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.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Oxygen, the Origin of Life, and Another Vindication of Creationists

In the evolutionary scheme of things, origin of life ideas require absence of oxygen on a primordial earth. Abiogenesis does not work, despite the claims of proponents of the failed Miller-Urey experiment. That's because oxygen will cause such life to cash in its chips. Creationists (and some evolutionists) have known for a long time that Earth has had, and must have, oxygen from the beginning. This deals aces and eights to origin of life conjectures. It also throws a wild card into the draw for speculations about extraterrestrial atmospheres.
Free oxygen is death to life trying to evolve, but it was present early on, being formed naturally from atmospheric carbon dioxide.

What is life? What is the meaning of life? Astrobiologist Chris McKay says it’s a tricky question, but on Astrobiology Magazine, he offers a contrasting challenge: “in the search for life in our solar system what is needed more than a definition of life is a definition of death.” And what does it mean to be dead? “It means that the organism was once alive and is composed of organic molecules that are specific to life — molecules such as DNA, ATP, and proteins.” Life, therefore, consists of many non-living parts, but just putting the parts together doesn’t make them alive.

Scientists at UC Davis didn’t say it directly, but origin of life research just got dealt a death blow. A press release from UC Davis says that oxygen forms naturally from carbon dioxide:
Whoa, Wilberforce! To read the press release and the rest of the article, you'd be obliged to click on "Oxygen Was Present from the Start".

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Puzzling Planetary and Satellite Formation

Anti-creationists dismiss creation scientists through prejudicial conjecture and poisoning the well, claiming that creationists' explanations are essentially, "GodDidIt, that's all". Some serious investigation of creationary materials will show that this is incorrect. While admittedly there is a grain of truth to the "GodDidIt" claim, creationary scientists do not stop there; they want to know how God did it, and more.

Some evolutionary theories of the formation of the solar system, including planets, comets, satellites and so forth have occasional plausibility from a historical science perspective, but have many failings under scrutiny. Essentially, when cosmological theories break down, ad hoc explanations are rustled up and added in, but those theories should be put out to pasture. "EvolutionDidIt" or "NaturalProcessesDidIt" are unhelpful.

"Starfield 3" from Sad Monkey Designs
Creationists have pointed out the numerous flaws in the theories of solar system formation and how they are inadequate to explain what is actually observed. Dr. Danny Faulkner discusses some basic principles, flaws — and issues some challenges to creationist scientists to delve deeper into some of these same questions.
I present a review of the two types of planets and the orbital characteristics of their satellites and evaluate evolutionary explanations for them. While the naturalistic theories may explain certain features, other features require a number of well-timed catastrophic events. To have so many of these events is very improbable. The evolutionary theory cannot explain certain aspects of solar system bodies. To date, there have been few comprehensive proposals for a creationary model of the solar system. The invocation of design must be carefully thought through.
To finish reading, click on "Anomalies with Planets and Satellites in the Solar System—Indication of Design?

Friday, October 17, 2014

Further Studies in Scientific Racism

People like Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Laurence Krauss and others believe that when people lack belief in evolution, they are hindering the progress of science (equivocation fallacy, "evolution" and "science"). Evolutionary thinking has consequences; it is not just a theory of biology, but a worldview with many negative results.

Nobody is saying that if you believe in evolution, you're a racist. Nor can I find anyone who thinks that racism is caused by evolutionary thinking. But evolutionary thinking accelerated racism.

One of those negative results is making racism scientifically acceptable. After people began waking up to how racism cannot be scientifically justified, and when it became socially unacceptable, evolutionists were distancing themselves from their own history. (Biblical creationists who stood by their Scriptural presuppositions that man is from "one blood" have been proven justified.) When I posted "More Modern Evolutionary Racism", several owlhoots chose to disunderstand the contents of the main article (it helps if you follow the trail and actually read it). The atrocities of racism in Australia are amazingly brutal, and are well documented. Did you know about the buying and selling of people's body parts in Africa as well? But that was all right by Darwinists, since Africans (and Australian aborigines) were considered less evolved than white Europeans, and less than human.
Imagine a foreign people entering your country and desecrating the graves of your ancestors. They then transport the body parts to their homeland for the purpose of ‘proving’ the inferiority and animal-like nature of your people. As appalling as it may sound, such a practice was common among scientists for many decades after the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.

In the early 1990s several articles drew attention to the murder and ‘bodysnatching’ of the Australian Aborigines that occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

According to one researcher, “…the graves of between 5000 and 10,000 Australian Aborigines were desecrated, their bodies dismembered or parts stolen to support a scientific trade.” What many do not realize is this was not a geographically isolated phenomenon, but was occurring simultaneously in the German colonies in Africa, especially at the request of prominent racial scientists in Germany.
Evolutionists will continue to try and distance themselves from their history, but we want people to know that ideas have consequences. Those who want to know more and read the rest of the article can click on "African invasion of the bodysnatchers".

Thursday, October 16, 2014

So Where is That Creationist Research, Anyway?

Critics of creationists will often complain that all we do is pick at flaws in evolutionary theories, so why don't creationists round up some research? Well, busting evolutionary broncos is often quite easy because Darwin's Cheerleaders frequently fail at critical thinking, and there are numerous flaws in what is considered evidence for evolution. They get ornery when we point out those things.

But more than that, anti-creationists seldom do their homework, preferring prejudicial conjecture instead. If they did scout around the Web, they would learn some starting things that interfere with their biases. Creationary scientists actually do research, write papers, have jobs in scientific fields, publish in peer-reviewed journals and more. Although the Bible is their foundation, they still conduct "real" science, including life sciences. Here is an article by Dr. Jason Lisle from the Institute for Creation Research about activities in biology, DNA, stratigraphic columns, astronomy and more:
We do many things here at the Institute for Creation Research, but the core of our ministry is original scientific research that relates to the topic of origins. We study the universe for the glory of God. We love to share our results with others and see their delight as they realize how science powerfully confirms the Bible. To that end, we publish our research in peer-reviewed science journals so that our work may be scrutinized by other scholars and any remaining problems or oversights can be exposed and removed. If none are found, we then summarize our research in lay-level literature such as Acts & Facts magazine or the various books we publish.

Contrary to what is sometimes reported, we do not “try to prove the Bible using science.” We recognize that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and is thus inerrant in all its affirmations. The Bible is actually the foundation for all scientific inquiry because it delineates the necessary conditions that must exist in the universe for science to be possible and logically justified. In other words, science is possible because God upholds the universe in a consistent and rational way that the human mind can at least partially understand. We do research to honor God, expecting to learn something about the way in which He rules over creation. As Christians who love science, we are happy to join with others who share our passion such as the Creation Research Society (CRS).
You can read the rest by clicking on "'R' is for Research".

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Presuppositional Thinking in Evolutionism

A basic fact of human nature is that people interpret what they observe according to their worldviews — we all have our starting points. These worldviews are based on presuppositions which can relate to valid and invalid axioms, experiences, biases and so forth. I have long maintained that despite the opinions of many, scientists are not dispassionate and unbiased; they have something to investigate and try to prove.

Biblical creationists presuppose that the Bible is God's written Word, and interpret evidence in light of it. Evolutionary scientists presuppose that evolution, deep time, materialism (in the majority of cases), and other things are true. Creationary scientists present models and so forth based on their worldviews, just like evolutionary scientist do the same thing. Everyone has the same facts and evidence, there are no "creationist facts", and no "evolutionist facts". As I indicated, the worldviews tend to dictate how the evidence is evaluated. Both kinds of scientists use the same saddles but ride different horses.

Although the following article does not make any remarks about presuppositions, they are clearly present. Using "evolutionary thinking" as a starting point, the scientist denies miracles, and then promptly uses his version of naturalistic miracles.
“No miracles” is a favorite phrase by an evolutionist who finds that perplexing puzzles in nature always “yield to evolutionary thinking.”

Don’t understand the origin of human language? Curious how crows can fashion tools to get food? No miracle; “evolutionary thinking” can explain it. That’s the attitude of Russell Gray (U of Auckland), who was highlighted in Science Magazine this week. A “man of enthusiasms,” Gray is on a roll, gaining popularity among many for his skill at submitting complex problems to evolutionary explanations.
Using the miracle of the Internet, you can finish reading by clicking on "Is Science Free of Miracles?"

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

How Bad Is the Ebola Virus?

In the past, people in the Western world were not overly concerned about the Ebola virus because it was far away and not a matter of concern. Suddenly in late 2014, the latest outbreak has spread and the death toll is in the thousands. It has a high mortality rate. So far, there is no known cure. Fortunately, it is not something that is airborne. EDIT: Here is some of the unhelpful sensationalism, a report that maybe it is, maybe it isn't but if it isn't, it could become airborne.

Transmission electron micrograph of Ebola virus. Credit: CDC
Microbiologist Dr. Andrew Fabich addresses some serious questions about the Ebola virus (including how evolutionary "junk DNA" ideas have been harmful). How contagious is it? Were viruses created by God? Can I get infected? Is this bioterrorism? Are atheists doing anything more than ridiculing medical missionaries? How can we respond?
Several months ago, friends of mine were planning a trip to Liberia. They were just about to head over when they got the news that there was an Ebola outbreak. At the time, they contacted me to find out just how safe or unsafe it was in Liberia. They knew more about what to expect on the trip to Liberia, but they were unsure of what to expect in terms of Ebola infecting as many people as it had. At the time, the death toll was in the hundreds (recent estimates suggest that the death toll is over 4,000). I began trying to help them understand a few things about Ebola so they could make an informed decision. Since that time, I have noticed a number of websites have arisen with misinformation and sensationalism that misleads the public about how severe a threat Ebola is.
I strongly recommend reading the rest of this article by clicking on "Where Did Ebola Come From?"

Monday, October 13, 2014

And Dingo Was His Name-o

G'day. Today we travel to 'Straya and look at the dingo. This wild dog supports creationist predictions about adaptation, and also fits the Genesis Flood timeline. There is disagreement as to when it came to Australia, but the Aborigines have ancient legends saying that the dingo was brought with them.
Here’s an animal that sure could use an ‘image make-over’ and public relations campaign.

For many years, the dingo was best known as the wild dog of Australia—the largest carnivore on the Australian mainland — and for being the scourge of the sheep industry. A single dingo can maul up to 50 sheep in one night, killing far more than it needs for food.
To read the rest, click on "The Australian dingo—a wolf in dog’s clothing".