Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman

Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Cosmic Alchemy and Stellar Gold?

An interesting story about the merging of neutron stars (who did not bother to consult the Federal Trade Commission on their merger) involved some interesting information on their history and detection. This necessitates material on gravity waves, and some of Uncle Albert Einstein's work. From there, we were given some Big Bang cosmogony, chemistry, and chemistry's weird great grandfather that nobody likes to talk about: alchemy.

The Alchemist / David Teniers the Younger
Way back yonder in medieval times, some folks were attempting sciency stuff by attempting to convert base metals (copper, lead, tin, and so forth) into gold. Imagine the devastating impact on economies if they succeeded! Alchemy was distantly related to chemistry for reasons that should seem obvious.

We get exceptionally dense neutron stars commencing to merge, and the interaction supposedly produced a passel of gold. Problem is, it's all based on Big Bang presuppositions on the origin of the universe, and subsequent cosmology on the formation of the stars, and ultimately, you and me. The ideas may look good to materialistic mathematicians, but it is not science. There is nothing testable, repeatable, observable, and all those other things required of a valid scientific theory. Stars exploding, metals forming, neutron stars making gold, a bunch of unknowns, life evolving — quite a few tricks to train in that pony, old son. Best to believe what God's Word says and leave behind the silly antics.
On October 16, 2017, two press conferences generated much interest when they announced the detection of two neutron stars merging. What particularly caught the public's attention was the claim that this event produced perhaps 10 times the earth’s mass in gold. How much of this story is established fact and what parts are conjectures? And what does this mean? Let me sort through this.
To read the rest and get a good science lesson, click on "Spinning Stardust into Gold".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, November 17, 2017

Evolutionists Reach Faulty Conclusions about Extinction

When materialistic scientists argue from their evolutionary and deep time presuppositions, facts tend to get a mite scrambled. Speculations about things they think happened millions of Darwin years ago get added to the mix. When hearing, viewing, or reading about speculations that have no actual science behind them, it become difficult to stifle laughter.

Credit: Freeimages / Aron Hess
Geologically thinking, we have rock layers with fossils in them. Secular assumptions smuggle in long age presumptions (uniformitarianism), so the fossilized creatures appear that they were spread out over many years, and that there were several "great extinctions". However, secular scientists speculating about the distant past are not in agreement about how many extinctions happened. Worse for them, their conjectures fail to address observed evidence, but biblical creationists' models of the Genesis Flood have no difficulty giving rational explanations. Must grate on them that the evidence supports creation and the Bible instead of their guesses.
Secular geologists hypothesize five major mass extinctions in Earth history and maintain the most catastrophic of these happened nearly 252 million years ago. This Permian extinction, or Great Dying, supposedly resulted in the loss of 70 percent of land species and 95 percent of marine species. What really happened?

Creationists believe the fossil record formed just thousands of years ago as a result of the devastating Genesis Flood. But since those who hold the secular worldview must go to extremes to avoid anything biblical—any explanation but a worldwide flood—these efforts often result in some entertaining extinction stories such as, “A single gene transfer event may have caused the Great Dying.”
I know you're greatly dying to read the rest. To do so, click on "World's Most Catastrophic Extinction".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, November 16, 2017

Some Spiders Can Fly

Some folks do not cotton to spiders, even getting the heebie-jeebies at the tiniest of them. I can understand being skittish with a spider that looks like if you tried to strike it with a tennis racket, it would take it away and strike you instead. Yep, that's alarming. Anyway, some might say, "I'm sure glad spiders can't fly!" Sorry, Sally, but some do fly — in a way. Those shimmering threads are not from UFOs, so Auntie Madge doesn't need to call the Air Force (Project Blue Book has been closed for a long time, anyway), nor are they "chemtrails" Just spiders doing ballooning stuff.

