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

Monday, September 26, 2016

Secularists Have Origin of Life Questions But No Answers

Every few years, the hands at the Darwin Ranch attend conferences about the origin of life. This is done because they bring along their materialistic presuppositions, ask a lot of questions, then look for materialist answers for those questions. Any success? That'll be the day!


Secularists have conferences on the origin of life, but have yet to come up with any answers. That's what happens when they assume there is no Creator.
Early Earth artist's conception image credit: Don Dixon / NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center
Since they have decided to leave the Creator out of the equation, they wind up with a passel of questions on how life began, it's evolvability, how it can emerge from chemistry and physics, and other details. Many questions, many scientists, many views. Creationists can sit back and watch them commence to shooting it out among themselves, and then we can pick up useful refutation material that they use on each other. They cannot get real answers because they start from atheistic presuppositions.
The Origin of Life (OoL) community aspires to discover chemical evolution or abiogenesis. This is the supposed historical, continuous, and naturalistic path from lifeless chemicals to cellular life, encompassing both genetics and metabolism. The gap between their aspirations and their OoL evidence is vast.
. . . 
Recent evolutionist conferences concerning Open Questions on the Origin of Life (OQOL) were held in Sicily (2006), Spain (2009), Leicester UK (2012), and Japan (2014). These conferences discussed possible scientific and philosophical explanations to dozens of vast gaps in understanding the OoL. Scientists can often be each other’s harshest critics. They critique each other’s research and theories by challenging unwarranted assumptions, poor experimental methodology, inadequate data analysis, and unjustified conclusions. We can accept the criticism OoL researchers shower on one another without accepting the incomplete evidence they may provide for their own competing, naturalistic explanations of the OoL. Though I did not attend these conferences, the work presented at OQOL conferences is well documented in the peer-reviewed literature and on conference websites. The OQOL2014 conference in Japan addressed six OQOL selected from among fifteen OQOL by online poll.
To read the rest, click on "Open questions on the Origin of Life in 2014". 

Saturday, September 24, 2016

Mosquitoes, Diseases, and Creation

While it's good to examine various creatures, whether in person or from some kind of monitor, to admire their specified complexity. I'll allow that I detest mosquitoes. Although only the female wants blood (and over forty species don't bother with it), they pollinate and drink nectar, and not all carry diseases, I'm not going to examine one to see if it's harmless. I smash it. Don't be giving me that look, you know you do it too.


Not all mosquitoes suck blood, and spread Zika and other diseases, but how can something that was created "very good" in the beginning be so bad?
Asian tiger mosquito image credit: CDC/ James Gathany
Aside from the itching bumps from a bite and wondering if the dreadful thing carried West Nile virus, the Zika virus, or something else nasty, some people are concerned about their effects on horses, cattle, and animals as well (see "The Ultimate Guide to Mosquito Management on the Farm"). Interestingly, their desire for human blood seems to be a comparatively "recent" development. But if God created everything "very good", how can these things be responsible for the deaths of millions of people? Creationists have some conjectures about this.
Mosquitoes (Family Culicidae) have been the scourge of mankind since the Fall. Although seemingly designed to inflict suffering and pain via rapid reproduction and formidable mouthparts, evidence mounts that this creature was not always the deadly vector it is today. Mosquitoes are currently and have always been pollinators. The majority of their lives they feed on plants, nectar, pollen, and microbes even in today's world. The Zika virus is but the latest of a significant list of pathogens spread by “the world’s most dangerous animal.” In the past, Christians have been involved in key discoveries linking mosquitoes to diseases.
This heavily illustrated and informative article by Dr. Alan Gillen (special studies in zoology and medical microbiology) and Mr. Frank Sherwin (M.A. in zoology with special study in parasitology) is definitely worth your time. To finish the article, click on "The Design of the Mosquito and Its Dangers".


Friday, September 23, 2016

Interfering with Brain Cells

Not too long ago, it was reported that scientists learned of something unthinkable: white blood cells working in both the brain and the immune system. Now this. Ever hear of interferon gamma? It would make for a lousy name for a horse, sounding like something from a Transformers movie. Researchers have unbridled a long-standing belief about the immune system that involves interferon gamma, so textbooks will have to be rewritten.

