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

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Professor David A. Lee Interviewed on Real Science Radio

Bob Enyart and Fred Williams interviewed Professor David A. Lee of Patrick Henry College for Real Science Radio. Mr. Lee earned his bachelor's degree in geology at Clemson University, and his master's degree in paleontology at South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. At Patrick Henry College, he teaches biology, earth science, and origins.

Prof. David Lee of Patrick Henry College is interviewed on Real Science Radio. Several topics are covered, including creationist Nicholas Steno, considered the founder of geology.
Split Mountain Campground at Dinosaur National Monument
Image credit: National Park Service / Dan Johnson (image use does not imply endorsement)
The discussion covered a variety of topics, with an emphasis on the Christians and creationists who founded modern science, such as Nicholas Steno. There are notes and links on the site that supplement the interview. To read, listen, download (all free) click on "Patrick Henry College Geology Prof. David Lee on RSR". Here's where to find the audio:

Friday, August 26, 2016

Lacking Belief in Platypus Evolution

The duckbilled platypus is presented as evidence for evolution, and Darwinists actually do this with a straight face. Although they assert that evolution happened, I lack belief and need convincing. When the critter was first discovered in 'Straya and shipped to the UK, the Brit scientists thought they were being pranked because it looks like several things put together. I've long maintained that the bigger prank is from God himself, who created it just to put a burr under evolutionists' saddles.

Evolutionists persist in claiming lack of evidence for their belief *as* evidence for it. They cannot explain the duckbilled platypus, but claim it as evidence of evolution. Actually, some of us think it's God's joke on them.
Modified image from Openclipart
Kind of like an otter, bill like a duck (that detects electrical impulses), the male's hind legs that have a venomous spur (not lethal to healthy humans), it lays eggs but is a mammal — and it's the poster boy for evolution? The fact is, evolutionists have never been able to explain it. Sure, they have excuses, and I've had people try to slap leather with me by throwing out links to propaganda sites — and it's just propaganda, no science, no models, just conjectures, speculation, and Making Things Up™. The goat rodeo of pretend science continues, Darwinists still cannot explain the platypus.
Evolution spectacularly fails to explain one of the planet’s most intriguing animals.

No contest. It was like watching a presumed world champion forfeit at the beginning of a highly-advertised boxing match. The National Geographic banner reads, “How the Venomous, Egg-Laying Platypus Evolved.” The tension in the arena is electric as the champion steps into the ring. The announcer introduces the champion and states the rules. Finally, NG will crush the creationist opponent by answering the long-standing challenge!
To read the rest, click on "Platypus Evolution 'Remains a Mystery'". 


Thursday, August 25, 2016

Leviathan and Body Armor

The book of Job is considered by most scholars to be the oldest book of the Bible. (It may have been written during or shortly after the Ice Age, since there are some icy references given in this Middle Eastern book.) There are a couple of creatures that God discusses that many biblical creationists believe are dinosaurs, the behemoth and the leviathan. (No, not the "leviathan" from the "Dark Shadows" television series.) This bad boy was a really ornery cuss, and nobody in his right mind wanted to get him riled.

A fearsome creature in the Bible called "leviathan" was described with powerful body armor. Many creatures have something similar, and are being studied for human applications.
Sarcosuchus may have been the leviathan. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons / ArthurWeasley
Fortunately, we haven't seen hide nor hair (hair?) of him for a mighty long time, but it's the hide that interests us today. God's sarcastic questioning of Job described the leviathan's bad temper and how it was pretty much impervious to spears and hooks. There are creatures living today (maybe some are leviathan's descendants) that have body armor that is the envy of military people, and efforts have been undertaken for biomimetics, so we can benefit from God's creation. No, there is no rational explanation that evolutionists can offer for such armoring, past or present.
From the fearful account of Leviathan described by God in Job 41, we learn that this creature’s body armour is resilient indeed. “Though the sword reaches him, it does not avail, nor the spear, the dart, or the javelin.” (v. 26; similarly vv. 7, 13, 28–29)

There are creatures familiar to us today that are also wonderfully protected by resilient (yet flexible) body armour—e.g. the scaled skin of fish and pangolins, and the osteoderms (bony plates embedded in the skin) of armadillos and crocodiles. Perhaps these creatures give us an insight into the leviathan’s body armour? The crocodile’s exterior in particular is renowned for being highly resistant to puncture, able to resist arrows and even bullets. No wonder then that scientists and engineers have been avidly studying such natural armour as a guide to designing flexible protective coatings for industrial applications, personal body armour, and flexible electronics.
Hopefully, you're flexible enough to read the rest of the article. Just click on "The secret of Leviathan’s body-armour?"


Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Evolutionary Change Without Evolution

Evolutionists are invoking non-evolutionary change as support of evolution, and doing it in some jaw-droppingly bad ways.
It's downright amazing sometimes to see proselytizers of worm-to-welder evolution using things that have nothing to do with their paradigm getting all excited about their lack of evidence. It's unscientific and disingenuous when these owlhoots claim that loss of traits (whether actual or inferred), or even no change, is support for their worldview.

In the link provided below, we see that evolutionary scientists are going hog wild in Making Stuff Up™. They give credit to evolution for changes that have nothing to do with neo-Darwinism, and make evolution into an intelligent, choosing entity — which is the opposite of what evolution is all about. It's a huge amount of unnecessary work for the sake of denying the Creator credit for his work.

Elephants pass on education for the purpose of survival, is that educational selection? The brilliant colors on spiders are the work of a mysterious evolutionary force, as if the spiders were able to see and manipulate colors at will. The concept that dark-skinned people developed that trait for warmer climates, and light-skinned people developed their trait for different climates, is rejecting previous natural selection ideas, and submitting other kinds of natural selection. You can read about these, and other evolutionary "science", by clicking on "Non-Darwinian Biological Change". Watch for the extreme lack of evidence.

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

New Darwin-Defying Fossils

According to common-ancestor evolutionists, their process is slow, with numerous gradual changes between forms. Papa Darwin said so, and they still believe it today. Problem is, there's no real supporting evidence in the fossil record. Sure, they'll trot out that reliable and unbiased source of scientific information called Wikipedia and say, "See? Here's a list of transitional fossils!"

Evolution should be supported by billions of transitional forms in the fossil record, but there are only a few disputed specimens. New fossils add to the evolutionists' confusion by refusing to be gradual, and in the "wrong" places.

That'll be the day. Varieties and variations are not evidence of evolution, and there the few that are seriously considered to be transitional forms are disputed. There should be billions of transitional fossils, and Darwinists should be able to say, "Case closed". They can't do this, because their conjectures of evolution never happened, that's why the evidence is continually unfriendly to them. Instead, the evidence supports recent special creation.

Two recent fossil finds are difficult for evolutionists to explain. One is an odd ichthyosaur, the other involves shrimp eyes.
In Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, he claimed that “natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure though slow steps.” Mainstream evolutionary thinkers accept Darwin’s premise, but have the 150 years of fossil discoveries since publication of the 4th edition of Origin revealed gradual evolution? Two recently found fossils offer a test.

If evolution occurred, textbooks and museums should abound with examples showing fossil A in lower sedimentary layers, fossil B in upper layers (or with still-living counterparts), and many slight, successive variations of fossils between them. Fossils should clearly show evolution from A to B. Why do textbook writers overuse old and long-disproven fossil illustrations of evolution instead of regularly supplying freshly discovered A-to-B transitional fossils? Many fossils don’t fit this Darwinian prediction.
To read the rest, click on "Two Recent Fossils Confront Gradual Evolution". 


Monday, August 22, 2016

Turtle Shells Did Not Evolve

When the question is asked, "Why did this feature evolve?", the answer is often a simplistic, "Because the organism wanted it to", or some such. (Almost like orders were placed at an annual convention: "I'll have night vision, please".) Proponents of dust-to-Darwin evolution fail at explaining how something allegedly evolved, but adding in why is beyond answering. That is because, according to evolutionists, their process is without design, so they're contradicting themselves by implying that something evolved on purpose. Can't have it both ways, old son.

Darwinists offer unsupportable ideas for how turtle shells evolved, have an alleged transitional form — and overlook important details. Again.
Image credit: Pixabay / markovojkic
Turtle shells are for protection, sure. But a turtle is much more than a reptile with a protective outer casing has properties of architectural design. (Did you know that the Eastern box turtle has a kind of antifreeze?) Shell, skeleton, muscles, lungs — all were designed by the Creator to work together as a unit. Evolutionists found a fossil and are claiming that it's a transitional form for turtle evolution, but they are ignoring many other important facts, including the variety found in turtles. In addition, they cannot produce a plausible mechanism or evidence for evolution, as usual.
Like children assembling a jigsaw puzzle, evolutionists have long been trying to piece together the mysteries of turtle shell origins. And their various versions of “Why the turtle got its shell” sound like tales from Rudyard Kipling’s Just So Stories. According to Dr. Tyler Lyson, lead author of “Fossorial Origin of the Turtle Shell” published in Current Biology, “The answer seems pretty obvious”—the turtle evolved its shell “for protection.”

The “protection” answer is not so obvious, however, when we remember that turtle shells vary a lot, even among living turtles. A fully developed carapace with fused flat ribs protects a turtle. But a set of flattened unfused ribs—like the “incomplete” carapace of the fossil turtle Eunotosaurus—offers no apparent protection. In fact, it seems like those wide, unfused ribs would just get in the way, making it difficult to breathe and move. If such “incomplete” shells offer no protection and clear disadvantages, how could protection be the driving force for turtle shell evolution?

Believed to be the first reptile to transition toward turtlehood, Eunotosaurus has until now presented an evolutionary mystery: How could its broad, flat, unfused ribs offer any survival advantage? A new and fairly complete Eunotosaurus fossil has allowed turtle experts to solve this mystery. Their discovery has not completed the picture of turtle shell evolution, however, but instead revealed an extinct turtle variety that was exceptionally well designed for digging.
To read the rest, click on "Why Did Turtle Shells Evolve?


Saturday, August 20, 2016

"Evolution's Achilles' Heels" — Book Review

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Greek mythology tells us that Achilles was a great warrior and was invulnerable except in his heel. When Paris, son of the king and queen of Troy, shot him in the heel, he was able to be killed. This gave rise to the expression Achilles' heel to indicate someone's weakest point. Common-ancestor evolution has a passel of weak points, and several of them are quite serious.

Disclaimer: none. I bought Evolution's Achilles' Heels all by my lonesome, so I received no benefits for writing this here review. Just over a year ago, I gave a favorable review of the 96-minute documentary by the same name, and it's fitting that I write about the book as well. I reckon that because people are enamored with credentials and such, the good folks at Creation Ministries International didn't give scoffers the excuse of saying someone is "not a scientist" — the book has nine Ph.D. scientists, and the documentary ups the ante to fifteen.

For the most part, the origins controversy is science-based, and it helps if you have a science background when reading this book. I seriously doubt that many people will read it with comprehension on a Sunday afternoon, as there is quite a bit of information in this paperback's 260 pages (not including the index). 

Evolution's Achilles' Heels has eight chapters divided into subsections and has many illustrations, mostly in color. The footnotes are somewhere around 500, primarily for supporting references, plus some URLs to CMI articles for further reading. It was good to see that the publishers didn't scrimp on paper, it's good quality my fingers didn't smear the ink.

Here are the chapters, and some brief notes about the contents. Don't be getting the notion that the book's contents are superficial just because my comments are — we don't want this article to be excessively long now, do we?

