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. — Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The 5th annual Question Evolution Day is February 12th! To see how you can be a part of this global event (free, no sign-up or anything), click here. Also, see the very short video from Ian Juby of "Genesis Week", just below.

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Acorn Worm Genetic Similarities?

Darwinoids are lacking in the ability to use logic in science, plain and simple. At least, that's a reasonable conclusion, what with the heap of bad reasoning that we see. Relevant data are excluded, other explanations are discarded, presuppositions are locked in, and more.


Evolutionists are making assumptions about the unobservable past using genetic comparisons between humans and our presumed ancestors. Bad logic, worse science.
Acorn worm / Image credit: NOAA Okeanos Explorer Program, INDEX-SATAL 2010
Since we don't know what happened in the distant past, evolutionary scientists infer relationships between organisms. Again, this is presuming evolution. Reasoning goes something like this: there are similar genes between humans and acorn worms who are descendants of our ancestral worms, therefore, evolution. (Looks like it should be in the bottom of a bottle of tequila as a marketing gimmick.) Sure, I'm a worm. So are you. But neither of us has to be, since our Creator has made it possible for us to become his own children! (John 1:12, Romans 8:15) Aside from that, a skillful designer will not start from scratch; parts under the hood of my auto are not unique to that model, but are common to others.
In an effort to discover the characteristics we humans supposedly inherited from organisms found in the Cambrian explosion, scientists have sequenced the genome of the acorn worm. “It's an ugly beast,” says UC Berkeley professor John Gerhart, leader of the project. Coauthor Daniel Rokhsar boldly claims, “Acorn worms are marine invertebrates that, despite their decidedly nonvertebrate form are nevertheless among our closest invertebrate relatives.”

“Acorn worms look very different from chordates, which makes it especially surprising that they and chordates, like humans, are so similar on the genomic, developmental and cell biological levels,” Gerhart adds. Chordates include humans and other vertebrates as well as a few invertebrates, but not acorn worms. Chordates, if only as an embryo, have a bundle of nerves like a spinal cord supported by a cartilaginous notochord, a body that extends past the anal opening, and a series of openings in the side of the throat (pharyngeal slits). Reflecting the evolutionary presumptions that guide his interpretation of genetic comparisons, Gerhart says, “I'm interested in the origins of chordates, which, of course, came from non-chordates, and hemichordates like the acorn worm are the closest we have to this lineage. So it’s important to compare the development and genomes of our group, the chordates, with the hemichordates if you want to know what characteristics the common ancestor really had.”
To read the rest, head on over to "Seventy Percent of Human Genes Traced Back to Acorn Worm?

 

Monday, February 8, 2016

Revising Evolutionary Stories on Desert Pupfish

Near Death Valley National Park, there's a "detached unit" called Devils Hole. (Don't confuse that Devil's Hole State Park up north of me in New York. If you go there, stop by and give me a howdy.) Don't expect to do a lot of wandering around, you're barking up the wrong tree because it's restricted to scientific access for the most part. Especially if you want to take a gander at the Devils Hole Pupfish. (It's clever Latin name incorporates its location, Cynprinodon diabolis — diabolis, diabolic, devil — get it?) The pupfish is the rarest fish in the world.


The rarest fish in the word is the Devils Hole Pupfish. Evolutionists had their stories, but needed to revise them because they did not fit the evidence — the evidence supports recent creation, not evolution.
Image credit: Olin Feuerbacher / USFWS
These puppies live in a very harsh environment that would kill off other fish. Evolutionists have to revise their deep time stories in light of the evidence. Old stories did not hold water, and good science shows that there is no evolution. In fact, evidence supports not only the design of the Creator, but rapid adaptations per biblical creationist models.
Small fish living in Devil’s Hole became isolated just hundreds of years ago, not thousands.

Talk about a radical revision in science; evolutionists have been telling the public that fish in an isolated habitat called Devil’s Hole in Nevada became separated from their parent population over 10,000 years ago, and have evolved as a new species ever since. But now, just centuries?

