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.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Biblical Flood Best Explains Erosion

Gradual erosion over long periods of time, based on the consistency of current rates, do not give an adequate explanation of what has been measured. There are four reasonable methods for calculating continental erosion, and they indicate that a great deal has occurred. Extrapolating current rates backward and coming up with figures in the millions of years is unrealistic.

Devil's Tower from East Side, PD, 1890

When using the Noachian Flood as a starting point, things make much more sense. There are many factors that uniformitarianism fails to explain, and in fact, this methodology raises many questions. Biblical creationist Michael Oard explains.
Massive amounts of sediments, many kilometres thick, with buried plants and animals, were laid down early in the Great Biblical Flood (often called Noah’s Flood). These were cemented into sedimentary rock and the organisms were fossilized. Then the mountains and continents rose up and the valleys and ocean basins sank (Psalm 104:6–9). This caused the Flood water to rush off the continents, sometimes at high speed. This is called the Recessive Stage of the Flood, and probably started about Day 150, nearly midway into the Flood. It would have resulted in enormous erosion of vast areas of the continents. The results of this erosion are clearly visible in every landscape around the world..
To read the rest of the article, click on "Massive erosion of continents demonstrates Flood runoff".

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Creation Science and Impact Craters

Watch a video or glance through a picture book of the solar system, and you will see that many of the planets and moons show an abundance of impact craters. Secular cosmogonists have various hypotheses that fail to explain what is observed today, and creation scientists have their own hypotheses. Remember, scientists are not "neutral", they have their worldviews and presuppositions by which they operate.


Impact craters on surface of Saturn's moon Rhea, NASA / JPL
The article linked below has a creation scientist's perspective. He examined scientific papers regarding when the impacts occurred, probably during the fourth day of creation week. Creation scientists hold to their foundation in the Bible, but it is not just "GodDidIt" as many anti-creationists gleefully accuse. Rather, they want to know how God did it, and sometimes divine intervention is the best logical conclusion of the evidence ("We should hold to what Scripture reveals without compromise but yet not expect Scripture to explain all the details of how God created. This is why we can explore various possibilities logically and scientifically to see where they lead us). Like their secular counterparts, creationists will propose models and hypotheses, disagree, discuss and attempt to work things out. Wayne Spence, the author of this article, changed his own impact hypotheses after evaluating the work of other scientists. In addition, he contributes some questions and items for consideration. It is really quite interesting to see scientists work out theoretical science and theological stuff. Unlike the secularists, they are willing to be wrong and not as likely to simply assert poorly thought speculations as scientific conclusions.
The hypothesis that impact craters took place in the solar system on the fourth day of creation is evaluated. Both biblical and scientific aspects are considered. After seriously considering Faulkner’s proposal I am acknowledging the fourth day impacts hypothesis as a valid option for creationists. I am prepared to adjust my view of impact cratering to allow 1) for impacts before Noah’s Flood, 2) to allow for God protecting earth from impacts, and to allow 3) that God could have used impacts to form and shape solar system objects. Furthermore, this view has advantages over secular planetary science in explaining elemental abundances in the solar system.
To read the article, click on "Evaluating The Day Four Cratering Hypothesis". 
 

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

What Evolutionists Call Science


Creationists are in the wrong business. We want to promote critical thinking, show the folly of evolution, and promote the truth overall. Although the rewards are out of this world (literally), the big money is in evolution. Insist on your materialistic evolutionary prsuppositions, do some experiments, ignore obvious questions, feed the material to the gullible press, and you're doing well.

Experiments in how flight evolved, how patterns on creatures came to be, the symmetry of physical forms, figure out where butterflies belong on the evolutionary tree — great stuff, and you don't even need to give a plausible model or explanation for how the alleged evolution happened, let alone why. Take a look at "Darwinism is a Constant; Just-So Stories Are Variables".