Yet another surprise with brain cells doing work that was previously unknown. Darwinists try to give credit to evolution for having wisdom and foresight, and are also wondering how this molecule evolved. It didn't, it was put there by the Creator.
Image assembled from graphics at Clker clipart
Interferon gamma changes from a giant robot into a yellow Camaro — I mean, this molecule has a purpose that was previously unknown. Scientists did some genetic interfering and engineered mice without this molecule (a pretty impressive bit of work). Turns out that the molecule affects social interaction as well as the immune system. What do evolutionists do? Not only do they wonder how it evolved, but they gave evolution that puny god status again: it can make decisions and foresee the future! But wait, that's goes against the nature of evolution. Instead, what they discovered and are trying desperately to avoid admitting is that this shows the foresight and wisdom of the Creator.
Until 2015, anatomy textbooks generally taught that the human immune system doesn't penetrate brain tissue. But that same year, University of Virginia neuroscientist Jonathan Kipnis and his team discovered immune system cells working in the brain after all. They immediately wanted to know why. The team's 2016 research revealed an unexpected additional role for molecules historically known only to target invading cells. They then speculated on ways this dual-function molecule may have evolved.

Kipnis' group tracked the immune system molecule, called interferon gamma, in mouse brains. They found that immune system cells produce the interferon, which travels through the meninges—three membranes enclosing the brain and spinal cord—to directly interact with brain cells.
To read the rest, click on "New Dual-Function Brain Cell Found".

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Emperor Yu and the Great Flood

One of the problems with the adoration of science and scientists is that people often take their speculations as something to write home about, even when they don't bother to do serious research. There's a story in China about an earthquake, a river drying up, a dam bursting, and Yu Xia helping the people to recover. He was called Emperor Yu the Great (or variations on the title), but since the events were to have take place quite a spell back, the flood story and even Yu himself were subjects of debate.


A legendary "Great Flood" in China seems to have been verified, but a geologist made horribly uninformed comments that *this* flood may have been the source of the Genesis Flood "legend".
Emperor Yu the Great by Ma Lin
It appears that the flood (that the Chinese referred to as the "Great Flood") itself has been verified. Geologist David Montgomery made an off-the-cuff speculation that legends surrounding this may have been the source of the Genesis Flood. That'll be the day! There are serious differences between large, local floods such as the ones at Lake Missoula, the Black Sea, and others when compared to the historical details of the Flood account in Genesis.
In August 2016, a team of researchers led by former Peking University seismologist Qianlong Wu said a major landslide, triggered by an earthquake about 4,000 years ago, blocked the Yellow River at Jishi Gorge—about 1,600 km (1,000 miles) west of Beijing—eventually causing an enormous flood. The researchers propose that the landslide created a natural dam about 240 m above the present river level behind which a massive body of water built up, estimated at 12 to 17 km3. After six to twelve months the dam overtopped, releasing downstream a torrent of water, mud and debris. Sediments were eroded from the gorge by the dam outburst, transported downstream, and deposited in the lower Jishi Gorge and Guanting Basin. These sediments consisted of angular pieces of rock and other material that were eroded from the gorge. Sediment deposits at the mouth of the gorge are up to 20 m thick and include boulders with a diameter as large as 2 m.
Hey, Yu! Don't run off! To finish reading, click on "Chinese flood at Jishi Gorge is not Noah’s Flood". Another may be of interest, "Chinese Flood Legend Was Historic".
  

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Mutations — Not So Random After All?

The hands down at the Darwin Ranch are making a pretty good living by promoting particles-to-painter evolution as a series of purposeless, random events over a heap of time, so there's no need for the Creator. Oh, and they also believe in luck. Darwin didn't pay attention to Gregor Mendel's work, which became incorporated into evolution. But are mutations random, and if so, how much?


The dominant evolutionary view requires time, luck, and random mutations. It turns out that mutations may be programmed by the Creator, and evolutionists don't like that.
Image credit: Pixabay / blickpixel
Upon further study, Darwinists are learning that mutations may be programmed to happen. Well, that fits, since speciation and adaptation fit biblical creation models quite well. Evolutionists don't cotton to anything resembling design, because they're trying to distance themselves from the Creator. Ironically, they attribute characteristics of an entity to evolution, making it into an idol they can worship.
In the nineteenth century, biologists recognized that animals and plants possess traits that can be beneficial (e.g., increase strength) or detrimental (e.g., slower growth). Those with a beneficial trait may be more likely to survive, and those with detrimental traits may be less likely to survive. The essence of this paradigm has become known as natural selection.

Charles Darwin understood that sometimes the traits of various organisms can change. However, since his studies predated the field of genetics, there was yet no understanding of how these changes occurred. Instead, he attributed such changes to the effects of natural selection, as if natural selection somehow magically could cause traits to appear.

In fact, not bound by any laws of genetics, Darwin made a lot of assumptions. One key assumption was that there was “no reason to limit” how much organisms could change their traits.1 With no limits, he further assumed that such changes can dramatically transform fish into amphibians or reptiles into mammals. His presumptions provided the basic outlines of universal common descent—the idea that all life forms have arisen from a common ancestry.
To read the rest, click on "Just How Random Are Mutations?"


Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Naturalistic Assumptions Hinder Science

Although I'm not too fond of repeating this, it's appropriate. There was a bumper sticker here in the US, "If it ain't country, it ain't music!" When it comes to secularists, "If it ain't naturalism, it ain't science!" Not only does such a worldview limit scientific investigation, scientists are unaware that they are hindering their own work. Plus, these owlhoots refute their own selves.


Some scientists are becoming aware that their naturalistic worldviews are hindering science. Unfortunately, they are unaware that they are refuting themselves, and they don't go far enough to discard their flawed worldview.
Graphic assembled from images at Clker clipart
We can see the trickle-down effect inherent in the naturalistic system with blatant anti-creationist bigotry, such as expressed when some learned about a creation science conference coming to Leicester, England. And horror of horrors, one of the subjects scheduled is "Creationism in the Classroom". Circle the wagons and load up the ridicule rifles since we can't defeat them with logic and science!

People like this assume the worst about us: creationists share their worldview, and either don't know what we're talking about (even though we often understand evolution and current science better than they do), or that we're simply lying. Sure, lying to get people to believe in the creator God who commands us not to. Makes perfect sense.

Leaving behind the materialistic village evolutionists, let's look at actual scientists and their presuppositions of naturalism. Some are catching on that they're making too many assumptions, but they don't go far enough and get to the root of the problem: evolutionary thinking and rejecting God the Creator.
The most dangerous ideology is the one that doesn’t acknowledge its worldview assumptions.

Several articles from the science news were partly successful noting the risk of assumptions in scientific theories. Unfortunately, none of them recognized the fundamental assumption of naturalism.
To read about several subjects, click on "Pardon, Your Worldview Is Showing".

Monday, September 19, 2016

Fulgurites Indicate a Young Earth

Creationists keep pointing out flaws in evolution and and old Earth, and advocates of particles-to-paleontologist evolution keep getting mighty riled. (Darwin needs a long time to work his magic, so they fight to keep the time frame.) While secularists like to use their contrived and cumbersome "proofs" of deep time that collapse under their own weight, they don't cotton to the numerous evidences that, even according to their methodology, indicate that the world is much younger than they want to believe. One of these young Earth indicators is fulgurites.


One of many but lesser known evidences for a young Earth is fulgurites (fossilized lightning strikes). Why so few?
Fulgurites image public domain, enhanced, original by Stickpen
Sounds like an insult, doesn't it? "Get out of the road, fulgurite!" Or maybe an engine part. The newest evil monster on Dr. Who. In reality, it's a fossilized lightning strike. Scientists calculated the rate of lightning strikes and determined that instead of being quite rare, if Earth were billions of Darwin years old, they'd be all over the place. Make the proper adjustments and the mystery disappears — the world was created, and created comparatively recently.
Fulgurites are fossilized lightning strikes. The intense energy from a lightning strike essentially melts the ground. Lightning strikes can fuse rock, clay, or sand into fulgurites shaped like irregular hollow glass tubes. Physicist Don DeYoung wrote in 2013 in the Creation Research Society Quarterly that after 4.6 billion years, at the current lightning strike rate, every square meter of land should contain far more fossilized lightning strikes than it can even hold. New fulgurite research updates the numbers to bring this fulgurite problem into sharper focus.

Two Florida geoscientists collected and measured over 250 recent and ancient fulgurites from Polk County, Florida. In the online journal Scientific Reports, they published a way to estimate a lightning strike's energy by the dimensions of the fulgurite it produces.
I hope it strikes your fancy to finish reading this short article. Just click on "The Case of the Missing Fulgurites".

  

Labels