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, August 1, 2014

Failure to Find Extraterrestrials

Two obvious things are involved in the search for alien life, and both are based on evolutionary ideas. First, it would make evolutionists who pushed the origin of life problem off our planet feel vindicated because they would assume that life originated by chance "out there". Second, they could validate the huge expenditure of money over the years in their search.

Of course, there are astronomical problems involved in detecting signals from space since they would take a very long time to get here. Then there would be the difficulty of deciphering the signals as well. Some of us think that perhaps it is not such a good idea to make contact with a "more highly evolved" life form. Others believe that there are no aliens because of theological reasons. Of course, that does not stop evolutionists from grossly misrepresenting the positions of some Christians or from using convoluted "reasoning" to defend their dishonesty.

The discovery of exoplanets has rocket fueled the desire to find space aliens. However, the exoplanets are not cooperating. In fact, their existence is giving further difficulties to the already-failed favorite planet formation concept, and supports the creationist perspective. Even if a planet could be found that may have the necessary conditions to support life, they are not the conditions that can give rise to life in the first place. So, that problem remains. Quite a bit of money is being spent on metaphysical speculations dressed up as science.
With lofty words about humanity’s future, NASA promoters discussed the hope of discovering life on other planets at a recent meeting in NASA headquarters in Washington. Despite billions of dollars spent on the decades-long search and the fact that not one shred of distant life evidence has been found, NASA continues to suggest that life might really be out there and that its discovery is within reach. Does scientific evidence really justify this expensive search for distant life? If not, what’s the driving force behind this program?

The hope of discovering life in outer space dangles at the end of the long and costly stick, and its elusive carrot takes the form of life-friendly planets in distant star systems. The Kepler space telescope has helped astronomers verify over 1,700 “exoplanets” out of an ever-growing pool of more than 5,000 candidates. These findings almost certainly help fuel NASA’s plans to launch the Transiting Exoplanet Surveying Satellite in 2017, the James Webb Space Telescope in 2018, and others later on—all looking for distant signs of life.
To read the rest, click on "NASA's Far-Out Search for Life", and come back to watch the video below.



Thursday, July 31, 2014

What if Charles Darwin Had Never Been Born?

Sometimes, i's interesting to spend time speculating on "what if" in a fantasy world. Maybe Chuckie had never been born. Or perhaps he continued his studies in theology and became a Bible-believing pastor (theology was his only formal schooling, after all). It could be that he would continue his apprenticeship and become a medical doctor. Imaginably, he pursued is one-time interest in taxidermy with John Edmonstone. Or he could have run away and left no news. At any rate, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, plus The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex and other things would not have been written. Perhaps Alfred Russel Wallace would have been the one to write his version of evolution and become a hero to God deniers.

Maybe...perhaps...imaginably...could be...could have...it's like reading evolutionary science, yes?

There are people who think that Charles Darwin was a brilliant scientist who deduced evolution. Actually, he compiled and popularized it, since various evolutionary concepts masquerading as science were floating around during his time. Evolution itself is an ancient pagan religion, and Darwin made it look respectable.

I think it is probable that someone else would have published something similar and garnered the fame that Charles Darwin has today. Concepts like social Darwinism would likely still exist, since people were happy to take evolution and give "scientific" respectability to racism, abortion, eugenics and other evils of society. They would find a way to pretend that the Creator of the universe was not necessary.

There's a book about the world without Darwin that has some interesting speculations.
A new book tries to imagine how different the world would be, had Darwin as an individual not lived to promote his particular views on evolution.

With a title reminiscent of Dinesh D’Souza’s recent book and movie, America: Imagine the World Without Her, Peter Bowler just published a book on a different counterfactual note: Darwin Deleted: Imagining a World Without Darwin. Ana Marie R. Almeida reviewed the book in Nature under the headline, “Darwin Who?”

Bowler feels that the world would be quite different had Darwin not lived, even though many evolutionary beliefs were already popular in Europe and America. He doesn’t buy the “in the air” thesis, Almeida relates; Darwin was a special guy with a unique combination of interests and abilities. Had he not lived, other evolutionary ideas would have become dominant, but Darwin made evolution much more confrontational than other thinkers.
Imagine yourself reading the rest of this article. Make that fantasy a reality by clicking on "Darwin: Imagine a World Without Him". What if it was Chuck was born Charlotte Darwin and she just ran away?

