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.

Thursday, February 12 2015 is the 4th annual Question Evolution Day!

Saturday, January 24, 2015

Some Small Shrimp are Unseen

Some feller was investigating shrimp — oh, wait. Kathryn Feller (I got it right, now) was investigating the larvae of mantis shrimp. They are mostly transparent, except for their eyes, which reflect colors. The amazing thing is that they can become almost entirely invisible, as if they had a cloaking device.


Some shrimp larvae us tricks of the light to make their eyes invisible. Evolution cannot explain this, it is the product of the Designer.

As expected, the researchers ruined good observational science by invoking evolution to explain their findings. Actually, they conflated natural selection with evolution. They should know better, since natural selection is not evolution. And no, there's no way they'd saddle up on design as an explanation, even though that's a reasonable conclusion.
To figure out how the shrimp larvae hide their eyes, Kathryn Feller collected mantis shrimp larvae from Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. In her lab, exposed to ordinary white light, the shrimp glowed blue-green. “The whole sphere of the retina at the centre of the eye reflects this sparkly blue-green light,” she says. “It’s quite brilliant.”

Feller measured the spectra of this eyeshine reflected from several species of shrimp larvae. Some, like Pseudosquillana richeri and a Harpiosquilla larva, bounced back blue-green light with “very discrete peaks in that region of the spectrum.” Another species, Pullosquilla thomassini, reflected light in two different colors—green from the top part of the eyes and blue from the bottom. Spectral analysis confirmed this to be a distinctive characteristic of the species. “We suspect that it is something similar to counter shading,” Feller says. “Perhaps the dorsal part of the eye is held against background that is greenish and the ventral part of the eye is more bluish.”
You can read the rest by clicking on "Biological Cloaking Device Renders Shrimp Larvae Invisible".

Friday, January 23, 2015

Behemoth and Leviathan — Bible Dinosaurs?

Many creationists go against evolutionary and uniformitarian dogmas by believing that not only did man and dinosaurs coexist, but they are described in the Bible. Anti-creationists ridicule this concept because their presuppositions depend on "deep time" (billions of years) and evolution (which requires long ages).

If they'd cognate on it for a spell, they'd realize that they're ignoring and suppressing evidence such as soft tissues found in dinosaur remains (not supposed to happen), carbon-14 results (shouldn't be any carbon-14 in them at all), and discard historical (and not so historical) accounts of dinosaurs with people. Remember, the word "dinosaur" didn't exist until Richard Owen came up with it in the 1840s. Before that, critters that were called "dragons" looked and acted quite a bit like we'd expect from dinosaurs (until fanciful tales made dragons into magical things).

Here are two candidates for dinosaurs in the Bible. There's a bit of confusion about them, since they are in what is probably the oldest book of the Bible, and the original language gets a mite tricky in spots. It doesn't help that some Bible translators have downright illegitimate material, comparing Behemoth to a hippopotamus, elephant or somesuch. But those don't have a "tail like a cedar" (fortunately for them).

Sometimes translators and commentaries even say that the creatures in Job were entirely allegorical. Two main reasons for that bad information are because the big monsters weren't around at the time of translation, and that many Christians had ceded science to false uniformitarian assumptions. One extremely important thing to remember is that context is key. In the book of Job, they are referred to as real creatures, and named in lists with other extant animals. However, the word "Leviathan" has been used both as figurative (such as in the Psalms), and as a literal creature (more later). This offends 21st century sensibilities, and we have to learn the historical, linguistic and other contexts.


Behemoth may have been a sauropod dinosaur. Openi.nlm.nih.gov

First, we have Behemoth. Job 40:15-24 quotes God as saying "...which I made along with you", which was the sixth day of creation. It also indicates his amazing size and strength, as well as an attitude that would make you forget about saddling him up and riding off into the sunset..
In Job 40, the Lord is infallibly describing a real historical creature, called ‘Behemoth’. No known living animal, such as the elephant or hippopotamus, fits the passage adequately. A detailed analysis of the key clause Job 40:17a suggests that the most natural interpretation is that the tail of Behemoth is compared to a cedar for its great size. Consequently, the most reasonable interpretation is that Behemoth was a large animal, now extinct, which had a large tail. Thus some type of extinct dinosaur should still be considered a perfectly reasonable possibility according to our present state of knowledge.
To finish reading about our first featured animal, click on "Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?"


