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

Saturday, June 23, 2018

Grand Canyon Sandstone and the Genesis Flood

For many years, the rock layers in the Grand Canyon have been proclaimed as evidence for long ages. Biblical creation scientists have shown that such thinking is inaccurate and misleading. However, one of the more interesting challenges is the layer of Coconino Sandstone.


The Coconino Sandstone is incorrectly used by secular geologists as evidence of long ages.
Crossbedding in the Coconino Sandstone along the Kaibab Trail of Grand Canyon's South Rim
Credit: USGS (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Unifomitarian geologists maintain that this layer is the product of gradual deposition by wind-blown sand and desert conditions. Some hard science supporting the Genesis Flood and rapid deposition by water (as well as the question about how the sand traveled that far, as the Cocconino Sandstone is mighty big) should have disabused them of that notion, but they still keep their faith. Another problem secularists have is the presence of footprints, which research shows had to be made in watery conditions.
What do these rock layers in Grand Canyon mean? What do they tell us about the earth’s past? For example, how did all the sand in this Coconino Sandstone layer and its equivalents get to where it is today?

To answer these questions geologists study the features within rock layers like the Coconino Sandstone, and even the sand grains themselves. An easily noticed feature of the Coconino Sandstone is the distinct cross layers of sand within it called cross beds
. . .
The Coconino Sandstone is also noted for the large number of fossilized footprints, usually in sequences called trackways. These appear to have been made by four-footed vertebrates moving across the original sand surfaces. . . . These fossil footprint trackways were compared to the tracks made by reptiles on desert sand dunes,4 so it was then assumed that these fossilized footprints in the Coconino Sandstone must have been made in dry desert sands which were then covered up by wind-blown sand, subsequent cementation forming the sandstone and fossilizing the prints.
To learn more, you can read the rest of this 1992 article by clicking on " Startling evidence for Noah’s Flood — Footprints and sand ‘dunes’ in a Grand Canyon sandstone!" But wait, there's more! Regular readers may suspicion that we rode this trail before. Well, sort of. A similar treatment of the subject with some additional (and more recent) information can be found at "Coconino Sandstone Myths Debunked".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, June 22, 2018

The Big Bang and CMB Radiation

Cosmic microwave background radiation is not the byproduct of your attempt to cook a raw egg, in shell, in the microwave oven. The word "cosmic" is a big clue. This radiation is the supposed leftover from the fireball of the Big Bang, and proponents of deep time believe that this is evidence for their belief. Not quite.


Secular scientists believe that the cosmic background radiation confirms the Big Bang. In reality, there are logic and science difficulties with that view.
Credit: NASA / WMAP Science Team (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The Big Bang has a passel of problems, and a search of this site will provide links to several discussion on that. Narrowing the focus to the CMB, while something is out there and has been mapped, bad logic from cosmogonists and cosmologists ignores other possibilities for the background radiation. This faint radiation is a prediction of the Big Bang, but scientists get many of its details wrong, and constantly have to adjust their speculations to accommodate new evidence.

One modification for the Big Bang is the "inflation theory", which looks good on computer screens but has no real observational evidence. The universe is expanding? Probably. Such a concept is well within biblical creation science views. Obviously, scientists on either side disagree on the details. It is quite clear, however, that the Big Bang is irreconcilable with the days of Creation a few thousand years ago.
Three main arguments are commonly used to support the Big Bang model of the universe’s origin:
  1. The apparent expansion of the universe, inferred from redshifted spectra of distant galaxies;
  2. The fact that the Big Bang can account for the observed relative abundances of hydrogen and helium;
  3. The observed cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, thought to be an “afterglow” from a time about 400,000 years after the supposed Big Bang.
Although an expanding universe is consistent with the Big Bang, it doesn’t necessarily demand a Big Bang as its cause. One could imagine that for some reason God imposed an expansion on His created universe, perhaps to keep the universe from collapsing under its own gravity. Of course, this assumes that secular scientists’ interpretation of the redshift data is correct, which some creation scientists are starting to question.
To read the rest, click on "Does the Cosmic Microwave Background Confirm the Big Bang?"





Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, June 21, 2018

Confusion on the Tree of Life

Charles Darwin and some of his predecessors had the notion that long, long ago, there was a single ancestor for all living things. This commenced to reproducing, evolving, and all that good stuff that leads to what we see today. Philosophers drew up "tree of life" diagrams for their imagined progressions. David Attenborough tried to reverently evosplain Darwin's version.

The evolutionary "tree of life" should be burned down. It has many failed branches that are nonsense.
Darwin's "Tree of Life" in flames.
The tree of life concepts make for fun stories to tell when riding the trail or around the campfire, but they do not work. Even if someone decided to set it on fire, some jasper would "hear" Darwin's voice speaking from the burning bush and think he was a secular Moses, reminiscent of Exodus 3:2. Actually, the creationary orchard concept is far more accurate.

There are several examples of convoluted branches that defy evolutionary storytelling. Adding to the confusion is the fact that scientists are in strong disagreement on many aspects. Some of the ideas they've dreamed up make me wonder what scientists (and pretend scientists) have been smoking.


via GIPHY

Wolf-dog hybridization and genetic studies show that there may no longer be a "pure" wolf. The (failed) asteroid impact story that allegedly killed off the dinosaurs is invoked to explain the diversity of fish. How sexless animals evolve is baffling. These, and several other stories of foolish attempts to deny the Creator his due can be found at "Tangled Branches Confound Darwinian Trees" and "More Tangled Branches that Confound Darwinian Trees".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Volcanoes and the Genesis Flood

The volcanoes that seem to get the most attention are those shaped like steep cones, and have a history of explosive eruptions. Several mountains we see today are actually dormant volcanoes. Mount St. Helens had its big eruption in 1980 and provided support for creation science. It is still considered active.


Secular geologists are unable to explain massive rock deposits from volcanic eruptions. The Genesis Flood models provide some answers.
Kīlauea Volcano — Fissure 8 Eruption, June 10, 2018
Credit: USGS Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
However, there are other kinds of volcanoes, and they get attention when they act up. The volcanoes in Hawaii are actually the peaks of mountains with their bases on the ocean floor. When they erupt, they tend to "fountain", and the lava flows are not all that rapid (until the get into downhill gullies and so forth), but toxic fumes and ash are concerns as well as their destructive power. As there are different kinds of volcanoes, there are also different kinds of eruptions and kinds of magma.



The volcanoes we see today and in recent recorded history are actually rather small in impact compared to what happened long ago. Uniformitarian geology cannot explain huge magma deposits that have been found. Instead, the Genesis Flood models reveal what really happened, and that Earth is far younger than secularists want to believe. The world is still settling down all these years after the Flood, but the world is broken (recent reminders in Guatemala, Hawaii, and Yellowstone), and will be restored at the end of all things, as we read in Revelation.
The Mount St. Helens eruption produced an impressive 0.25 cubic miles (1 km3) of volcanic ash. But that is nothing compared to the eruption of Taupo (New Zealand) about 1,800 years ago, which produced 8 cubic miles (35 km3) of ash. Even this is dwarfed by an earlier Yellowstone eruption, soon after the Flood, which produced at least 480 cubic miles (2000 km3) of ash.

Such was the magnitude of these explosions that they blasted away huge holes in the earth, called calderas. The Taupo caldera is now filled by a huge lake, and the Yellowstone “hole” is so big you can only discern its boundaries with the help of satellites.

Yet these eruptions are tiny compared to a different type of volcano that deposited gargantuan stacks of thick layers known as “continental flood basalts.”
To read all of this hot article or download the audio version, click on "Volcanoes — Windows Into Earth’s Past".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

New Inspiration from Geckos

Geckos, those cute little lizards from 'Straya that look like they're smiling, have already inspired scientists to do some biomimetics. The Master Engineer gave us minds, and also gave us what is called the dominion mandate that includes learning from nature and applying what we can to our lives.


Scientists are drawing biomimetics inspiration from gecko skin.
Credit: Clker clipart
Of course, smart-from-the-beginning-of-creation humans have been copying from nature for a mighty long time, but it took modern technological advances to be able to find out how these critters operate. Just when they thought they could leave the lab and go home, they were stopped at the door for more study.

The skin of geckos repels water quite handily. More than that, it is antibacterial! What does that mean for us? Glad you asked. There are several potential applications, including medical science, where implants would repel potential infections. Once again, Darwinian concepts strain credulity. The gecko gives silent testimony to creation.
Now scientists from universities in Queensland, Australia, including the husband-and-wife team of Drs Gregory and Jolanta Watson, have analyzed the box-patterned gecko, Lucasium steindachneri. They discovered equally remarkable fine structure on gecko skin. But instead of attracting, it repels. The skin is covered with tiny dome-shaped scales about 250 microns (µm) in diameter in a hexagonal pattern . . .In between the scales, the skin is also covered with spinules.

The nano-scale tips mean that dirt particles have only a tiny surface to stick to, so the skin stays clean. The hairs also repel any water, making the skin hydrophobic (from Greek meaning ‘water-fearing’). The tiny domes are also important, because tiny water droplets will roll into the valleys between the domes. Gravity and wind makes these droplets roll more, and they clean off dirt in the process.
To read the rest (especially the fascinating antibacterial part), click on "Drops explode off gecko skin — Gecko skin microstructure also kills bacteria".





Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, June 18, 2018

Ancient Earth Water at the Gun Range

Time and again, some of us wonder at the material submitted for publication in science journals. My suspicion is that secularists are getting increasingly desperate because their deep time and evolutionary tales are falling apart before their eyes.


A recent feckless guess about how water reached Earth was tested at the NASA gun range.
Credit: Unsplash / rawpixel
Biblical creationists maintain that Earth had water right from the get-go, but that doesn't fit with the deep time narrative. Naturalists have convoluted stories about ancient Earth, its Hadean days of being way too hot, the "faint young sun" problem, and so on. One of the problems these jaspers made for themselves is how water got here. Many guesses have been floated (heh!). A recent bit of feckless research suggests that water got here because of accretion and impacts from water-laden asteroids and comets.



The "researchers" tested this at NASA's Ames Vertical Gun Range with light-gas projectile launchers and loads that they guessed would be about right. The whole concept may have been suitable for publication in 1930s science fiction pulp magazines, but I'll be switched with snakes if I can figure why this was considered to be serious science worth publishing. Well, except for being yet another attempt to deny the Creator's work and a young earth. That makes things all better. Darwin needs time for his conjurations to work, remember.
You can’t just fire bullets at pumice and claim that Earth got its oceans that way.

Talk about weird science. Two guys at Brown University went to a shooting range to figure out how Earth got its water. But is their theory all wet?

First, they realize that explaining that has been difficult. From their paper in Science Advances, R. Terik Daly and Peter H. Schultz say,
To find out the details, click on "Did Earth Get Its Water from Meteor Squirt Guns?"

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, June 16, 2018

Dinosaur Tissue Preservation and the Iron Maiden

If you want to get the hands at the Darwin Ranch on the prod, just mention dinosaur soft tissues. This is because soft tissues in dinosaurs and other critters is a threat to old earth uniformitarianism. From there, particles-to-parasaurolophus evolution is severely inconvenienced. There are several articles on that subject here as well as other biblical creationist sites.


Dr. Kevin Anderson is interviewed on Real Science Radio about dinosaur soft tissues
Metallized triceratops profile derived from an image a Pixabay from Dimitris Vetsikas
Ever since Mary "Iron Maiden" Schweitzer got fame for herself because of dinosaur soft tissues, evolutionists at the Darwin Ranch have been running the excuse mill at full steam. (They don't even get overtime pay from their cheap bosses.) One of the premier excuses was formed by Schweitzer: iron as a preservative.

Dr. Kevin Anderson was interviewed by Bob Enyart on Real Science Radio. (Dr. Anderson is one of the scientists in Is Genesis History? My review is here.) You see, Dr. Schweitzer reckons that iron in blood keeps tissues somewhat intact for millions of Darwin years (this is why the guys at RSR refer to her as the "iron maiden"). She kept the tissue and blood sample in pristine conditions for a spell, then extrapolated backward for millions of Darwin years. Although a professing Christian, Schweitzer's primary commitment seems to be toward atheistic interpretations of science. That might explain why she does science like other owlhoots riding for the Darwin brand, which is to ignore important factors and commit sloppy science. At least she's not obnoxious like so many evolutionists on teh interweb.

Something else that was discussed is radiometric dating, especially carbon-14. Darwin's disciples often insist that radiometric dating is reliable despite the great disparity in results from various methods, and the fact that rocks of known ages are dated at millions of years. Carbon-14 is found in coal and diamonds, but evolutionists wave away that fact by denigrating the skill of technicians in the labs, claiming "contamination". (Were you there? Did you see something done wrong? Do you have your own lab so you can do better, Hoss?) Then they claim that carbon-14 dating is impeccable when the results are in their favor. Two standards, no waiting in their attempts to reject the Creator.

Seems to me that I've given enough introductory material. It's time to let you hear the two podcasts in question. Both are free to hear online or to download. (Disclaimer: Bob Enyart is an advocate of "open theism", so I do not recommend his theological material.) As a bonus, a video of Dr. Anderson discussing the iron as a preservative rescuing device follows.

Slaying the Iron Maiden: Mary Schweitzer's Vulnerability





Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels