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.

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Paleoanthropology Tall Tales

It's amazing how evolution can be considered scientific when there are so many credulity-straining stories told in its promotion. Speculations are asserted as facts without any plausible models, just piles of stories worthy of entertainment around a campfire on a cattle drive, but not much else. In addition to the speculations, facts are conveniently ignored. Someone may want to ask, "Are you actually listening to yourself, pilgrim?"


Evolutionary scientists are ignoring facts in favor of telling their stories. Organic material still attached to stone tools after huge amounts of time? Ain't happening, pal.
Image: NPS.gov
Proponents of evolution insist on an old earth, even when the evidence is against them. How can animal fat still be on stone tools that are supposedly half a million years old? Organic material has a way of disappearing in a short time; horse apples on the lone prairie don't last very long, and they're not exactly something desired by much more than bugs and bacteria.

Evolutionary thinking has our ancestors being stupid brutes because they recently swung down from the trees and hadn't evolved much intelligence yet (again, despite evidence to the contrary). And they were content to stay primitive for long periods...not hardly. Again, do paleoanthropologists and others actually listen to their own stories? The truth is, there is no molecules-to-man evolution, and man was created as an intelligent being, and created rather recently.
Claimed to be half a million years old, stone tools found in Israel still contain traces of animal fat and vegetable matter.

The two parts of this sentence seem incongruent: “Stone tools that are half a million years old have been unearthed in Israel — and they still have traces of elephant fat clinging to them.” Yet this is what Tia Ghose says on Live Science without blinking an eye. Would not bacteria have removed all organic material from the rocks in just decades? With all the water from rain drenching the site over 500,000 years, it seems inconceivable to claim that any organic material would remain on a rock, yet that is exactly what the science news are reporting, based on a paper in PLoS ONE.
To read the rest, click on "Stone Tools Still Have Animal Residue".
        

Monday, March 30, 2015

Who is REALLY at War with Science, Creationists or Darwinists?

For many years, proponents of goo-to-you evolution have been creating a false war between "science" and "faith". The truth is, there is no conflict between the two. There are Bible-believing scientists today, and there have been throughout the formation of scientific methods. The real problem is between worldviews.

"But Cowboy Bob, we use science, you use faith!"

Not hardly. Science, and the "scientific method", is a philosophy about interpreting evidence. Historical science (such as creation and evolution) use scientific methods and interpret evidence according to presuppositions. A secularist sees a fossil and believes it's millions of years old, while a biblical creationist sees evidence of the global Genesis Flood, for example.

There is no war between science and faith, that's a lie. But some Darwinists feel the need to protect their worldview through dishonest propaganda and manipulation.
Unpopular Opinion Puffin has an unpopular opinion — signed, Captain Obvious
Unfortunately, people are only given one side of the story: evolution. Evidence for creation is dismissed out of hand, often times because people don't know that there's another (superior) way to interpret the evidence. Of course, when creation science ministries gain attention and prompt people to think for themselves and examine the evidence critically, Darwinoids circle the wagons to protect "science". That is, they pull the bait 'n' switch, saying that evolution is science, so they must protect it against those bad old "science deniers". Like I said before, I like science, and so does my heart.

Some protectors of "science" (that is, evolution) go on the attack, saying that since biblical creationist are lying because we don't agree with their fundamentally flawed God-denying worldview. Absurd things like, "You are anti-science. Yes - you DO lie about the age of the universe, spreading false information and propaganda" are said, then they pretend that they're doing the world a favor by "telling the truth" based on their antitheistic worldviews. It's almost funny in a way, since many people of that ilk lack anywhere near the education that the scientists they are criticizing possess. By making such misrepresentations about creationists and assertions about us lying, they make themselves the liars! Amazingly, some are actually proud of their arrogance and bigotry. Then there are "Christians" who have no respect for biblical creationists, and insist on their "right" to disrespect us and say how we're evil "fundies" —

"Not all evolutionists are like that!"

Oh. I went away for a while. You are correct. There are intelligent people who have been indoctrinated into evolutionism that may want to find out our side of the story. Creation science ministries want to not only equip Christians to defend the faith in this area, but to inform those evolutionists.

Also, it's ridiculous to believe that people who want to communicate the truth of God, who hates lying, will use lies and deception to get others to believe in God! Must be gnawing on peyote or something. Such attacks are not only showing ignorance of how science thrives (examination and challenge), but impugn the integrity of the people they don't like — all because they reject the materialistic worldview and support biblical creation.

What some people don't understand is that both creation and evolution involve faith, and use scientific methods with what is observed in the present to try to understand what happened in the past. Many of Darwin's Defenders will disunderstand what faith is, and misrepresent both faith and science.

What used to be a decent science magazine, National Geographic has become another propaganda arm of the Darwin Party. They are using bad logic and outright falsehoods to manipulate the emotions of people so that they will embrace evolutionism and reject creation science. It is indeed unfortunate that critical thinking seems to be in short supply, especially in educational systems.
National Geographic (NG) is a respected popular science magazine with millions of subscribers. So it is unfortunate when they use that platform to promote anti-creation propaganda under the guise of science. The cover of the March 2015 issue is “The War on Science”, and the featured article by science writer Joel Achenbach, “The age of disbelief”, intends to explain why so many people doubt the scientific establishment on a range of issues—from global warming to vaccines to the Apollo moon landings. And, of course, no ‘war on science’ article would be complete without a reference to creationists. But rather than shed light on these controversies, NG has only managed to spread more confusion.
To read the rest, click on "National Geographic claims creationists are at war with science". Also, I suggest that you head on over to see a "scripture" for evolutionists at "'Creation is faith; evolution is science'?" Think for yourself, you don't need to be bullied and manipulated into accepting a materialist evolutionary worldview.
      

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Charlie Darwin and the Fudge Factory

The general theory of evolution has been disingenuously (and fallaciously) equivocated with science for years now. But evolution is not "science". In fact, evolution fails the criteria for being a scientific theory! Get yourself to cogitating on this: evolution is not testable, repeatable, or observable (see the video at the bottom of this post for more). Oh, sure, proponents insist that evolution has been tested and observed, but that's from small samples and playing games with words (using the fallacy of equivocation by referring to "change" and "variation" as evolution). And nobody saw microbes evolving into all the life forms we see today.


When the evidence doesn't support evolution, what are the faithful to do? Make up stuff and fudge the data, of course!
Image provided by Why?Outreach
I reckon that evolutionism is getting more desperate all the time. There is a considerable amount of fact-free storytelling, and when the data becomes inconvenient, they use the scientific method of Making Stuff Up™. Although the structure of the "theory" is wrong, evolution has indeed been falsified seven ways from sundown, but the faithful manage to avoid the truth that evolution is a failure, the evidence supports Creation instead. To see what I'm jawin' about, take a look at the examples at "Fudging Evolution to Avoid Falsification".


Friday, March 27, 2015

Showing Backbone in the Cambrian Explosion

The Cambrian explosion is a serious problem for evolutionists, yet they keep trying to salvage evidence for their paradigm from it. The reality is that the Cambrian layers give evidence of creation, and also the Genesis Flood.

One of the biggest burrs under the saddles of evolutionary paleontologists is the Cambrian explosion. According to their paradigm, fossils were made gradually, showing evolution from simpler to more complex life forms, over millions of years. The Cambrian layer has many fossilized life forms that are fully developed, and evolutionists have struggled to explain this away. By the way, fossils in the pre-Cambrian? Not so much. That makes things worse for them.

David Attenborough does evolution documentaries, and he discussed a critter that supposedly was an ancestor to modern backbones. As is typical in these kinds of discussions, it is speculation without basis. In fact, what is found in the Cambrian explosion is evidence of creation (there are no undisputed transitional forms of something changing into something else), and also supports the Genesis Flood — especially with those well-preserved soft tissues that show sudden burial. Yippie ky yay, secularists!
The evolutionary origin of vertebrates 525 million years ago is the subject of a captivating video recently featured on Smithsonian.com. In this lavishly illustrated five-minute clip, charismatic evolutionary spokesman David Attenborough explains how a paper clip-sized Cambrian creature called Myllokunmingia has revealed how and when life took its first successful step toward the development of a backbone.
To discover when the first sign of a backbone appeared, Sir David takes us to China’s Chengjiang Formation where Myllokunmingia—which he says is “the earliest creature we know of that we can truly call a vertebrate”—was found in a Lower Cambrian rock layer. China’s Chengjiang Formation and Canada’s Burgess Shale are two famous sites revealing the Cambrian explosion—the abrupt appearance of diverse animals deep in the fossil record.
To read the rest, click on "Cambrian Explosion or Creation Week—Key to Vertebrate Success?
     