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

The Baffling Seahorse

One of the more common expressions uttered by proponents of evolution is "evolutionary advantage". Essentially, they see an organism's particular characteristic and "explain" it in terms of some kind of evolutionary advantage. Sometimes this explanation is somewhat plausible, but many times, they are humorous; almost as if you were to say that short people have the evolutionary advantage of not having to stoop to pass through doorways. This is why some of us claim that they see evolution almost everywhere (blessed be!), but are mainly the products of imagination. In addition to the nonexistent whys of evolution, the hows are also missing; no fossil record, and so forth.


Pixabay / katja

Finding any evolutionary advantage to the seahorse is extremely unlikely. It is a fish that has many unique characteristics in addition to the obvious horse shape. No other fish spends most of its time swimming upright, its eyes work independently, the father does the birthing... Here, take a look:
With a bosom it can puff up like a pouter pigeon and a coat of coloured armour, it intrigues most people. It is 10cm (4 in) of riveted beauty, tail tightly curled around sea weed as it floats vertically in its green and watery world. It is the only fish that swims upright, and achieves this by having a special bubble inside its bladder. Sensitive cells at the top of the bladder detect when the bubble is in the wrong place and the animal moves until the bubble feels right. It will then be straight up again.

If you can imagine trying to turn any other sort of fish into a sea horse, you will see why no scientist has been able to suggest any evolutionary advantage for an animal to swim like this. After all, to stand up while you are swimming forward makes swimming a lot harder—like a horse without legs in a wrong world. Without the bladder it can’t move fast either. If the bladder is punctured, it sinks helplessly to the bottom and will die if the wound does not heal.
To read more about this work of the master Designer, click on "The Sea Horse".



Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Dinosaur Feathers Part 2 — What a Stupid Concept

In our last installment, we saw that Darwin's Desperate Cheerleaders are ignoring facts from paleontology and geology, and trying to make an ancient bird into a feathered dinosaur. This post has two more items that need your investigation.


Megalosaurus, a bird-hipped dinosaur
Some Darwinists are so intent on determining the origin of flight that they see feathers in all sorts of dinosaur fossils. It has been speculated that dinosaurs had feathers, and then branched into two kinds: Lizard-hipped (which allegedly evolved into birds) and bird-hipped (which did not allegedly evolve into birds, despite having an advantage in the hip department). I actually laughed when I read that. Things that look like feathers to some enthusiastic scientists actually have almost no resemblance to them. Here are two articles that show why the feathers are from the land of imagination. First:
The media have jumped all over a discovery of fuzz on a small ornithischian dinosaur, ignoring the evolutionary problems. 
No sooner had we published the previous entry about true feathers on an imaginary dinosaur (7/24/14) when another paper came out in Science Magazine announcing “feathers” on a real dinosaur. The media spin machine immediately went into high gear:
The discovery of a weird dinosaur, Kulindadromeus zabaikalicus, looking something like a cross between a chicken and a fuzzy kangaroo according to the artist’s imagination, was announced in Science Magazine. The authors, however, preferred the phrase “featherlike structures” instead of feathers throughout the paper. The only times they spoke of “feathers” per se, they qualified the word as interpretive:
  • Quill-like structures have been reported in the ornithischians Psittacosaurus and Tianyulong, but whether these were true feathers, or some other epidermal appendage, is unclear.
  • Here we report a new ornithischian dinosaur,Kulindadromeus zabaikalicus, with diverse epidermal appendages, including grouped filaments that we interpret as avianlike feathers.
  • They more closely resemble the monofilaments in the basal coelurosaur Sinosauropteryx and are similar to morphotype 1 in a recent evolutionary model of feathers.
  • These groups of filaments are similar to feather morphotype 3 and resemble the down feathers of some modern chicken breeds, such as the Silkie, which are devoid of barbules.
  • The presence of both simple and compound filamentous structures in Kulindadromeus (Fig. 4) supports the hypothesis that the integumentary structures in Ornithischia, already described in Psittacosaurus and Tianyulong, could be homologous to the “protofeathers” in non-avian theropods.
These integumentary structures look nothing like bird flight feathers. They lack a central vane, barbs, barbules and hooks. They look more like bits of fuzz about 5 to 15 mm long. Some of the “compound” ones are mere bundles of monofilaments that converge at the base.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Featherlike Structures Are Not Feathers", and remember that there is another strong article waiting for you.