Monday, September 15, 2014

Who am I Trying to Reach? Glancing at Stats

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There is quite a bit happening in the realm of creation science (I have posts scheduled for over a week ahead right now!), but once in a while, people like some personal glimpses and behind the scenes information, so here you go.

The other day, the pastor and I were discussing my online creation science ministry. He asked, "Who is your audience?", and, "Who are you trying to reach?" The easy answer would be, "Anyone who wants to read it", but that is rather simplistic. I pondered these questions and realized that there are several answers.

Some people use the Web as an occasional information and communications tool. They send out e-mail, newsletters, Weblogs, and they look up information when they need it. Then there are those of us who spend a great deal of time online, trying to make information available in our areas of specialty to the first group, and to people who "live" online. (There are also blogs where people write about whatever they feel like for friend, family and followers, such as my first blog.)  The social media aspect of the Internet has people with different priorities.




Who is my audience? That is actually difficult to say, since people can pretend to be someone else, being bold and beautiful behind a keyboard. Statistic recorders for sites are famous for being inaccurate and incomplete; some "hits" on the site are simply not recorded. (I have had friends write to me to discuss specific things I wrote, but their visits did not show up on the stats report.) These counters cannot be entirely accurate for various reasons including changes in software, browsers and so on. Another reason my stats are incomplete is because I make this blog available through RSS feeds so people can subscribe and read it without actually visiting the site. (Some sites will use RSS more like an announcement service, only give you a sentence and a link because they need people to come to their sites for revenue and other purposes. Since the only revenue here is mine going out, I am more interested in getting the information out there than in getting site hits.) Site stats cannot give much information about people, but I can keep track of stalkers and other regular visitors, and have fun seeing where all people come from. Perhaps the major online ministries can obtain better user data, but I am just a guy running an online ministry out of his apartment using an unregistered assault keyboard.

Facebook is a bit different. Page owners are furnished with "Insights" that break down the audience into groups. I have no idea if they are accurate or not, and have not spent time learning the intricacies. It is my understanding that a Page can have thousands of "Likes", but few of them regularly visit the Page. For The Question Evolution Project, there are over 3,200 Likes right now. The potential audience is large, but the Insights for last week said that it had 2,600 in the "Post Reach". There were only 461 "People Engaged" (yet that same column said 1,400 "Post Clicks", which seems to contradict the engagement part). By the way, the Likes rise and fall. In fact, I'd rather that people who click "Like" for the Page and then realize that it is not for them after all would be honest with themselves and un-Like it.


I have numbers. Big deal. Those statistics that may or may not be accurate. What about people? It gets more interesting here (but Facebook's numbers are subjected to what people furnish about themselves; that 22-year-old college girl from Kalamazoo, Michigan could actually be a 34-year-old truck driver in Austin, Texas). What I see on the report supports what I've heard about trends in general, that young males are more interested in origins material than females. 32 percent of my audience appears to be males between the ages of 18-34, with only 11 percent of females in that age range. Still, 43 percent from 18-34 covers quite a few people. Add in the men and women in the 35-44 age range, and it goes up to 66 percent.

The overwhelming majority of Page readers are from English-speaking countries, and most of those are from the United States. But I have readers from countries where English is not the official language, but they speak it quite well (as can be evidenced in their comments).

But this does not really tell me that much about people, it tells me about groups. Such material may be useful for retail marketing purposes, but those of us in creation ministries (hopefully most of us) have higher goals. Am I communicating? I am uncertain. As I said before, people will Like a Page and then forget it for the most part (some people will Like literally hundreds of Pages). Ever heard of "Lurkers"? They were given that name in the early days of the Internet, reading bulletin boards, Usenet and such but seldom being active. Lurkers exist today, reading various things but seldom speaking out.There are lurkers in social media (or is that anti-social media in their case?), and this applies to Christian and creationist groups as well. I know that there are regular readers and supporters who have seldom or never contacted me, but I have seen their electronic footprints — thanks for the support!