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Three Scientists Einstein Admired

Albert Einstein was an acknowledged genius. Who would someone like this look up to? The three people in pictures on his study wall may surprise you.

It's generally acknowledged that Uncle Albert was a clever lad. The name of Einstein is associated with genius, even in sarcasm, such as, "Nice going there, Einstein!". In addition to the General and Special Theories of Relativity, many people thought he had a great deal of wisdom. He did not have godly wisdom, however, rejecting the gospel message. Einstein did have a kind of Deist view of God, despite the dishonest claims of atheists like Clinton Richard Dawkins. So, who did this smart feller see fit to look up to, and what was special about them?
There’s little doubt that the most famous scientist of the 20th century was Albert Einstein (1879–1955). Today his name is synonymous with ‘genius’. Most people today would recognize his most famous equation, E=mc2, (though many would be hard-pressed to explain what it actually means!). But even Einstein had his science heroes.

So whom would the great Einstein have admired? They must have been incredible scientists for Einstein to have thought highly of them! And they were. Einstein had pictures of his three heroes of science on his study wall. They were Isaac Newton (1642–1727), Michael Faraday (1791–1867), and James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879).
To finish reading, click on "Einstein’s heroes—biblical creationists". 

  

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Water on Outer Moons

There have been several reports that there may be water on moons of Jupiter and Saturn, the asteroid Ceres — and maybe some just up yonder on our own moon. With advances in space exploration, it turns out that our solar system is a busy place, what with volcanic eruptions, methane geysers and what not. With speculations of water, naturally come speculations of life evolving from whatever is out there.

Speculations of the existence of water on outer moons of the solar system raise questions for cosmic evolution. Not so much for creationists, however.
Ganymede, Jupiter's largest moon, may have an underground ocean. Image: NASA / JPL
Of course, the various forms of water need to be investigated further, and there needs to be more involved, even for goo-to-you evolutionists, for life to happen. Also, evolution requires huge amounts of time, and the reports of water don't bother to address the problem of how water can last more than a few thousand years on a solar system alleged to be billions of years old. A young solar system is exactly what is expected by biblical creationists.

You can read the information by clicking on "Water Worlds Tempt with Life, Not Youth".
      

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Orphan Genes — Bee-Lieve It!

This bears repeating: despite the claims of Darwinists, science is an enemy of evolution, especially when it comes to genome studies. The concept of genome evolution gets lassoed and tied down because of "orphan genes". These things perplex evolutionary scientists because they are unique to certain organisms and giving them unique traits.


"Orphan genes" have been problematic for evolutionists. The problem became worse for them in honey bees, and orphan genes can be useful to creation scientists.
Pixabay / PollyDot
Honey bees are already frustrating to evolutionists since they have a complex social structure. The orphan genes provide them with traits not found in other bee species, including special means of communication, and they are found in various organs — again, unique to these bees. The orphan genes are of special interest to creation scientists, since they can help genetic research in the created kinds.
A key type of rogue genetic data called orphan genes has just been spectacularly reported in honey bees. Orphan genes conflict with ideas about genome evolution, and they are directly linked with the evolutionary enigma of phenotypic novelty, unique traits specific to a single type of creature.

Many creatures possess similar sets of genes that produce proteins with similar biochemical functions. Common genetic code would be a predicted feature of purposefully engineered biological systems in creatures that share the same environment and have somewhat similar life requirements. In addition to these common genes, different kinds of organisms also have unique sets of coding sequences specific to that type of creature called orphan genes. In a review paper about orphan genes, the authors stated, "Comparative genome analyses indicate that every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10–20% of genes that lack recognizable homologs [similar counterparts] in other species."
To read the rest of this sweet article, click on "Honey Bee Orphan Genes Sting Evolution". By the way, don't be in too big a hurry to kill off the first dandelions of spring, seems that they're good for honeybees. I reckon you might want to wait a little while if you can.
       

Labels