Devil’s Hole is a water reservoir 100 meters deep in a cavern that opens to the surface. The water is almost 90° F, enough to kill most other fish in hours, but the small blue desert pupfish swim unharmed in this unique environment. Evolutionists had said they’ve been stuck there since prehistoric times. Now, based on a genetic analysis, Naturerewrites the story” of this fish species trapped in a single hole:
To read the rest, click on "Evolutionists 98% Wrong on Desert Pupfish". 

 

Saturday, February 6, 2016

Clarifying the Concept of Question Evolution Day

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This short article is informational, and a bit of a rant.

As regular readers are aware, February 12 is Question Evolution Day. Other readers have just been made aware. Isn't it great how the sharing of information works? Anyway, I have posted links, made videos, written articles, and other things to promote the event. Many people have expressed interest and enthusiasm.


Clearing up some misconceptions about Question Evolution Day. People can participate wherever they are, as little or as much as they wish. Also, difficulties for biblical creationists to be heard in Bible-believing churches.
Feel free to download this image to use as a profile icon or use it to show your support in other ways.
Part of awareness-raising is to make an "event", such as this one on Facebook. I've received responses from people who are biblical creationists and agree with what QED is all about that are along the lines of, "Thanks for the invite, but I'm busy that day". I get mighty puzzled about that. Did they read the material or watch any of the short videos in the link?

Let me commence to laying things out. I'm not asking anyone to come to Kingston, New York for the day — or travel anywhere. Nor is Question Evolution Day a full-day commitment. This is promoted ahead of time for people who want to have an event or celebration in their homes, churches, or whatever, write up an article, or do something else that requires planning. To post a link about creation science, say that they support Question Evolution Day (providing a link to the description would be helpful), making a comment on social media — you can participate in just a few moments! If someone believes in what we're doing and has an Internet connection, they are not too busy. And there is no money involved except on my part.

On another level, I think that one advantage I have is that, in the eyes of the world, I am a nobody. Nothing to sell, no book to promote, nothing like that. Which means that Question Evolution Day is a grassroots event for which almost anyone can participate.

Unfortunately, being a nobody is also a disadvantage when I cowboy up and approach various media sources for interviews and coverage. I get few replies. Other radio shows, podcasts and such have their favorite people to get for discussions on creation science and evolution, so I'm not needed. However, those people are promoting their own ministries and media, and Question Evolution Day is different: its for practically everyone, and those people can get behind it as well. Many if not all of those people I contacted are in agreement with the purposes of QED.

On a level beyond the basics of QED, I reckon that that this part will resonate with many biblical creationists — individuals as well as ministries. We want to get information into churches so we can explain why Genesis is foundational to a proper understanding of Scripture. The frustration is that conservative churches are unwilling to even let us explain what creation science, biblical authority, foundations, and Genesis are all about. Then they wonder why people are leaving churches! There are answers to questions on origins, and most biblical creationists are seeking to equip Christians to stand up for biblical truth, and for believers to be convinced in their own minds (see "My amazing paradigm change" by Terry Novich). It's often difficult to get a hearing, even in conservative, Bible-believing churches for some reason.

This started out to let people know that Question Evolution Day is not a huge demand on anyone's time, and almost anyone can participate on various levels if they believe in what we're doing. The rest of the article is the frustration that I experience, as well as other biblical creationists. Hope this clarifies the concept. Thanks for reading, I'm much obliged.


Friday, February 5, 2016

Orphan Genes Support Creation

Evolutionists believe that their belief system has predictability, but that is usually inferred through fallacious reasoning: "If life evolved from a common ancestor, we would see genetic features shared. We see genetic features shared, therefore, life evolved from a common ancestor". If you study on it for a spell, you'd see that those jaspers are using fallacious "false cause" reasoning, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc, or maybe the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. For that matter, I've dealt with false cause myself, where some tinhorn claims that I changed something in one of these posts because he posted about it in a forum or made a comment. Except that I've seen their claims regarding my motives and actions after I made the changes. See what I mean about learning to spot logical fallacies being helpful in daily life as well as origins science?