To continue, not only are some evolutionary scientists and the wild-eyed sensationalistic press seeing feathers on dinosaurs, or unjustifiably turning dinosaurs into dino-bird things, feathers on dinosaurs are ridiculous. It is like paying for "being hit on the head lessons", what a stupid concept. There would be no advantage for scaly dinosaurs to grow feathers. Nor is it feasible for the huge transformation to evolve from walking to flying. These scientists want to prove evolution, but have tunnel vision and act in a very unscientific manner by elevating their presuppositions above their ability to actually find explanations for what is observed. Of course, the best explanation is that evolution did not happen and that the Creator designed living things, but that wrecks their paradigm. That would mean that God is the Creator, not some pantheistic force of Evolution.
A new dinosaur fossil discovered in China supposedly indicates that it had feathers. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the fossil of the Yutyrannus huali, the “beautiful feathered tyrant,” was the largest yet found of the now famous Chinese “feathered dinosaurs.” The technical description published in Nature claimed that a “gigantic feathered dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous of China” was recovered. But do these fossils really reveal former feathers, or does another interpretation, perhaps something as simple as decayed skin fibers, better explain them?

Below its headline, the Christian Science Monitor qualified the “feathered” label: These “feathers” are actually just “feather-like features,” or “simple filaments.” Similarly, the Nature text described them as “filamentous integumentary [skin] structures.” Real bird feathers are complicated, with semi-hollow cores and branching barbs, but the fossil’s filaments apparently did not have these features. If the word “feather” just means “filament,” then could any filament—like a hair or plant fiber—not also be called a “feather”?
To read the rest, click on "Did Some Dinosaurs Really Have Feathers?"

Monday, July 28, 2014

Dinosaur Feathers Part 1 — Ineffable Twaddle

The Question Evolution Project, sometimes people use artists' conceptions as proof of evolution. The chill out lemur was fooled.

Bringing you exciting news using my unregistered assault keyboard from a hidden location. Fundamentalist evolutionists are going to go haywire again when their dogmas and presuppositions are exposed.
"What ineffable twaddle!" I cried, slapping the magazine down on the table, "I never read such rubbish in my life."
"What is it?" asked Sherlock Holmes.
"Why, this article," I said, pointing at it with my egg spoon as I sat down to my breakfast. "I see that you have read it since you have marked it. I don't deny that it is smartly written. It irritates me though. It is evidently the theory of some arm-chair lounger who evolves all these neat little paradoxes in the seclusion of his own study. It is not practical. I should like to see him clapped down in a third class carriage on the Underground, and asked to give the trades of all his fellow-travelers. I would lay a thousand to one against him."
"You would lose your money," Sherlock Holmes remarked calmly. "As for the article I wrote it myself."

— from "A Study in Scarlet" by A. Conan Doyle
Are you familiar with the mostly-vanished phrases "horse feathers" or "hogwash" as expressions that something is nonsense? Not as colorful as Dr. Watson's expression just above, but saying "dinosaur feathers" may be a fun alternative.

They seem to love trying to say that dinosaurs evolved into birds, even though the evidence is against them: dinosaurs ate birds, and modern birds are found in the same rock strata as dinosaurs. Also, not all evolutionary scientists are united in the dinos-to-birds concept. The sultans of spin are so locked into their paradigms that they simply go around the evidence because they "know" what they believe is true. They are constantly seeing things that are not there, such as feathers on dinosaurs, or believing prehistoric birds (which have feathers and all the mechanisms of real birds) to be dinosaurs. The ever-loyal press love to publicize anything sensational.

Here are two articles about the wishful thinking of evolutionists to make something into what it isn't.
We’ve reported “imaginary feathers” on dinosaurs over the years, but this new fossil bird could fly.

Scientists and reporters have lost any hesitancy to call fossil birds “dinosaurs.” This is evident in a BBC News article by James Morgan, “Four-winged dinosaur is ‘biggest ever’,” and the Nature Communications paper on which it is based, “A new raptorial dinosaur with exceptionally long feathering provides insights into dromaeosaurid flight performance.”
You can finish reading the first article by clicking on "Real Feathers Found on Imaginary Dinosaur". Then come back for the next one.

