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

Monday, September 25, 2017

Chemical Bonds in Fossil Plants Oppose Evolution

Believers in evolution and deep time get on the prod when soft tissues are discussed, mainly because they cannot exist over millions of Darwin years. Lately, the most frequent discussion on soft tissues involves dinosaurs, but they are found in other areas, such as the ink in a fossil ink sac that was used to draw a picture. In a similar manner to soft tissues, fossil plants are not cooperating with the evolution narrative.

Gingko leaves in autumn image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Joe Schneid
Even after the alleged millions of years, original plant molecules and chemical bonds were found — and a term that brings the concept of entropy to mind, thermodynamic stability, was used. Worse for Darwin's disciples, plant material was essentially unchanged between those in the fossils and living counterparts. I reckon that the term living fossils may be applicable here. Yee ha boy howdy, evolutionists were frustrated twice in one study! Truth is, the earth is not billions of years old, and the evidence supports creation while refuting evolution.
Researchers shined a laser light on fossil leaves and found some surprising results. Instead of mere impressions of leaves, the fossils turned out to contain original molecules—persisting after millions of supposed years. 

Research led by Lund University in Sweden used FTIR to find original molecular bonds still intact inside fossilized leaf wax. The technique detects stretches in specific chemical bonds.

To read the rest, click on "Fossil Plants Contain Original Molecules".
  
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Those Scientists Who Revived Evolutionism

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

We've seen several times before that evolution was not the brainchild of Charles Darwin, and had been around since way back when. It is actually ancient pagan religions, and had received some "scientific" adjustments before Darwin became its chief popularizer. Darwin's disciples revere him as a "great scientist", as well as the other 19th century propagandists for evolutionism. Except that most were not scientists at all!

Darwin, Spencer, Lyell, others who established 19th century evolution had no formal scientific training

Many creationists point out that Darwin had no formal scientific training, and was actually a backslidden theology student. (I'll allow that he did make some good observations while learning in the field, however.) We also point out that old earth advocate Charles Lyell was a lawyer. Several others that influenced Darwin and the revival of evolutionism had no scientific training.

"That's not quite fair, Cowboy Bob. Geosciences are comparatively new, so they weren't giving away those doctorates so much back then."

That's true. However, my point is that these owlhoots had no formal scientific training of any consequence. In The Long War Against God by Dr. Henry M. Morris (1989), about 49 percent of the way along in my ebook, I noticed:

It is worth noting that almost none of the leaders of this evolutionary revival had been trained as scientists in the modern sense. None were educated as physicists or chemists or biologists or geologists or astronomers or other “natural” scientists. As already noted, Charles Darwin himself was an apostate divinity student whose only degree was in theology. Charles Lyell was a lawyer, William Smith a surveyor, James Hutton an agriculturalist, John Playfair a mathematician, Robert Chambers a journalist. Alfred Russel Wallace had little formal education of any kind, with only a brief apprenticeship in surveying. Thomas Huxley had an indifferent education in medicine. Herbert Spencer received practically no formal education except some practical experience in railroad engineering. Thomas Malthus was a theologian and economist, while Erasmus Darwin was a medical doctor and poet. Of all the chief contributors to the revival of evolutionism commonly associated with Charles Darwin, only Jean Lamarck in France and Ernst Haeckel in Germany seemed to have had a bona fide education in the branch of evolutionary “science” that they pursued, and they had their own particular anti-Christian agendas to promote.
Dr. Morris also pointed out that real scientists such as "Faraday, Cuvier, Brewster, Pasteur, Maxwell, Joule, Sedgwick, and others" opposed or ignored Darwinism. Ironically, the best support that anti-Bible evolutionism received came from apostatizing clergymen! Apparently, they wanted to look intelligent, so they accepted the deceptions of deep time concepts and even those of Darwin.

Yes, scientists today believe and promote evolution, I'm not saying that. No, evolution was not founded by scientists in the early days. Meanwhile, biblical creation science was — and is — upheld by theologians, lay people, and credentialed scientists.
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, September 22, 2017

Design of the Ear

A favorite argument by biblical creationists and advocates of Intelligent Design against Darwinism is irreducible complexity. The simplified version is that everything must be in place at the same time, from the beginning, or nothing works or makes sense. This applies to the human eye and even down to the molecular level.

Papa Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” He also said that he could "find no such case". I reckon he didn't try to see the evidence, just like his disciples today — who have even less excuse because of advances in science and technology. Matthew 13:14 comes to mind.

Anti-creationists say that irreducible complexity "can be explained", but their arguments can be summed up as, "I found someone on teh interwebs that says irreducible complexity isn't so, and he says what I want to believe, so I'll reject science and reason because evolution. Well, yeah!" Their "explanations" can be answered. Another place irreducible complexity applies is regarding the human ear.


Specified, irreducible complexity of the human ear is a testimony of our Creator's skill, and a refutation of evolution
Highly modified from a Pixabay image by Anemone123
Your sense of herring hearing happens when sound waves reach your ear, then tiny bones help process them through fluid, vibrations undergo chemical activity, they reach the brain, then we can understand and respond to sounds. Pretty much an example of specified complexity is happening.

And what a variety of sounds! Other people speaking, Eleana's violin in the symphony orchestra, my wife hears the blue jays demanding their supply of peanuts, varieties of pet sounds, intruders skulking around outside, and so much more. We hear, and discern. Medical science has progressed to the point that some cases of encroaching deafness can be forestalled, such as the famous case of Rush Limbaugh's cochlear implant. A whole heap of research and learning went into understanding some of the complexities of the human hear and the intricacies of hearing. There's a great deal going on, put in place by our Creator, just to hear a pin drop, and it defies evolution. You listening?
I would like to take you through the ear and our ability to hear and interpret sound. As you consider the many mechanisms that work together so that we can hear music and voices and laughter, think about how it all came to be. As you are reading, it is not necessary to understand every part. Just understand how many different mechanisms are necessary in order for us to interpret vibrations as sound and think about the possibility that these mechanisms all could have arisen through a random nondirected process such as evolution.
To read the rest, click on "The Amazing Ear: Evidence for Design". 
  
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Suzie Sees Sea Snakes Evolving by the Seashore

One day when her sea shell sales booth was not seeing much activity, Suzie decided to do some diving at the Great Barrier Reef. She saw herself a passel of sea snakes, but she didn't pay them no nevermind because most are not aggressive, despite having some extremely powerful venom. Then she noticed the turtle-headed sea snake and alerted scientists.

Great Barrier Reef has sea snakes, which are not examples of "melanism" and evolution
You can't see the turtle-headed sea snake because it's hiding.
Actually, I couldn't find a usable image, so here's one of its habitats, the Great Barrier Reef.
Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/BIOS (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents).
It seems that a version of the contrived non-science of "melanism" is being brought back into the evolutionary icon corral after being discredited in the peppered moths fiasco. Now it's a sea snake that changes color, which is being touted as evolution in action. Katie, wake the neighbors! We got us some bona fide evolution happening! No, not really.

Without serious study, teleological declarations were made that the snakes changed their color to deal with pollution. I reckon that once again, if an evolutionist asserts something, it's settled science. However, there are other questions that may have some bearing on the situation that should be dealt with by these Evo Sith. Emydocephalus annulatus (the critter under discussion) was already known to have a variety of colors. It is an egg eater, and does not have venom like its comrades. There are three species of E. annulatus, all lacking venom, any research on them? (That'll be the day! No actual research was done on this one.) Maybe some studies on the sixty-some other species of sea snake? 

When it comes to promoting evolutionism, real science doesn't seem to matter much. I wonder how Suzie would do as a researcher. I bet she has sense enough to know that sea snakes have genetic abilities given to them by the Master Engineer to help them adapt.
Sea snakes said to turn black due to ‘industrial melanism’—a term from the old peppered moth story. Media go wild.

The phrase ‘Industrial melanism’ is like ringing Pavlov’s bell to reporters, who salivate at the expectation of peppered-moth candy. When Current Biology used the term in a study of sea snakes that underwent a color change off the coasts of industrial areas, reporters drooled at the thought of delicious sea-snake hot dogs in Darwin buns. Out came the Kipling-style Just-So Story headlines:
To read the rest of this article on some all-wet science, click on "Next Evolutionary Icon: Peppered Snakes?"
 
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Different Birds, Different Eggs

Most people in these parts are most familiar with the shape of chicken eggs, and may have seen (hopefully without touching) wild birds' eggs in nests. Turns out that shells of those chicken eggs I fried up in the skillet are a common shape among birds, but there are several varieties. An ambitious study of bird eggs was undertaken to try and determine a pattern to different egg shapes.


Different shapes of birds' eggs are the product of the Master Designer
Credit: Freeimages / Krzysztof (Kriss) Szkurlatowski
Like with any serious endeavor into observable science, possible answers are obtained but other questions are raised. Unfortunately, the researchers did the typical homage to Darwinism, and unsuccessfully attempted to link bird and dinosaur eggs. What secularists are opposed to admitting is that different birds have different egg shapes for different purposes because they were designed by the Master Engineer.
Just what advantage a particular egg shape offers has long been the subject of scientific speculation. Depending on a scientist’s worldview, this question may be approached either with an eye to understanding why God the Master Designer created eggs with so many variations, or with the goal of explaining why different egg shapes evolved through natural processes.

Ornithology textbooks contain many scholarly pronouncements on the subject. For instance, some suggest that pointy eggs are less likely to roll off high ledges, or that certain shapes allow more eggs to be crammed together in a nest, or that high calcium consumers can spare the minerals to build more shell.
You won't have to shell out any money to read the full article. Just click on "Why 'Egg-Shaped' Varies So Much".
  
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Supernovas and Heavy Elements

There are currently somewhere around 118 elements in the periodic table, although some of them are synthesized and a few have unknown properties. If you dismiss those, there are still quite a few "established' elements. Secular scientists believe the heavier elements were made by supernovas, making life possible. Carl Sagan said that "we are made of star stuff", and tinhorn Lawrence Krauss blasphemed, "Forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today". Does the story about exploding stars causing heavier elements (and life itself) hold up under science, or have secularists saddled up the wrong horse again?

Heavier elements were not formed in supernovas, despite beliefs of secular scientists
Credit: NASA/ESA/HEIC and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)
Astronomical observations of distant supernova remnants only show small amounts of some heavier elements. Cosmologists speculate from their assumptions that, despite any evidence, supernovas formed the heavier elements. In reality, they really do not know how those elements were formed. Furthermore, most of the radiometric dating methods secularists use to supposedly calculate the age of the earth are based on elements that they admit have dubious origins. Recent creation is the more logical conclusion than the unscientific secular narrative.
Have you ever wondered where all of Earth’s chemical elements came from? There is such a diversity of elements in the crust—ranging from the hydrogen atom with a single proton orbited by an electron to the uranium atom with 92 protons orbited by 92 electrons—that it is a formidable task for science to explain where they originated and how they came to be located in our solar system.
The traditional model holds that the light elements (those with 28 protons or less) are produced by fusion reactions within stars such as our sun. Indeed, observations of the sun’s photosphere and chromosphere confirm the existence of oxygen, carbon, magnesium, calcium, silicon, and iron.
To finish reading, click on "Did Heavy Elements Come from Supernovas?"
 
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, September 18, 2017

Drag of an Ammonite Fossil

This some something that doesn't come up in cowboy parlance none too often: a new record for a fossil drag mark was found. (Say that during a poker game, you'll probably get told to make yourself scarce, pronto.) This particular one is exciting to paleontologists, though. And, believe it or not, of no small interest to biblical creationists.

Ammonite fossil drag mark evidence Genesis Flood
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Ghedoghedo (CC BY-SA 4.0)
The critter that got his unfortunate self fossilized is an ammonite, similar to the one pictured. Don't bakers make pastries something like that? Ammonite fossils are fairly common, but this one shows a substantial drag mark. Despite the protestations of many old-earth advocates, fossilization does not happen slowly, it happens rapidly. Especially when the drag mark would have been worn away by the conditions at the time. Rapid fossilization begins with rapid burial. The Genesis Flood presents the necessary conditions, but uniformitarian geologists don't cotton to that because it means the world is young, not billions of Darwin years old. That's a real drag for secularists.
A remarkable drag mark, 8.5 m (28 ft) long, has been located in the renowned Solnhofen Limestone deposit, Germany. The drag mark belongs to an ammonite, Subplanites rueppellianus, which was located embedded in the limestone at the end of this trace fossil. Ammonites are extinct squid-like creatures with a characteristic spiral chambered shell.
You can read the rest of this short article and see the illustrations therein by clicking on "Longest recorded fossil drag mark".
   
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels