction, they scramble and rearrange the genomes — with an encryption that would cause envy in IT people. Blind and purposeless? Nope. The complex product of a Creator with a purpose in mind? You betcha!
One-cell creatures called ciliates are expanding our knowledge of genome dynamics and complexity. Now a newly sequenced ciliate genome reveals unimaginable levels of programmed rearrangement combined with an ingenious system of encryption.

Contrary to the evolutionary prediction of simple-to-complex in the alleged tree of life, one-cell ciliates are exhibiting astonishing genetic complexity. The ciliate Oxytricha trifallax has two different genomes contained in separate nuclei. The micronucleus is dense and compact and used for reproduction while the macronucleus is dramatically rearranged, amplified, and used for the creature's standard daily living.
To get your mind boggled further, finish the article by clicking on "Genome Scrambling and Encryption Befuddles Evolution".

Monday, December 15, 2014

Dinosaurs, Birds and Making Tracks

Tracks can give some decent information about who or what made them, including size, weight, stride and so on. Fossil footprints are a bit less reliable because they are usually made in some kind of mud. The stuff distorts the footprint, and the fossilization process also adds some distortion.

Grallator track / NPS.gov
Researchers have a new technique for studying dinosaur tracks. They study birds making tracks in poppy seeds. I reckon that some people can't get past the disputed dinosaurs-evolved-into-birds story, even though not all paleontologists are in agreement with it, dishonesty in museum displays, and the fact that dinosaurs ate birds. Still, they want to use birds. The technique is interesting, but does not support evolution in any way. Nor does it shed light on how fossil footprints formed, and how they lasted for alleged millions of years. That is best explained by biblical creation Genesis Flood models.
By devising a ground-breaking technique to peer beneath the surface as a bird’s feet make tracks, Brown University scientists Peter Falkingham and Steven Gatesy have discovered how to reap a wealth of information from that delightful paleontological prize, the fossilized footprint of a dinosaur.

You can tell a lot about animals and people by examining their footprints. And when the trackmakers—such as dinosaurs—are long gone, fossilized footprints are the only way we have to assess how they moved. Clues about their anatomy, their gait, and perhaps even their behavior are locked away in stone. Could the memory of the very motion that pushed and piled up particles of mud or sand be somehow preserved in the prints?
To finish reading the article, hoof it over to "Bird X-Rays Shed Light on Dinosaur Tracks".

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Archer Fish Takes Aim

Just for fun, this was scheduled to post on the thirteenth of December, 2014 at 10:11 AM Eastern Time. So, for Americans, we can say 10:11, 12-13-14. Little things like that amuse me.

One creature that creationists and Intelligent Design proponents have long liked to discuss is the archer fish's hunting abilities. It was already impressive, knowing that it could lurk below the surface of the water and squirt out a jet of water, knocking an insect off a branch into the water below as a guest for lunch.

Wikimedia Commons / Pearsman Scott Foresman
The argument for design becomes even more impressive with the fact that further research shows that a fair amount of physics is involved with the archer's arching. Too many details are present that can be accounted for by evolutionary means.
The secret of the archer fish’s powerful spits has been discovered, and it isn't powerful muscles.

The fish that shoots bugs out of the air uses physics, a paper in PLoS ONE declared. By letting physics amplify the momentum in the drop shot out of the water, the fish achieves six times the wallop its own muscles can attain.
You can read the rest of this short but interesting article by shooting over to "Archer Fish Amplifies Muscle with Physics", and there's also a short video below:

Uninportant Addendum:
Yep, right on schedule!

Friday, December 12, 2014

When Did the Very Good Creation Get Very Bad Things?

How do biblical creationists explain some of the things we see in nature? After all, the Bible clearly teaches that everything was created vegetarian in the beginning, and God said his creation was "very good". I suspicion that "very good" supports the contention that living creatures, נפש חיה, did not experience death for a short time because death was not a part of God's creation.

freeimages.com / mexikids
Indeed, death entered through sin (Romans 8.19-23a), and death is an enemy (1 Cor. 15.26) — do you reckon that death will be a part of the new creation at the end of it all? Not hardly! So, back to the big questions: From a biblical creationist perspective, where did death, pointy teeth, venom, poison and all that stuff enter into the picture, and can this be addressed without compromising on scriptural truth? There are answers that are theologically sound, and also have scientific support.
One of the most common questions asked of Christians is some version of: “If God is so loving, why are there bad things in the world?” The implication being that if God created this world in the state it is in, He can’t be ‘very good’ Himself. This is sometimes used as a reason to reject belief in God.

Exodus 20:11 states God created everything in 6 literal days. But that then means that claws and poison must also have been created within those 6 days …

CMI’s Creation Answers Book devotes a whole section to explaining this in great detail, providing not only a philosophical answer but also addressing more detailed questions such as, ‘What about animals that have attack/defence structures that seem ‘designed’ to hunt and kill (or protect them from such activity)?’ Again, this is because skeptics of biblical creation have used the (reasonable) argument that a ‘good’ God surely wouldn’t have created creatures designed to tear other creatures to pieces etc.
To read the rest, click on "The good, the bad and the ugly … If God created everything in 6 days when exactly were ‘bad things’ created?"