Spider ballooning is another example of the Creator's engineering design abilities
Ballooning spiderlings image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Little Grove Farms / (CC BY 3.0)
Each of a huge number of spiders can shoot out some gossamer and ride the high winds. They don't all have happy landings, though. The survivors, though, hit the ground like special forces leaving their parachutes behind. How do they do this? Sure, the wind is an important part. But another important part involves electrostatic charges! Yet another dumb conundrum for evolutionists to use words like "maybe", "perhaps", "scientists think", and then call it science. Gotta have that homage to Darwin, blessed be. No, the obvious explanation is that they were engineered by their Creator to do this aerial dispersal. After all, spiders defy evolution in other ways, including in the fossil record.
It could be a scene from a Hollywood horror movie—millions of spiders descending from the sky on to a ship being tossed about on the ocean miles from land. While Hollywood would make them huge, man-eating spiders (and the crew would have to battle to survive the infestation), the real event isn’t scary. Instead, it is incredibly fascinating. It even happened to Charles Darwin on board HMS Beagle, about 100 km (60 miles) off the coast of Argentina in 1832. And it was Darwin’s observations of the spiders’ action that caused a modern-day scientist to consider the possibility that arachnids harness electrostatic energy to ‘balloon’ from point to point. Who hasn’t been ‘zapped’ by static electricity?

University of Hawaii physics professor Peter Gorham challenged existing aerodynamic theories to make the case for electrostatic flight in ballooning spiders by looking at the physics of such actions.
To read the rest, click on "Charged-up spiders on the move". Also, a short video of the spider trails is below.



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Excessively Presumptive Cosmologists

In any field of science, there has to be some degree of presumption. Scientists have to presume the uniformity of nature and its laws (although secularists refuse to admit that God, who created everything, upholds the universe by his power). When getting further into evolution-related fields, more presumptions are made based on naturalistic presuppositions. This is clearly seen in cosmology — which is not even science, but a philosophy.


Credit: NASA / ESA (modified)
Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
Cosmic owlhoots Krauss and Scherrer wrote a paper that may not have been entirely serious, saying that cosmologists in the future may not have the necessary information to make the correct conclusions about the universe that today's scientists have made. What, nobody keeps or refers to records? The authors got the bit in their teeth and galloped off with the presumption that they are correct in the first place in the here and now. (Reminds me of the tinhorns who sequenced the human genome years ago, did it sloppily, then asserted that the DNA they didn't find a use for in their current, limited knowledge was "junk". Then they were proved way, way wrong.) Further pursuits and assertions reveal that the Big Bang assumptions of the authors have a seriously flawed epistemology (study of knowledge). Scientists today need a passel of humility, as their arrogance is getting in the way of doing useful science.
Lawrence Krauss and Robert J. Scherrer surprised the cosmology world in 2007 when they published an essay titled “The Return of a Static Universe and the End of Cosmology.” The paper showed that, assuming the truth of the current big bang model, in the far future (hundreds of billions of years from now) many evidences for the big bang itself will be gone, preventing future cosmologists from even being able to detect evidence for it.

In these papers, it is noted that, assuming the big bang model is true, at some point in the future, galaxies will be far enough away from each other as to not be seen. Within a galaxy, the operation of physics is relatively static. Therefore, at some point in the future, we will not be able to witness some of the more dynamic effects of expansion, which were critical in the development of big bang cosmology.
To read the rest, click on "What Krauss and Scherrer’s 'End of Cosmology' Scenario Means for the Epistemology of Modern-Day Cosmology". 


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Evolution is Quickly Failing

Gotta admit, I keep wanting to swipe the title, "Everything You Know is Wrong" and apply it to evolution because, frankly (mind if I call you Frank?), the evolutionary storyline keeps changing. Even more so in recent years, and the changes favor special creation and show the etiolated nature of Darwinism.