1. "Natural Selection", by Dr. Donald Batten

Darwin began his hypothesis that natural selection gave rise to wholesale changes from simple to complex life forms. The problem for atoms-to-author evolutionists is that, when properly understood, natural selection only refers to minor changes that do not add genetic information; natural selection is not evolution, but rather, a conserving process.

2. "Genetics and DNA", by Dr. Robert Carter

Although evolutionists claim that DNA supports Darwinism, that's the opposite of the truth: DNA is hostile to evolution and friendly to special creation. "Junk DNA", repair mechanisms, genes and RNA, how genetics supports "out of Babel" rather than "out of Africa", and more are discussed.

3. "The Origin of Life", by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

Previously, the chapters showed flaws in evolution by giving it a head start and presupposing a self-reproducing cell that has an operational genetic system. Although the typical Internet evolutionist will claim that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, that is both ridiculous and untrue. The origin of life is a huge problem for evolutionists — which is probably why they don't want to talk about it. Dr. Sarfati continues the progression that the other authors established, showing that the amazing complexity of DNA could not form or operate in the "primordial soup". Various chemical evolution studies have been self-defeating, showing intelligence involved in the formation of life's building blocks.

4. "The Fossil Record", by Dr. Emil Silvestru

Evolution proponents like to claim that the transitional forms that were missing in Darwin's day have been found, and are abundant in the fossil record. Fact is, transitional forms were missing back then, and they are missing now. Dr. Silvestru gives us definitions, some history about taxonomy and Carl Linnaeus. Biblical creationists expect to find evidence supporting the Genesis Flood, and the fossil record fits creationary models quite well.

We are also shown several areas where fossils are "out of place" according to evolutionary thinking, and how the Cambrian explosion (the Cambrian is a very old layer that has the sudden appearance of fully-formed, complex life forms that have been preserved). From here, we move on to fossils that have "exceptional preservation", then what qualifies as a "transitional" fossil, false claims about transitions, living fossils, ape men, and more. 

5.  "The Geologic Record", by Dr. Tasman Walker

The previous chapter discussed the fossil record, this time is the geologic record, which is "the arrangement of the rocks on Earth through time" (p. 155). When using the word "record", it's a mite misleading because it gives the connotation that rocks layers can be "read" in an orderly fashion to provide a valid history. Not possible. 

Dr. Walker provides a brief history of geology and uniformitarian interpretations, but the geological evidences does not require long ages. Fossils, finely laminated sediments, diamonds, opals, other rocks and geological features are shown to be able to form in much shorter periods of time than secularists demand; slow and gradual interpretations do not withstand scrutiny. In fact, biblical Flood interpretations provide far superior interpretations of geologic evidence.

6. "Radiometric Dating", by Dr. Jim Mason

Evolution requires long ages, so when flaws in the dogma of radiometric dating are presented, village atheists and their Darwinist friends get very upset. Although there are several methods of dating the Earth, most give results that are supportive of the young Earth, so they prefer tendentious radiometric dating results. 

Dr. Mason presents the science behind radiometric dating, the accuracy of the processes, and the huge discrepancies in results. There are several major assumptions that need to be made when using radiometric dating, so scientists have proposed isochrons. Do they help? Although the isochron method is impressive mathematically and scientifically, it has serious problems as well. From rocks, the author rolls on to Carbon-14, and also radiometric dating using helium (which really puts burrs under the saddles of Darwinists). Although touted as science that is devastating to biblical creation, radiometric dating has some serious flaws and gives their views no credible support.

7: "Cosmology: Exposing the Big Bang's Fatal Flaws", by Dr. John Hartnett

When creationists write or post material refuting the Big Bang, it is not uncommon for critics to say, "What does this have to do with evolution?" (Yet, they don't make such comments when I post a picture of our Basement Cat on my Page, for instance.) This is a variation on the dishonest denial of, "The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution", since the cosmic origin of everything is directly related to evolution. Just do a search on "We are all star stuff", or, "Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you might live", and their variations. But I digress.

We have to begin with the modern history of cosmogony. It is not based on science, but is a philosophy that needs scientific support. Despite initial resistance, the Big Bang became the dominant cosmogony and cosmology. But it's loaded with difficulties, so the Big Bang has had to keep evolving (heh!) with numerous add-ons and tweaks. Dr. Hartnett discusses redshifts, Hubble's Law, the cosmological principle, and more. He points out that there are five evidences where cosmologists explain unknown factors by invoking other unknown factors. "The fatal flaw of the big bang model of cosmic evolution is that it is based on unverifiable assumptions, primarily the cosmological principle" (p.231). No, the Big Bang is not settled science, and most certainly does not support cosmic evolution.

8: "Ethics and Morality", by Drs. David Catchpoole and Mark Harwood

Here is the "why it matters" section. Atheistic materialism and evolution are inconsistent and irrational, and they do not want to know about that. Our worldviews (everyone has one) affect our daily thoughts and actions, but evolution-based morality is disastrous. 

People reject the God of the Bible, and their excuses really come down to the fact that they just don't like him. Misotheists present God as a big meanie in the Old Testament, but such thinking is based on prejudicial conjecture, ignorance of history and cultures, problems with semantics, and other difficulties that could be settled if honest people did their homework. This is not about reason, but about emotion and spiritual rebellion. (I have long maintained that if logic and reason were consistently used by unbelievers, there would be no conflict, because everyone would be a biblical creationist; it is the worldview best supported by science, logic, theology, and history.) Evolutionary worldviews lead to nihilism and despair, yet rebellious people continue to use fraud to bolster this belief system.

In recent history, the mistreatment of native Australians, the Herero genocide, eugenics, and other evils were rooted in evolution. In fact, many people know that Hitler was an evolutionist and wanting to eliminate those that he defined as unfit, but World War I also had evolution as one of its causes. Famous atheist dictators murdered millions with their unrestrained atheism and evolutionary views. No, I am not saying that Hitler was an atheist, he had a strange religion all his own, and was a strong Darwinist. Even in more modern times, murderers such as those at Columbine and in Finland were evolutionists, and that was their motivation. And why not? Such teaching only leads to despair, and the violence of atheists and evolutionists is consistent with their worldview; there is nothing there to offer restraint for their actions.

Biblical Christianity is a stark contrast to materialistic thinking. It is not just another code of ethics. There is hope and salvation in Jesus, and the scientific evidence supports not only recent special creation, but Scripture itself. No, theistic evolution and other efforts to compromise Scripture with evolutionary science philosophies will not work — they actually undermine the gospel message.


People are locked into their rebellion against the Creator, and many are unwilling to consider the truth. In my preparation for writing this review, I saw an atheopath site asking for help in debunking Evolution's Achilles' Heels. One respondent offered a link to canned responses to creationists' claims. That's intellectually dishonest, old son. You want to debunk this book? Deal with the specifics, including the hundreds of supporting references. Also, they used the term "science deniers", a favorite of misotheists that is a logical fallacy, equivocating science with evolution. Then they call us stupid.

As you probably expected, I recommend Evolution's Achilles' Heels for people who want to examine scientific evidence refuting evolution and affirming biblical creation. In fact, you would do well in purchasing both the book and the DVD (sometimes the two-pack is on sale). I'll go you one further. Both Creation Sunday and Question Evolution Day happen on February 12, 2017. My suggestion is to utilize that weekend to have your church stand up for creation and against compromise. Showing the video would be excellent, and reading the book would be a whole heap of helpful as well. You can obtain the book at CMI or search for other retailers.

Evolution's Achilles' Heels is available at various locations, and in e-book format. Although I appreciate the advantages of e-books, unless you can view images in color and full-size, I recommend the physical book. Besides, underling an e-book reader is bad for it.