Sarcosuchus / Wikimedia Commons / ArthurWeasley

Next up, we have something that is both frustrating and amazing: Leviathan. The frustrating part is that he is referred to as an actual creature in Job 3:8 and Job 41:1-34, but in Isaiah and Psalms, it is allegorical (which we can tell from biblical, linguistic, and cultural contexts). The amazing part is how he's fierce and strong, "king over all the proud beasts". Two possible candidates for Leviathan's identity are the Sarcosuchus and the Parasaurolophus. But we read that he gives off fire. Huh? Christians shouldn't be quick to dismiss that part, since again, God is describing actual creatures that he made. Think of the bombardier beetle's boiling chemical defense system (or something similar) on a much larger scale.

How do we handle the confusing uses of the word "Leviathan"?
Job 41 describes a creature beyond compare, something which defies all human attempts to subdue or tame it. No weapons are effective against it, and the mere sight of it is enough to terrify even the bravest man. God’s creation and ownership of Leviathan is put forward as a prime example of God’s power:
“No one is fierce enough to rouse it. Who then is able to stand against me?” (v. 10).
If God is glorified because He created Leviathan, surely it’s reasonable to conclude that it was a real creature, which Job could have actually looked at and been expected to recognize.
To finish reading, click on "Leviathan—real or symbolic?"

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Fish Fossil Flusters Evolutionists

When you have a series of conjectures touted as a major scientific theory, and the scientists cling to their paradigm instead of realistically evaluating the evidence, you have corral full of irritated evolutionists. Once again, we hear about how a new discovery will cause them to substantially rewrite their timelines because one of the crossbeams has gone out of skew on an evolutionary treadle.

This time, a fish fossil is hard to classify because it has a mix of features, and the evolution of the fish jaw needs re-cognating. To make matters worse for Darwinists, evidence for an intricate network of sensors and brain responders existed early on. Kinda like they were designed that way.
A so-called “primitive” bony fish with traits of sharks confuses the usual story of fish ancestry. They’re calling it Janusiscus, part two-faced Janus and part piscus (fish). This fragmentary two-faced fossil from Siberia, claimed to be 415 million years old, has lots of bone but also some traits from cartilaginous fish—the second major branch of fish that includes sharks and rays. Because it has a mosaic of features, Science Magazine says it “may rewrite [the] fish family tree".
Now that you're hooked, you can read the rest of the article at "Fish Ancestry Turned On Its Head".

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Geomagnetic Field Reversals and Ideology

Uniformitarian geologists, using their standard "the present is the key to the past" presuppositions, have used a dynamo theory to explain the earth's magnetic field. They also need to explain the magnetic field reversals. Although they don't really understand it and have a plausible model for it, they have the magnetic field reversing itself over huge amounts of time.


Secular geologists are scrambling to find excuses to downplay scientific evidence for rapid magnetic field reversals as predicted by creationist scientists.
Dr. Gary A. Glatzmaier / Los Alamos National Laboratory / U.S. Department of Energy / PD
Evidence has been found for rapid field reversals that jump the uniformitarian fence; lots of theories and speculations are in jeopardy. This bothers the secularists, because it fits predictions made by biblical creationists like Dr. D. Russell Humphreys. Creationist models of the Genesis Flood involve many catastrophes, including catastrophic plate tectonics, changes in radioactive decay rates — and those pesky very rapid magnetic field reversals. At first, the evidence was being faced. Then they chose to find ways around the evidence with dubious new tests. In addition, other tests have supported the findings.
For almost three decades the paleomagnetic record of extraordinarily rapid polarity reversals of the earth’s magnetic field in basalt lava flows at Steens Mountain in southern Oregon has stood as a challenge to the conventional millions-of-years geodynamo model. It has also been a severe embarrassment, because it is consistent with predictions of rapid polarity reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Flood according to the young-earth freely-decaying electric currents model for the generation of the geomagnetic field. Thus there has been a recent attempt to re-measure the paleomagnetic record in the Steens Mountain basalts using a new untried method, but the results and their re-interpretation are far from convincing. Instead, published at the same time, a new independent study of the paleomagnetic record in mud layers in a former post-Flood Ice Age lake in Italy has used Ar-Ar dating of interbedded volcanic ash layers to constrain the timeframe of a well-documented geomagnetic polarity reversal to less than 100 years. When accelerated radioactive decay is factored in, the timeframe for this reversal is reduced to just months, further stunning evidence consistent with the young-earth model for the earth’s magnetic field and rapid reversals during the Flood and its aftermath on a young earth.
Hold onto your hats and continue reading by clicking on "More Evidence of Rapid Geomagnetic Reversals Confirms a Young Earth".