Glad you to have you back. There is some overlap between the two articles, but both cover different aspects of the subject. This one is a bit longer and more detailed:
Biological aerodynamic engineering was in high gear long before modern birds evolved, evolutionists believe, based on analysis of some really long tail plumage. A fossilized, high-performance, feathered microraptorine called Changyuraptor yangi is making headlines as the longest-feathered “feathered dinosaur” on record. It had “four wings” (sort of) and a long tail featuring a sleek, aerodynamic design and quill-like feathers about a foot long. Counting the tail, Changyuraptor was about four feet long and weighed around nine pounds.

Paleontologist Luis Chiappe of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles, lead author of a recent report in Nature Communications, told the Washington Post, “I’ve never seen anything like it. It is a stunning specimen and it was stunning to see the size of the feathers. This is the dinosaur with the longest known feathers—by far. There is nothing like this by a very good distance. The feathers were one-fourth the size of the animal. It’s just wonderful.”
You can finish reading by clicking on "“Feathered Dinosaur” Featured Long Tail Plumage, Evolutionists Say". I wish I could get paid government grant money for indulging in my imagination. Don't you? At any rate, the evidence is clear that birds and dinosaurs were created separately, and one did not evolve into the other. These scientists are driven by ideology, not a search for real knowledge. If you want to keep going, click on "Dinosaur Feathers Part 2 — What a Stupid Concept".
     

Saturday, July 26, 2014

What About that Frink Dating Method?

No, the Frink dating method has nothing to do with the romance and marriage between Mr. and Mrs. Frink. Rather, it is the Oxidizable Carbon Ratio method postulated by Douglas Frink. Like other methods used to try to determine the age of items, it relies on several assumptions about the dating process.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
SPA Archaeologist Jeremy Decker records a piece of fire-cracked rock, one of a series of artifacts showing where prehistoric people built a hearth.

Also, the OCR method is calibrated with carbon-14, another dating method that requires many assumptions. But at least Frink points out difficulties in his process that need to be worked out instead of rushing in as a hero of science. So this, too, is not a reliable method to conjure up long ages for the sake of evolution.
MM from Australia asked about a new dating method called “oxidizable carbon ratio” (OCR) dating, which was brought to his attention by a friend.
It is important to understand the simple, fundamental principle behind all dating methods, and why they are not able to produce objective, absolute dates (see article How dating methods work). The fatal flaw is that all scientific measurements are made in the present, whereas a date relates to a time in the past. We cannot go back into the past to measure all the parameters we need in order to do the dating calculation.

Hence, all these parameters must be assumed—always. There is no other way. Further it must be assumed that the parameters have not varied over the ‘life’ of the sample. Because these are assumed, we cannot have any confidence that the calculated age is correct. Thus, scientists always compare their calculated result with what they think the answer should be. If their calculated age does not agree with expectations they will explain it away and look for something else to give them the age they need. The article How dating methods work gives one example of how unwanted dates are explained away. Radioactive dating anomalies gives other examples.
Unless you have a date tonight, you can finish reading by clicking on "Oxidizable Carbon Radio Dating".

Friday, July 25, 2014

Putting Down Two More Evolution Fictions

One problem that creationists have is that we have to deal with Darwin's Drones who want to negate what we have to say with proof of evolution. (Some are more reasonable and simply want to give what they consider to be evidence of evolution, not "proof".) Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents do not have a problem with evidence, because what Darwinists have to offer in defense of their worldview is weak.

Have you ever seen a creationist haiku on a tombstone before?

The most frequent problem we have is when evolutionists present what they consider evidence, and it has been dealt with by creationists already or even discarded by evolutionary scientists. They seldom do their homework. Unfortunately, these things keep popping up and are even in textbooks and so forth. We often know their material better than they do.

This article presents two items that are touted as evidence for evolution that should be buried. One is a claim that since some members of a Turkish family walked on all fours, it is evidence of evolution (which was based on circular reasoning and ignoring other explanations). The other is that claim that God designed the human eye poorly (scientifically shredded here, among other places), so it must be evolution. This claim is ridiculous on the surface because it admits that evolution is lousy at design. I encourage you to read "Two Evolutionary Evidences Debunked".

Labels