Many people are motivated to only speak out to be negative. When I asked to speak to a store manager a while ago, the manager had a tense look when I said, "I'd like to mention the cashier on lane six." "Oh?", she said tensely. "Yes, she was very skilled and personable, and she saw a problem with something we were buying and had someone bring us another one". "Oh, thanks!" Similarly, I started to talk to the apartment complex manager about the head of maintenance. The same look of dread that the store manager had, then the relief when I said that the maintenance man really knows his stuff. No, I'm not special, but this illustrates the fact that people are mostly motivated to speak out in the negative.

When I mentioned that people get bold behind keyboards, this is especially true of anti-theists and anti-creationists. People will say things online that no rational person would dare say to someone's face. Many do not know what creationists and Christians actually believe and teach (and many anti-creationists do not understand evolution very well), but they "know" that we are wrong, and must tell us so.

By the way, I do have a Twitter account, but have no idea how many people read it.

Who is my audience? Because of the psychology of people on the Internet for giving feedback and writing letters, it is difficult to tell. While I've had some enthusiastic support, I've had to deal with theistic evolutionists badgering me to compromise on the written Word of God, militant atheists going on barrages of ridicule, Christians who do not know the importance of our foundations in Genesis, cultists, Moslems, Hindus, creationists who think this is a competition — quite a variety. My readers are all sorts of people, but I can only guess as to who comprises the majority.

The other part is something that I have refined since this Weblog began: Who am I trying to reach?

As I said another time, I began this venture by believing that if I simply present links to creation science articles, people would see that creationists do have something to say after all. But this is not about intellect, it is a spiritual battle. If it was simply about intellectually examining the evidence, evolution would have been abandoned long ago and everyone would be biblical creationists. I keep saying that for every evidence, there is an equal and opposite rescuing device (excuse to deny). The hard truth is that people want to believe in evolution. Not only is Genesis the foundation for all major Christian doctrines, the main principle is there: God is the Creator, he makes the rules and we have to find out what he has said in his written Word.

There are several kinds of people that I want to reach.

First, I want to help equip and educate Christians so they can understand that evolution is intellectually and morally bankrupt, and that science is on our side despite the protestations of Darwinists. Christians need to rely on the authority of Scripture, and see the foundations of our faith that go back to Genesis. These in turn can learn more about what and why they believe the Bible, and teach others the truth for the glory of God.

Second, I am hoping this site will be a resource for homeschoolers. There is a tab at the top of the site with links to creation science and Intelligent Design materials (though I tend to disagree theologically with ID proponents, who generally do not go back to the Bible).

Third, I am trying to plant seeds in the minds of unbelievers. Sure, they rail against creationists and many even resort to outright libel, but they cannot honestly deny that creationists do use science and have support for our position. Perhaps one day they will begin to question evolution and seriously examine what has been presented as "science" and "truth", realizing that evolution is seriously lacking.


People who are curious, bored or whatever can feel free to read along (heh, as if I could stop anyone if I wanted to). Perhaps they will learn be educated about biblical creation as well.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Dinosaurs Keep Getting Bigger


Remember when the Brontosaurus was considered an actual dinosaur and not an amazingly bad mistake by paleontologists? Too bad it never existed, the name meant "thunder lizard". Imagine, he would not be sneaking up on anybody. "Oh, here comes Bronto, pretend to be startled when he says, 'Boo'!" The more digging they do, the more they dig up larger dinosaurs.

Excavation took four field seasons from 2004-2009, and is the latest contender for the world's largest dinosaur — and may be a juvenile. Surprisingly complete for something that size, but it also gives some testimony to rapid burial (such as in the Great Biblical Flood). It also has no signs of being a transitional form, where it is evolving into something else. But that is not a surprise for creationists. 
Scientists described a new and remarkable fossil skeleton of a giant titanosaur, a group that includes the largest creatures ever to have lived on land. Dinosaur enthusiasts of all backgrounds want to know how big it was and what it may have looked like. Because this specimen is nearly 45 percent complete, it gives more details than any other fossil of its kind, as well as some details that confirm the biblical creation model.

This specimen was so large that probably nothing could stand in its way or even threaten it. For this reason, the researchers publishing in the journal Scientific Reports named it Dreadnoughtus schrani, after the Old English word "dreadnaught" which means "fear nothing."
To read the rest, click on "New Giant Dinosaur from Argentina". ADDENDUMS: Then, if you want more, you can read "Dreadnaughtus!" at CMI. Ian Juby also has a segment on the big critter on "Genesis Week" (below):


Friday, September 12, 2014

Origins and Forensic Sciences

Origins science is essentially a forensics science. Scientists use evidence that is available in the present, apply scientific methods, use modern equipment and so on in order to reconstruct what happened in the past. Indeed, advances in these areas, especially DNA, have helped police solve cold cases (or "historical cases") that had been mostly forgotten for many years.



Operational science deals with things that are repeatable, testable and observable. (Anti-creationists will often blur the distinction and equivocate "evolution" with "science", but that is misleading and dishonest.) Proponents of both evolutionism and creationism will use forensic methods in their attempts to explain what went on in the past. There are some key differences between the origins sciences of creationists and evolutionists.



Scientists have their presuppositions based on their worldviews, but evolutionists have many unfounded (and even discredited) assumptions that they employ. The origin of the universe and of life itself only happened once, so they obviously cannot be repeated and observed, and there is no control group for comparison. Police forensics have past and present results, methods and so forth by which they can make comparisons, and they also rely on the testimony of witnesses (which are often conflicting). Evolutionary origins scientists have no witnesses to things that happened in the allegedly distant past. Creation scientists have the reliable testimony of the Creator in addition to scientific methods and logic.
The trial of South African Olympic and Paralympic athlete Oscar Pretorius, charged with the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, has received a great deal of international media coverage recently. The judge1 in the case allowed the proceedings to be open to live television coverage, unusual for the South African criminal court system. This provided an insight into the nature of forensic interpretation which is also of relevance to the origins debate.

Both the prosecution and defence called expert witnesses to offer testimony on their behalf. Various forensic experts presented evidence on the trajectory of the bullets and the order in which they struck the victim, the source of screams heard on the night of her death, whether loud noises heard by neighbours were from gunshots or a cricket bat striking the bathroom door behind which the victim was cowering, the period before death she had last eaten based on her stomach content, and various other items of evidence relevant to the criminal investigation.
To learn more, read the rest of the article by clicking on "The Oscar Pistorius trial and the role of forensic bias: Conflicting interpretations of forensic evidence". 

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Finally Found a Home in the Failed Evolutionary Tree of Life for a Cambrian Worm?


Paleontologists have been baffled for many years by a fossil. It looks like something that someone may imagine in a drug-induced state, but it is real. How to classify it has been a problem, but a new fossil discovery that is more complete gave evolutionists hope that they know where to put it in the "Tree of Life". But are they doing anything more than guessing and putting it where they want it to be? Linking it to modern creatures because of similar features is not a guarantee of an evolutionary relationship.
Hallucigenia sparsa may look like a sci-fi alien but it is very much a resident of earth—the earth of the past, that is. This tiny fossil has been a real paleontology puzzle.

While the best-preserved fossils now show this little animal had seven or eight pairs of claw-tipped legs matching two rows of conical spikes on its back, the original fossils only showed one row of legs, and confusion has long clouded attempts to reconstruct, much less classify, this animal. Evolutionary researchers from the University of Cambridge now believe they have definitive proof of not only what this animal was but also what it evolved into and consequently where it fits on the evolutionary tree of life.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Wormlike Evolutionary Misfit from the Burgess Shale Finds a Home".

Labels