The Question Evolution Project's third anniversary is today

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

The Immune System from a Biblical Creationist Perspective


Those pesky microbes making people sick. But we were created with an immune system. Some people think this indicates there was disease before the Fall, and put forth some ideas that they hope will reconcile God's perfect creation with our disease-fighting capabilities. Some fall flat and are pretty much like faith assertions that are unsupportable from science and Scripture. However, we're full of the tiny critters, and our immune system does more than fight disease; not all viruses and microbes are harmful.
If God originally created the world without death and disease, where did our bodies get their disease-fighting capabilities? Christians generally explain the origin of immune systems in three ways. These explanations, though, have theological and scientific snags.
... 
Creationists need biblical explanations that are scientifically sound and not simply lighter versions of evolutionary lines of thinking. So, one way to begin is by asking: Does our immune system serve any non-disease-fighting purposes today? Yes, it does.
To read the rest in context, click on "Does Our Immune System Indicate Disease Before the Fall?"

Monday, January 19, 2015

Another Gilgamesh Great Flood Pretender

There have been scoffers for many years who simply dismissed the Genesis Flood as a fanciful tale or a complete fabrication. (Worse, there have been liberal Christians who have agreed with atheistic interpretations of geology and said that the Flood never happened, that it was local, "tranquil", or some other nonsense.) Many flood legends exist around the world, and quite a few are only fit for jawing with folks to fill time while riding the lonely trail — nowhere near believable. Yet, many of the flood tales from around the world have elements in common with the Genesis account.


The Great Flood / Artist unknown / PD
There are scholars who insist that since the "Epic of Gilgamesh" is the oldest legend of a global flood that we have on record, it must be the original, and Genesis is a copy of it. Even a superficial reading of the Gilgamesh story (written as a fantastical poem) shows that it's another story that has some of the same elements of the Genesis record.

But some tinhorn came along and claimed to have the "real" Noah's Ark story, and insists (despite common sense, other possibilities, and reason) that not only is the Gilgamesh story the real one, but everybody else had it wrong for all these years: the ark in that story is not a cube, but circular. Mockers and odd scholars get attention when they attack the Bible, but knowledgeable people are able to show that their work is meadow muffins.
Dr Irving Finkel is an Assyriologist at the British Museum in London and an expert in ancient cuneiform scripts. In recent months he has become something of a celebrity, following the publication of his book, The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood, and the Channel 4 documentary, The Real Noah’s Ark. The source of this media hype is his recent translation of a small Babylonian tablet, named the Ark Tablet. It is about the size of a mobile phone and has been dated to around 1750 BC.

In contrast, the Ark described in Genesis has been shown to be a design which would have been particularly stable in rough seas. According to Finkel, the Ark Tablet contains the original Flood story, upon which the biblical version was based centuries later. Moreover, he claims, this new tablet reveals that the real Noah’s Ark was not as described in Genesis. The Ark was round, he says, having a diameter of approximately 68m, and was constructed with ropes made from palm fibres and palm leaves. He believes it was a giant version of the guffas (circular coracles) commonly seen in Iraq up until the 1970s, and known from Assyrian carvings dating back to 850 BC.3 In the Channel 4 documentary, Tom Vosmer, a world-renowned maritime archaeologist, joined a group of boat builders who, using these same materials, constructed a mini version of Finkel’s Ark, having a diameter of just 13m. Vosmer expressed grave doubts as to whether this much smaller vessel would hold together in the water. One wonders, then, quite what would be the feasibility of something five times larger.
To finish reading the article (as well as seeing the illustrations and the math), click on "The real Noah’s Ark?" Also, some of the comments afterward are quite interesting as well.

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Atheism and Evolutionism Are Illogical


This post is a follow-up to "Charles Darwin, Creationist at Heart?" It won't be easy, because the content sometimes is deeper than the Colorado River at the 135 Mile marker. But the content is important.

Evolution is a cornerstone of the fundamentally flawed atheist worldview, and both are irrational. They do not comport with reality, and do not have the necessary preconditions of human experience. Science, logic, morality and more are impossible if atheism and evolutionism are true. Professed atheists hate God, but claim that they do not. Their conduct betrays them with their emotional, illogical attacks on God and Christians. This post from Atheism on the Slide helps illustrate my point.

Only the biblical Christian worldview (beginning at creation) is consistent and makes sense of those conditions for human experience. Yes, atheists and evolutionists can do science, act logically and be relatively moral because they are made in the image of God who upholds all things, but they cannot comport their views with reality.

There is a documentary that I really hope you'll watch. It has some drawbacks, however. First, it takes an hour (that's why it's not embedded, I understand that too much video information slows down sites). Second, the background music, which would be well-suited for book reading, is a bit too loud. Third, it talks about Reformed theology. There is very little of that in here. I'm not Reformed in my theology, but I still like the content. Finally, the narrator is not exactly exuberant. Even so, the material is important, as I said. Now that you have an idea of what to expect, you can see the video by clicking on "Atheists Don't Exist".

Labels