Using fallacious reasoning, evolutionists claim that shared genetic similarities between organisms is evidence for their belief system. "Orphan genes", especially between humans and chimpanzees, fouls up their views.
Hebrew Orphan Asylum / Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 2.0
In the aforementioned gene similarities, there's a factor that causes consternation for evolutionists, and that's called orphan genes. This strange term simply means that certain organisms have unique characteristics for certain creatures, and are not found elsewhere. This is something evolutionists could not predict.

While many are on the prod about alleged similarities between chimpanzee and human genes (conveniently neglecting all the other data showing how dissimilar they are from us), orphan genes between chimps and us are supporting biblical creation science.
Increasingly, orphan genes defy evolution and support the Genesis account of creation. These genes are unique sets of coding sequences specific to particular creatures. This is a big problem for evolutionary ideas to explain. In a recent research report, scientists describe a new set of 1,307 orphan genes that are completely different between humans and chimpanzees.

Orphan genes, as the name implies, are found in no other type of creature and therefore have no evolutionary history. This finding is another key prediction of the creation model. Not only should creatures have similar code for similar functions, but they should also have unique code that makes them distinct from other creatures. In support of this creation prediction, scientists discovered that orphan genes are incredibly important for specific biological processes and traits that correspond with specialized adaptations. Several previous articles published on the ICR news site have described these types of genes discovered in zebrafish and honey bees.
To read the rest, click on "Genetic Gap Widens Between Humans and Chimps". 

 

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Charles Lyell — Lying to Remove God

There were several views of geology floating around in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, including multiple catastrophes, the Genesis Flood, and gradual processes. James Hutton made headway in what is now called uniformitarianism with views that reject the biblical account of creation and the Flood, and has been called the father of modern geology. Charles Lyell took the reigns and galloped forward with his Deistic views which sought to remove God from geological science, and his polemic influenced Charles Darwin.

Charles Lyell was a strong influence in the slow and gradual processes view of geology. He influenced Darwin. Neither one let the truth stand in the way of their anti-God stories.
Image credit: Pixabay / tpsdave
Lyell was educated as a lawyer, and Darwin's education was in theology. These "great scientists" promoted anti-God polemics that influenced far too many people. Although it's tempting to make lawyer jokes, it is a fact that lawyers are trained to get their point across. (Did you ever notice that in American courts, lawyers are not sworn to tell the truth?) In the spirit of evolutionism and uniformitarianism, Charles Lyell did not want to let the facts stand in the way of a good story, so he made up his own "facts" regarding Niagara Falls. The book that influenced Darwin was not exactly known for it science.
At the beginning of the 19th century there were two main schools of geology.

Most leading geologists were catastrophists, i.e. they believed that the earth’s geology was best explained as the result of cataclysms. Many of these believed in long ages and multiple catastrophes; however, there were also many ‘scriptural geologists’ who believed that Noah’s Flood, as recorded in Genesis, being worldwide, was the principal such catastrophic event.

The other view was that everything in geology was solely the result of processes now operating in the earth. This belief rejected the Bible, and hence the accounts of Creation and the Flood as recorded by Moses in Genesis. Advocates were either secret atheists or deists, who conceded that the earth must have had a cause, but were not prepared to attribute that cause to the God of the Bible. Charles Lyell was one such deist. In his Principles of Geology, he alluded to “a Creative Intelligence” having “foresight, wisdom and power”, but he did not allow that this “Infinite and Eternal Being” had actually communicated with mankind.

Lyell argued against catastrophic events in the history of the earth—not by citing contrary evidence, but by holding that any such events were not accessible to inquiry. But the same inaccessibility to inquiry also applied to his own view of a tranquil past. What is needed to establish past events is eye-witness testimony. However, Lyell refused to accept the Flood testimony of Noah, recorded in Genesis by Moses.
To read the rest of the article in context, click on "Charles Lyell: the man who tried to rewrite history". You may also want to see "Interpreting Earth History".

 

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Rescuing Earth's Magnetic Field Theory

A major problem for uniformitarian geologists is the decay of the Earth's magnetic field. The thing is decaying at a measurable rate, and if the Earth is as old as they say it is, then way back yonder, the field would have been impossibly strong, and they've known this problem for years. So, they theory is sick and needs to be fixed up right quick so they don't have to admit that the evidence shows a recently-created world. I recommend that you read the excellent article, "Earth's Young Magnetic Field".



Secular geologists know full well that they need the Earth to appear old because evolution requires long ages. Can't admit that our planet isn't so old after all. A rescuing device was presented that needs work, and has some amazingly bad flaws.
A new theory to maintain Earth’s magnetic field looks like a case of special pleading to rescue a dogma.

Keeping Earth’s magnetic field going for billions of years is a major problem, because its strength is steadily decaying. Geophysicists know this but rarely mention it, because they already “know” in their hearts that the earth is billions of years old. A new paper by Caltech scientists O’Rourke and Stevenson appeared in Nature trying to patch up the age problem with what looks like an ad hoc theory rescue device. It involves adding magnesium at the core-mantle boundary so that it precipitates into the core.

Bruce Buffett explains this new idea in his summary, “Another energy source for the geodynamo,” also in Nature. The details of the new theory are not as interesting as the admissions in both articles about how inadequate the received wisdom is.
To read the rest, click on "Earth’s Geodynamo: An Energy Crisis". 

 

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Mammoth Extinction and Global Warming

It gets a mite disconcerting for "deep time" adherents to promote their uniformitarian views in the light of conflicting evidence, but they keep on doing it. This time, it's the extinction of the woolly mammoth and other animals that is causing a problem.

Using standard views of geology, there are no reasonable explanations for the extinction of the woolly mammoth and other animals. The biblical post-Flood model has the best explanation.
Image credit: FreeImages / Ainhize Barrena
The common image of woolly mammoths, sabre-tooth tigers, and other critters in icy wastelands is somewhat misleading, as there were warm periods during the Ice Age and plenty of food available for grazers. Three basic ideas for the mass extinctions include climate change, hunting them to death, and illnesses from humans. None of those make sense. Proposing that they were killed off because of global warming (sorry, no way to make it anthropogenic) is really grasping at straws.

Although it's dismissed out of hand without examining the evidence and plausibility, the post-Genesis Flood Ice Age model proposed by biblical creation scientists offers much more reasonable explanations than uniformitarian conjectures.
The woolly mammoth is the poster child for the Ice Age just as the polar bear is the poster child for global warming. A woolly mammoth is likely a member of the elephant kind with long hair up to 1 meter long, a hump on its head and top of its back, and a sloping lower back. It was once thought the woolly mammoths did not have oil glands in their skin, disastrous in a cold climate, but better samples show they did have them. The woolly mammoth lived all across the mid and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere during the Ice Age. Both the Ice Age and the many millions of woolly mammoths buried in Siberian permafrost, permanently frozen sediment, have been major uniformitarian mysteries for about 200 years despite numerous theories. Another type of mammoth, the Columbian mammoth, lived farther south in the United States and Central America.

End-Ice Age Extinctions

Woolly mammoths lived alongside woolly rhinoceroses, cave bears, cave lions, saber-tooth tigers, ground sloths, dire wolves, the “Irish elk,” various types of horses, several types of bison, and many others. The Northern Hemisphere, even Siberia during the Ice Age, was considered to be like the Serengeti of Africa. Dale Guthrie of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks has called it the “mammoth steppe,” characterized by a wet spring and a dry summer with tall grass. Except for the carnivores, the Ice Age animals were grazers.

At the end of the Ice Age, many of the animals over 100 pounds (45 kg) as well as many carrion birds went extinct or disappeared from entire continents. There was a 70% loss in North America, 40% in Eurasia, 80% in South America, 90% in Australia, and only 20% in Africa. According to the uniformitarian paradigm, most of these animals were extinct by the end of the “last” ice age. Today, secular scientists think that within the past 2.6 million years of the Pleistocene there were about 50 ice ages of various severities. Between these ice ages or “glacials” were “interglacials,” warm periods after the ice melted. According to them, we are living in an interglacial period called the Holocene.
To read the rest of the article, click on "Was Mammoth Extinction Caused by Rapid Global Warming?

 

Labels