Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman

Welcome to the home of "The Question Evolution Project". There is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution. Evidence refuting evolution is suppressed by the scientific establishment, which is against the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Using an unregistered assault keyboard, articles and links to creation science resources are presented so people can obtain evidence that is not materialistic propaganda. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Secular Cosmologists Increasingly Desperate

Rational people think that if a hypothesis or theory is not supported by evidence, it is discarded and everyone moves on to something better. Unfortunately for science and reason, the Big Bang has been tweaked, adjusted, had the top sawed off and stapled on the bottom, sprayed with patchouli essential oil, run over with a steam roller — okay, I'm exaggerating just a bit. The fact remains that the Big Bang has failed, but instead of being discarded, it is modified for further failures. Then modified again, repeat as needed and call it science.

Big Bang continues to fail, secular cosmologists increasingly desperate
Credit: NASA/GSFC (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The current patch involves dark matter, dark energy, and other things involving "dark". There is no evidence that these things exist, but cosmic evolutionists cling to these things anyway. It should be obvious why: they despise the rational alternative, that God created the universe, and much more recently than fourteen billion years or so ago. Lack of science is causing scientists to say things that could be attributed to chawing down on peyote buttons.

Here is an article with several startling examples of nonsense that is worthy of Hugh Ross, just click on "Cosmology Still in the Dark". Also, you may like an article about unwarranted excitement over lifeless, smelly, dangerous molecules in space. For that, navigate to "Dead Molecules Found Around Star!"

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Evolution and the Human Sense of Smell

We hear about how impressive the sense of smell is in animals, especially dogs. According to Darwinian mythology, humans do not have an acute sense of smell. People have believed that idea for a long time, but it's based on assumptions and conjecture, not actual science.

Human sense of smell far more acute than evolutionists led us to believe
Credit: Pixabay / shixugang
But just study on it for a spell. Ever wake up in the morning because you smelled coffee brewing? Or bacon frying? Maybe you were awakened by the smell of smoke and wanted to make sure your place wasn't on fire. Personal fragrances are sold at exorbitant prices. Know why? Because people can smell them. (Some are marketed to men with the idea that if women get a whiff of this particular fragrance on you, they'll — oh, you know.) Show of hands: how many people like the smell of cut grass? Various scents stir our memories and emotions. Interesting that we can save and reproduce sounds and visuals, and to some extent what we physically feel, but there are no recorders for smell and taste, but I digress.

Evolutionists essentially believe that we evolved our way out of our sense of smell to make room in our brains for language capacity. Since we're so highly evolved, our sense of smell became mostly vestigial — useless junk. No, we were created, and we have our parts for specific reasons. Those unscientific, unfounded evolutionary conjectures interfered with scientific research in this area for a mighty long time. That's changed.
We’ve all heard that, compared to mammalian animals like dogs, humans have a poor sense of smell. Did you know that this notion is a 19th century myth? And that this commonly accepted myth is based on an evolutionary idea rather than scientific evidence?

“Poor Human Olfaction Is a 19th Century Myth” — Rutgers University neuroscientist John McGann’s review published in Science — traces the origin and consequences of this belief and reviews evidence to the contrary. How good a sniffer you are, it turns out, depends on what you’re trying to sniff out and how you measure olfactory quality and ability.
To finish reading, nose on over to "Humans’ Poor Sense of Smell Is an Evolutionary Myth".

Monday, August 14, 2017

Assumptions on Understanding Data

It's not a matter of our facts and their facts because scientific evidence is interpreted according to assumptions. Someone may say, "That fossil on my mantlepiece shows that the world is billions of years old", while someone else can look at the same rock and say, "That rock is evidence for the Genesis Flood". Everyone has the same data to work with, and we all start with our own beliefs.

More to Do credit: Freeimages / David Stern
Many times, atheists will claim that science is atheistic by nature, but that is one of the unsustainable presuppositions they hang on scientific methods. For that matter, I've seen the demand, "Prove scientifically that God exists". This shows a lack of logical thinking as well as a misunderstanding of both the capabilities and limitations of science; it cannot prove anything (let alone the existence of God via the category error), but science can show if a hypothesis or theory does not work.

The kind of science that we can see, repeat, test, and so on is operational or experimental science. My example at the top about the rock on the mantlepiece is an example of historical or forensic science, where scientific methods are used in efforts to reconstruct the past. Strictly speaking, things like cosmology and evolution are not science; no human saw the origin of the universe and certainly cannot repeat it. 

By the way, some tinhorns object to the term historical science, and especially the obvious distinction between historical and operational sciences. You'll see it referred to as if it was specific to Ken Ham (just like Bill Nye the Leftist Guy referred to "Ken Ham's" creation science, as if he was the only one who believed it). Creationists are not the only ones to make the distinction. It was interesting to see that the term historical science was used since 1900 by the International Congress of Historical Sciences, and was used in The Philosophy of History by Friedrich von Schlegel in 1935. Here is one of several examples I found of a secular scientist making the distinction in a paper.

Somehow, particles-to-pugilist evolutionists (the internet keyboard warrior sidewinders) play some equivocation games by equating science with evolution, then calling creationists "science deniers" which is a blatant lie. The claim is based on their presuppositions for interpreting evidence as well as failing to understand science itself. Science is a methodology, old son.

A more direct example of faulty assumptions is the claim that the giant panda's "thumb" is evidence against the Creator and for mindless evolution. That fails in the light of reason, because anti-creationists are assuming that the appendage is a failed thumb, but it actually works quite well for the panda's purposes. Their interpretations of what is observed in the panda led to wrong evolutionary and anti-theistic assumptions.

Because of anti-creationist propaganda, it may bring a prairie schooner full of startlement to tell y'all that creationists do not reject observed data, and no scientific fact controverts the Bible. We reject storytelling based on evolutionary assumptions masquerading as science, and we present creationary interpretations of evidence. In fact, observed data are better handled through biblical creation explanations and models; the same data are harmful to evolutionary views.
The whole point of science is that anyone doing the same experiment under the same conditions should get the same result. (The pioneers of modern science believed this because they believed in a divine Lawmaker who upheld His creation in an orderly way.) So, if you can’t do repeatable experiments, it’s not science. This includes many ideas of origins. One example is cosmogony (‘birth of the universe’), quoting a co-founder of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey:
“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science,” says James Gunn of Princeton University, co-founder of the Sloan survey. “A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.”
Dr Michael Turner, a theoretical cosmologist at the University of Chicago and the person who coined the term Dark Energy, tried to salvage cosmology by conceding that it’s different from experimental science and is instead historical science.
To read the rest, click on "'This changes everything!' — The right perspective makes a big difference".

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Earth's Magnetic Field and Solar Sneezes

A spell back, I posted about how life predated science fiction because Earth has something akin to planet-sized deflector shields. These are the Van Allen radiation belts, which were previously unknown until the Explorer satellite series helped find them. Later, the cosmic evolution-defying deflector properties were discovered.

Van Allen belts shield earth, Richter helped in their discovery
On January 31, 1958, Explorer 1 brought the US into the space age.
Image credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
When you sneeze, you're ejecting...stuff. The sun sends the occasional blast of stuff our way, which has been likened to a solar sneeze. 'Snot funny, That plasma and radiation could cause us problems. The following link leads to an article by Dr. Henry Richter, who was involved in the Explorer series and the detection of the Van Allen belts. It's good for a space exploration history lesson, and a reminder that our Creator set things up for our protection, even way out yonder.
A recent article about an attribute of the Van Allen Belts and how they operate strikes me as another prime example of how the Earth and its environment are designed to allow and protect life. Every now and then, the sun sends a large coronal mass ejection (CME) toward the Earth. This is a lot of dangerously destructive plasma which is a hazard to life and to electronic devices and systems. If the CME reached an unprotected Earth, it would cause widespread damage. The article on Phys.org, “Sun eruptions hit Earth like a Sneeze‘, say scientists,” describes what would happen without protection by our magnetic field.
To read the rest, click on "Earth’s Magnetic Field Protects Us from Solar Sneezes". Bless you, sun. 

Friday, August 11, 2017

Creation Science and Predictions

Something that crops up in discussions regarding science is predictability. Operational science (the kind you see every day, which is observable, repeatable, testable, and so on) has that going for it. Origins science is a horse of a different color. You can't repeat, test, observe the origin of the universe or alleged universal common ancestor evolution. Scientists in the evolutionary and creationary camps make some serious efforts at predicting some things, though.

Creation science outstanding predictions
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
Evolutionists have a dreadful record of making predictions (as seen here, for example), but since the secular science industry is in power, ideology is more important than truth or accuracy. Maybe their poor record is why we hear outright falsehoods about creationary scientists, such as denying that they are published in scientific journals, they do make predictions (including the failed Homo naledi fiasco), that they are not credentialed scientists, and so on. The article linked below features three outstanding creationary scientists and their predictions.
Some of us may not understand the scientific properties that make our world work, but we still know we can depend on them. When we wake up each morning, we have a good idea what’s coming next. After all, the faithful One who created the universe sustains it “by the word of His power”—from water to gravity, from stars to atomic forces (Hebrews 1:3). The laws reflect God’s character. Because He doesn’t change, the laws that keep our universe going don’t change either. He’s the reason our water heaters churn out hot water and the earth keeps spinning on its axis.

Those consistent laws allow us to make predictions about the universe. Life is like a big jigsaw puzzle, with a pile of jumbled pieces that entice us to put them together. The Creator wants us to recognize patterns and begin making connections between the pieces. Once we find the borders and start matching similar colors and patterns, we start to see the final image that glorifies Him.
To read the entire article (or download the audio version), click on "Creationists’ Power to Predict".

Thursday, August 10, 2017

Constellations, Cultures, and Babel

There are several items that creationists tend to post involving certain worldwide legends, such as stories of dragons and tales of global floods in numerous cultures (including the Epic of Gilgamesh). I don't rightly recollect seeing much about constellations around the world, though.

Constellations in common many worldwide people groups evolution fails creationists have answer
Credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
It's easy to imagine people laying in the grass or a field on a dark night and picking out stars to make constellations — you may have done it yourself. So it's somewhat puzzling to hear speculations about where the constellations originated. Many star patterns are common to widely separated people groups since ancient times, but according to evolutionists, the people evolved in different localities. The mysterium tremendum of convergent evolution is invoked in lieu of actual science to explain this puzzler.

Darwinists are inadvertently admitting they have no idea why diverse cultures have many of the same constellations. Biblical creationists have a better explanation for observed facts, but naturalists reject it out of hand: post-Flood people at Babel were dispersed, and many took their pagan beliefs with them.
There are deep similarities among diverse cultures in their constellations. The similarities stem from an origin at least as remote as the dispersion from Babel, and vastly pre-date cross-cultural missionary outreaches of recent centuries. Cultural differences in constellations have resulted from distinct developments in various people groups since the dispersion from Babel. Constellations appear to contain memories (in corrupted form) of ancient historical events such as the Flood, but evidence does not support the claim that the constellations were a kind of primeval revelation, a ‘gospel in the stars’.
To read the rest, click on "Constellations: legacy of the dispersion from Babel".

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Basic Geological Models of the Genesis Flood

Scientists will formulate hypotheses, and if they withstand testing and challenges, those graduate into theories. You may have noticed that scientists like to make models. No, not those plastic things that are packaged in kits and held together with glue. A model is an attempt to explain an object or process that usually cannot be observed, so these are often found in historical science. When it comes to origins and the history of Earth, both secular and creationary scientists have their models. Models should have some correlation with observable evidence.

Coffee rocks credit: Freeimages / Jenny Rollo
Uniformitarian ("the present is the key to the past") geologists generally insist on slow and gradual processes to explain what is observed — except when they are forced to steal a rapid, catastrophic processes horse from the biblical creationists' corral. That is, secular scientists are frequently surprised by the evidence because it cannot be explained by their belief system, so they occasionally insert rapid processes when necessary.

Biblical creationists maintain that what is observed in geological formations is best explained by the rapid processes mentioned above. Creation science geology models present strong evidence for the Genesis Flood, which in turn explains fossilization, plate tectonics and subduction, rapid reversals in Earth's magnetic field, rapid erosion, the Ice Age, indicates a young earth, and more. And it does this 'splainin' far better than secular hypotheses and models. They don't cotton to this, because Darwin needs huge amounts of time, secularists want it, and creationists are showing the implausibility of deep time.
Although evolutionary scientists insist there is no evidence for the global, Earth-destroying Flood described in Genesis, accepting the Genesis Flood as literal history enables researchers to make sense of a wide array of geological, climatic, and cultural data.
I'm be much obliged if you'd read the rest of the article. To do so, click on "The Flood, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, and Earth History".