Image by Why?Outreach
Evolutionary scientists are finding more and more evidence that their cherished beliefs are turning to ashes in their hands. New discoveries change the age of the alleged human-chimp ancestry split, changing the age of lineages and causing more problems. Ardipithecus ramidus discoveries are changing the "savannah hypothesis". "Lucy" the ape fell out of human lineage stories long ago, except in the minds of the churlish faithful, and Lucy is being bothered even further.

If they would step back and see that their naturalistic worldviews do not contain the necessary preconditions of intelligibility, they might get tired of being wrong and realize that yes, there is a Creator. To read about the items mentioned above and more, click on "Everything Scientists Assumed About Human Evolution Needs a Major Rethink".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, November 13, 2017

Puzzling Dart Frog Poison

There are small critters in Central and South America have been given the name "poison dart frogs". Most have bright colors, but if you find yourself near them, resist the urge to pick them up. They are toxic, some are dangerously so. These attractive but dangerous amphibians were given their name because some species were used by natives in the area to poison the darts for hunting and such.

Poison dart frogs puzzle evolutionists
Dendrobates tinctorius credit: Wikimedia Commons / Olaf Leillinger (CC BY-SA 2.5)
So, they're dangerous to touch, and the poison some secrete can be used to make lethal weapons. This raises some interesting questions: How does the poison work? How can they survive their own poison? What came first, the poison or the resistance? The first question involves biology and chemistry, but the other two are stumpers for evolutionists, because both the poison and the resistance must be operational at the same time, or nothing makes sense, nothing works — evolutionists have no plausible model beyond "maybe", "perhaps", "it could be", "scientists think", and so on. That' ain't a plausible model, Hoss. No, the poison dart frogs were engineered by their Creator.
Found in Central and South America, the poison dart frog uses its skin toxin for defense and its bright colors as a warning. Each tiny amphibian holds enough toxin in its skin to kill 10 people.1 Its popular name came from native hunters who very carefully dipped the tips of their hunting darts in the frog’s poison. A new study revealed how the frogs survive their own poison, and the answer points to God.
To read the rest, click on "Why Don't Poison Dart Frogs Poison Themselves?" You may also be interested in the short video below.



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, November 11, 2017

Evolutionists Censoring Biological Truth

Advocates of minerals-to-microbiologist evolution are none to fond of information that contravenes their worldview. One way they do this is through outright censorship of creationary evidence. Another is to pile on misrepresentations, logical fallacies, and outright falsehoods. When caught lying, keep on lying. It's what they do. For that matter, I am convinced that many atheists and other evolutionists are afraid of creationary material, so they won't read it; some are so determined to contradict us that they will ridicule material based on a title or introduction alone — and have humiliated themselves by contradicting the evolutionary scientists they adore!


CSIRO scientist sequencing DNA credit: CSIRO / Health Sciences and Nutrition
Another tactic, frequently observed in leftist news media, is to ignore inconvenient truths and pretend that they do not exist. Darwin's Flying Monkeys© on the internet and other places bombard evolution skeptics with "mountains of evidence for evolution" that are actually untrue. Some of their "facts" are based on faulty and incomplete research, stories that were popular in science news and in textbooks that have been rejected, and so on. Biblical creationists attempt to present information that they did not know or possibly have not carefully examined. We hope that they will question evolution, and eventually come to know the Creator in a personal way. The article featured below emphasizes biological truth; evolutionists think that genetic research is friendly to their paradigm, but that is the opposite of the truth.
DNA is a supernaturally created and designed medium containing living information. Overlapping parts of the same nucleotide sequence along the DNA code are used to produce completely different protein molecules. Studies have shown that DNA nucleotide sequences can produce different proteins if read forward versus being decoded from the same area backward. “This is similar to a book in which the same sentences can be read in completely different languages, read forward or backwards, and give different yet completely clear meanings.”1 As we begin to understand the complexity of the DNA code, or even the simplest living cell, it is simply impossible for random chance processes, i.e., mutations, to achieve such level of complexity.
To finish reading, click on "Censored Biology".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels