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.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

You Have Some Nerve!

Critics of creation and Intelligent Design like to come up with certain physiological features and say, "That must be evolution, since it's done so badly. No God did that!" Such remarks are made from their evolutionary biases and not from sound reasoning. Unfortunately, other biased people take these pronouncements and run with them, thinking, "Checkmate, creationists!", but neither Darwin's Cheerleaders nor their mentors know what they're talking about.

Henry Vandyke Carter / PD

What they believe is evidence for evolution is, when examined by knowledgeable people, actually evidence for the Creator after all. Clinton Richard Dawkins made pronouncements that the human eye is poorly designed, and that has been thoroughly discredited. Dawkins, Don Prothero and others make similar foolish claims about the recurrent laryngeal nerve, but they not only misrepresent its functions, but demonstrate lack of knowledge of embryology and anatomy. Or perhaps they are blinded by bias. The truth is, this nerve also shows the work of the Creator.
A common claim by evolutionists is that the mammalian left recurrent laryngeal nerve was poorly designed because it travels downward past the larynx, then around the aorta and, last, back up to the larynx. They reason that a much shorter route directly to the larynx would be far more effective. This analysis concludes that the reasons for the longer route include both developmental and design constraints. Furthermore, the evidence for intelligent design of this arrangement is both obvious and compelling.

Evolutionists commonly claim that the human body is poorly designed, and that this proves it was not intelligently designed, but rather cobbled together by the unintelligent process of evolution. One of the most common examples of poor design cited by evolutionists today is that of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN), which controls the larynx (voice box) muscles. The claim is often made by Darwinists that evolution is proved because examples of “poor or at least very puzzling design can be accumulated endlessly”, and one of the best examples is
“… the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which connects the brain to the larynx and allows us to speak. In mammals, this nerve avoids the direct route between brain and throat and instead descends into the chest, loops around the aorta near the heart, then returns to the larynx. That makes it seven times longer than it needs to be!”
The main argument is that the laryngeal nerve is poorly designed because it does not take the shortest route to the larynx, a condition also true for many other nerves. Examples include the optic nerves, which do not take the shortest route to the occipital lobe of the brain, but rather cross over at the optic chiasm for what are now known to be very good reasons rooted in optimal design.
I hope you have the nerve to learn the truth. To do so, click on "The left recurrent laryngeal nerve design in mammals is not poor design".

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Big Bang is a Big Whimper

Many Christians have not given serious consideration to how accepting secular notions about origins affects their entire theology. When accepting the latest pronouncements of man-made science philosophies, they are forced into a position of making theological adjustments to make it fit their understanding of Scripture.

Source: Hubblesite.org

The current popular view among secular scientists regarding the origin of the universe is the Big Bang. There are Christians who are quite happy to believe that God used the Big Bang to create the universe. Unfortunately, the Big Bang is seriously at odds with the book of Genesis and the order of creation, so they have compromise in the beginning. In addition, the Big Bang has serious scientific difficulties, and has been adjusted many times — so compromisers need to make frequent adjustments as well. The Big Bang is not "settled science", nor is it agreed on by all cosmologists and cosmogonists. Who are you going to believe, the Creator who has told us what he did in his Word, or changing scientific speculations?
Most scientists believe that the universe suddenly appeared 13.8 billion years ago in an event called the big bang. Today, the universe appears to be expanding, so if the big bang model were true, the universe would have been much smaller in the very beginning.

In addition, if the big bang were true, that would mean (according to secular astronomers) that at the beginning, the universe would have been much hotter than it is today. According to the big bang model, this hotter temperature in the early universe ought to have produced a radiation field that continues to fill the universe today.
You can finish reading this short article by clicking on "A Big Belief". 

Monday, August 18, 2014

Goldilocks, Earth and Rotation

It is baffling why some people are so concerned about how the possibility of life on other planets affects biblical creationism. They will ask, "What will that do to your view of the Bible?" This kind of question gets ahead of itself, and I wonder if these people have any idea what is involved in the studies of exoplanets in the first place. It's not like they're across town, or even a three-day flight from Earth.

First, scientists have to find a suitable planet that may be in the habitable zone. Then, through processes as yet unknown, they must find out if there is life on that planet. After that, it needs to be determined if there is intelligent life on it. So, don't be trying to overturn God's written Word with "what ifs" and assumptions.

Speaking of the habitable zone, there are many exoplanets but so far, none have fit the criteria. Too big, too small, too close to their sun, too far away, wrong composition, combinations of factors... To make matters worse, the rotation of the planet may also be an important factor. (In typical evolutionary desperation, some scientists say that because Venus is cloudy, it must have rotated faster in the past. Evidence, please?) The more astronomers and cosmologists find, the more it seems that Earth was put where it is (the "Goldilocks" or "Just Right" place) by the Creator.
Life can’t exist on a planet that rotates too fast or slow. This is another Goldilocks problem for astrobiologists to consider.

NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine has added another factor to habitability: planetary rotation. In “Rotation of Planets Influences Habitability,” Amanda Doyle reports on findings from a paper on the arXiv server scheduled for Astrophysical Journal Letters. After giving the usual definition of the habitable zone as the inner and outer radius around a star where liquid water can exist, she complicates things:
You can read the rest by clicking on "Planet Rotation Limits Habitability". 

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Makes a Compelling Case

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In yesterday's post, points were made that atheists and evolutionists blatantly misrepresent the biblical creationist position in their efforts to control education. They present evolution as indisputable scientific truth. One of the main problems with this is that people will simply accept such statements as accurate, and then expect creationists to defend positions that we do not hold.

Educators present only the good side of evolution, often including (sometimes from ignorance) outdated and inaccurate information from textbooks. Indeed, some textbooks also contain fraudulent material. Creation science and Intelligent Design materials are actively suppressed, and evolution is sometimes required to be presented with no contrary information. Add this indoctrination to the additional problems that people tend to "think" with their emotions, and that students are not taught to think critically. Then we have Darwinoid Drones arguing with creationists using bad information and worse logic, not even knowing what creationists teach!

There are many testimonies of people who did not know anything about creation science, and when they investigated the information for themselves, they realized that they had been misled. (Of course, there are others who will read creationist material and chant their mantra, "Creationists are liars", so there is little hope for their minds.) The majority seems to have little chance of learning or thinking, since they get the material presented in the biased evolutionary way.

I remember an old cartoon.
A big dumb hound dog that is hunting a fox so he can cut its tail off, so Bugs Bunny puts on a fox costume. Later, he's using an ink pad and rubber stamp to make fox tracks. We see the dog sniffing along and comes across the stamped tracks. He says, "Fox tracks!" and follows them, sniffing along. 
Suddenly the fox tracks stop and train tracks begin. The hound says, "Train tracks!", sniffing along again. He finds Bugs in the fox costume leaning against the entrance to a train tunnel, grabs and shakes him. "Daaaah, now I gotcha, ya little old fox! I'm gonna cut your tail off!" 
Bugs slaps the hound's hands away from him. "Just a minute there, Bub! Just what type o' tracks was you followin'? 
"Uh...uh...uh...train tracks!" 
"Now then. If yer followin' train tracks, you must be trying to catch a train. Right?" 
"Yahyuh, yahyuh, dat makes good sense!" 
"Then if it's a train you're after, he went thataway!", pointing into the tunnel. 
"He did?", the dog says. Then he shakes Bugs' hand. "Gee, thanks a lot, pal, thanks a lot!" He "catches" the train and is extremely pleased with himself.
(If the embed works below, you can see this cartoon. The bit I'm quoting starts at the four minute mark.)

My point with this fun stuff is that people will learn "evolution", then go try to cut off the creationist's tail, use bad reasoning and then think they've done something spectacular. Learning only the evolutionists' skewed and false views will give them an unrealistic sense of accomplishment when they attack creationists.

Many of us have similar experiences when someone is given one side of a story by a biased presenter, then learns that there is more to the story after all. For instance, the cultist "creationist" that I wrote about was railing about me, and someone simply accepted the cultist's account without bothering to see my side of the story:
Translation: Yahyuh, yahyuh, dat makes good sense!

Evolution "education" is biased indoctrination. That's right, I said it! They suppress contrary evidence, misrepresent opponents and even present false information. (The logical conclusion of their evolutionary "we're all just bundles of chemicals that happened by chance anyway", so almost anything goes.) The rest of us will strive to present the truth (I'm doing so from behind my unregistered assault keyboard), hoping and praying that people will examine the evidence that we present and realize that the things that seemed to make sense about evolution do not withstand scrutiny. God is the Creator, the evidence supports this conclusion, he makes the rules, we are accountable. And that is something the Evo Sith fear.

Merrie Melodies - Foxy by Proxy (1952) by Cartoonzof2006

Friday, August 15, 2014

Humanistic Evolutionary Indoctrination Hijacks Science Education

Atheists and evolutionists will sometimes say that they want to have "an honest discussion" with creationists about origins science. Unfortunately, they obtain information from anti-creationist sources.  regarding what creationists believe and teach. From their questions and statements, we can tell that they seldom attempt to understand what creationists really believe and teach.

This kind of approach leads to absurd conversations resembling:
"You misrepresented the biblical creationist position".
"No, I didn't! I did not misrepresent it! Prove that I did!"
"You made assertions but did not substantiate anything".
"Liar! What I said is true!"

Sigh. Such illogical assertions are generally based on repeating what has been read from spurious sources.

The British Humanist Association gave an excellent example of the inaccurate information that has been spread about creationists. They listed several "arguments" that creationists use. These are straw man arguments, quote mining, uninformed but enthusiastic creationist laypeople, examples that BHA does not understand aspects of science themselves, blatantly untrue assertions (atheists like to falsely accuse, "Liar for Jesus", but we have cases of "Liar for Darwin") and more. This helps their efforts to suffocate critical thinking in students, ridiculing creationism and promoting falsehoods of evolution; this is brainwashing.
For some years the British Humanist Association (BHA) has been campaigning to prevent children in UK state-funded schools being informed about the evidence for a creator. They have been remarkably successful, especially in their lobbying for the most restrictive government regulations concerning what may be taught. For example, the latest ‘free school’ funding agreement requires that “The Academy Trust must not allow any view or theory to be taught as evidence-based if it is contrary to established scientific or historical evidence and explanations. This clause applies to all subjects taught at the Academy.” Since the theory of evolution would be deemed “established science” and “all subjects” would include Religious Education, it would appear that this effectively prohibits any meaningful discussion of the scientific evidence for creation in any classroom.
To finish reading, click on "Strawmen and censorship: the British Humanist Association and creation in schools", and learn to watch for inaccurate or outright dishonest statements that you do not have to defend.

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Don't Fear the Ice Core — Parts 1 and 2

Some biblical creationists are intimidated by the certainty of long-agers who insist that they have strong evidence for an ancient earth and that the biblical timeline is impossibly short. This confidence is based on bravado. In actuality, the ice cores are nowhere near as reliable as evolutionist claim.

Pixabay / Antarctica / Mariamichelle
Several assumptions made regarding ice sheets, flow models and core samples, including the assumption that they are extremely old. Also, they are calibrated and confirmed by other methods that require numerous assumptions. This amounts to circular reasoning, one of the most common practices of evolutionary science. Using a Noah's Flood model, creation scientists used their assumptions for flow models and came up with more believable results.

There are two parts to this article (a third part may be forthcoming in the near future). Each is linked here. First, "Ice Cores, Seafloor Sediments, and the Age of the Earth: Part 1", and then, "Ice Cores, Seafloor Sediments, and the Age of the Earth: Part 2".

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Cultists as Creationists

Previously, I wrote an article about how people need to be discerning. Cults like the Sacred Name, Jehovah's Witnesses and others will use interest in origins as a way to rope in the unsuspecting and feed them their "truth". 

On another Weblog, I wrote about a Sacred Name cultist posing as a biblical creationist and speaking blasphemy on Facebook. I hope this article (and others linked within) will not only expose the charlatan, but also give encouragement to check for deceptions and compare their statements with the Word of God. After all, this is not the only time or place that this will happen. Please see "A Cult on Facebook Claiming to be Creationist".