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

Friday, October 9, 2015

Do Creationists Accept Speciation?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Simply stated, yes, creationists believe that speciation happens. It's the not-so-simple answer that gives people difficulties. Fungus-to-finch evolutionists often give credit to the puny god of evolution for every change, no matter how small. Some creationists disunderstand the idea of speciation and oppose it because they do not want to give Darwinists a foothold. When understood properly, it is not a threat to creation science, nor does it support Darwinism, but it does support biblical creation science!

Creationists do accept speciation, but not in the way that evolutionists present it. There are limits to change.
Colorized version of John Gould's Galapagos Finches, 1837
Scientists often disagree about the meaning of the word species and if critters are indeed separate species, but the generally accepted definition of speciation is when organisms diverge into genetically distinct lines. Evolutionists cannot agree on what causes speciation.

Creationists accept natural selection and speciation, and reject "fixity of species", where everything we see has been there from the beginning — obviously false. (Way back yonder over 30 years ago, I accepted fixity of species out of enthusiasm and ignorance.) In addition, fixity of species has been a source of confusion on several fronts, especially regarding definitions. (Early creationists did believe in fixity of species before the word was more sharply defined.) Species is a newer word than the biblical kind, which refers to a broader classification.

Small changes do not accumulate. Although a valid term, creationists are discouraged from using microevolution because it implies that a little evolution adds up to a lot of evolution. Not hardly, since the "change" is variation within genetic limits; the change is horizontal, with no added genetic information. 

This owlhoot didn't get the memo:

Kind of irritating to be told what I believe. Manipulative, too.

From a biblical creationist standpoint, speciation was programmed into creatures by God so that they could adapt to changes in environment and so forth. This was especially (especiesally?) important after the Genesis Flood.

Here are some articles for further reading:
I encourage you to not only read the above articles, but investigate the sites that were linked for further information.


Thursday, October 8, 2015

Mangled Dinosaur Mosaic

Evolutionists have used the term "mosaic" to describe the difficulties encountered in placing dinosaurs in their paradigm. There are too many problems for evolutionists in the dinosaur paradigm.

Evolutionists have used the term "mosaic" to describe the difficulties encountered in placing dinosaurs in their paradigm. One reason is that they persistently present puzzling information. Not only have hadrosaurs been found in the frozen regions of Alaska, but worse, how did they survive, and how did a group of juveniles die at once?

Then there's difficulty of the Australian long-clawed dinosaurs — did they originate there, or in Argentina? From there, Niger presents a pareiasaur skeleton that has earned fanciful tales but no explanation. Also, we have the soft tissue problem that has been annoying "deep time" advocates for a spell now. I reckon they don't want people to recollect that there are other instances of biomaterial that refuses to act millions of years old, too. The Earth is not billions of years old (despite the protestations of Darwinoids), it was created much more recently.

Dinosaurs do not fit evolutionary ideas. (Evolution itself does not fit the criteria for science, either.) To read more about the items mentioned above, click on "Will the Dinosaur Paradigm Be Next to Fall?"

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

When a Loss Becomes a Gain

Purveyors of goo-to-graffiti-artist evolution tend to deal from the bottom of the deck when it comes to definitions. You'll hear about beneficial mutations, but what does beneficial really mean? If I spray paint something on a wall, the paint may protect the covered areas from rain, which is beneficial. But the chemicals may cause the affected bricks to deteriorate, obviously not a benefit. Nor is it a benefit to me when Marshall Long takes me to jail.

We hear about "beneficial" mutations. Those are rare, often removed through natural selection, and are a matter of perspective and opinion as to what "beneficial" really means.

Before people get irritated because I'm using an analogy about non-living things, just study on it for a spell; I'm talking about word usage and perspective.

When some living things have mutations, some are neutral but the overwhelming majority are bad. Calling them "good" mutations is subjective. A critter can have a mutation that looks good in a lab setting, but will kill it off in the wild. Likewise, some changes can be good in one instance, but extremely bad elsewhere. (They've tried to make something out of nothing with the Lenski bacteria experiments as well, and claiming that sickle-cell anemia's "benefit" outweighs the obvious problems.) Natural selection is not exactly helpful to mutations and evolution, either. All this tomfoolery to come up with "scientific" reasons to disbelieve God are themselves unbelievable.
A big obstacle for evolutionary belief is this: what mechanism could possibly have added all the extra information required to transform a one-celled creature progressively into pelicans, palm trees, and people? Natural selection alone can’t do it—selection involves getting rid of information. A group of creatures might become more adapted to the cold, for example, by the elimination of those which don’t carry enough of the genetic information to make thick fur. But that doesn’t explain the origin of the information to make thick fur.

For evolutionists there is only ‘one game in town’ to explain the new information which their theory requires—mutations. These are accidental mistakes as the genetic information (the coded set of instructions on the DNA which is the ‘recipe’ or ‘blue-print’ specifying the construction and operation of any creature) is copied from one generation to the next. Naturally, such scrambling of information will tend to either be harmful, or at best neutral.
To read the rest of this short but informative article, click on "Beetle bloopers".

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Speculative Fiction Presented as Science in Triassic Dinosaur Fossils

Although some people try to deny it, we all have our starting points through which we interpret data. This applies to scientists of all types, even though some people believe that scientists are dispassionate and operate only from data. Not hardly!

In attempting to determine the lack of fossils in the Late Triassic, evolutionary scientists made a large number of assumptions and overlooked important facts. Using the same information from a Genesis Flood model, the evidence is a far better fit.
Petrified Forest National Park / US National Park Service / PD
Evolutionary scientists were fixing to reconstruct a scenario explaining the lack of dinosaur fossils in the Late Triassic, using observations in the Chinle Formation. It was a swell notion. However, the worldview they operated from required many assumptions of evolution and uniformitarianism, and ignored some important facts. When the same information is used from a Genesis Flood standpoint, things make a lot more sense.
Paleontologists have long wondered why dinosaurs are scarce in the Late Triassic rock layers of the presumed tropics of that supposed time. Fossilized dinosaurs appear abundantly in those rock layers in today’s higher latitudes. In fact, though long-necked herbivorous dinosaurs are virtually absent in the Late Triassic’s supposed tropics, fossils of other reptiles and mammals are plentiful. A team of scientists recently sought the answer to this mystery at Ghost Ranch, home of New Mexico’s Chinle Formation, particularly its Petrified Forest Member, which hosts the petrified logs in the nearby Petrified Forest National Park. (Dinosaurs, primarily carnivorous ones, accounted for only 15% of the vertebrate fossils they sampled in the region.

. . .

There at Ghost Ranch researchers analyzed petrified wood and charcoal, carbon and oxygen isotopes in organic debris and carbonate nodules, and the fossilized animals, plants, and pollen grains. By correlating all the data, the authors of the study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences believe they have reconstructed a picture of the conditions in the region 205 to 215 million years ago. “Each dataset complements the others, and they all point towards similar conditions,” lead author Jessica Whiteside says. “I think this is one of the major strengths of our study.” By piecing together from the raw data what they deem to be an accurate picture of a drought-ridden, wildfire-ravaged region that was located close to the equator long ago, the authors of the study believe they’ve solved the mystery. But have they?
To get the hard truth and read the entire article in context, click on "Dearth of Dinosaurs in Late Triassic Tropics Not Due to Raging Wildfires".

Monday, October 5, 2015

Cellular Power Grid

The very small world is, after all, seeming to grow bigger all the time. Scientists are learning more about DNA, the "simple" cell, and other things, and with this comes the knowledge that there is still a great deal more to learn. The intricate integrated complexities of those things that make us physically who we are and keep us going are astounding.

Mitochondria are more complex than scientist could have realized. Now they're learning that cells are arranged like a power grid, converting various forms of energy.
Power Grid / National Energy Technology Laboratory - USDoE
Something new to investigate "how it works" is the power grid system inside us where chemical energy is converted into electrical energy, and that is converted yet again. All of this in a network of cells that makes the idea of evolution downright ridiculous, and testifies to the wisdom of the Creator.
Apparently, it's time to alter biology and anatomy textbooks again. There's much more to mitochondria than we ever thought. Researchers revealed that these tiny cellular power houses are highly organized to efficiently deliver ATP energy. They interconnect throughout muscle cells, forming a gigantic mitochondrial network. Researchers published this stunning discovery in Nature, calling it the "mitochondrial reticulum."

The interconnected mitochondrial net wraps around long, tubular, protein bundles that contract inside cells to make muscles move. This design efficiently delivers the right fuel to the right place at the right time and in the right quantity. But the scientists found more.
To read the rest, click on "Cell Feature Resembles Power Grid".

Saturday, October 3, 2015

E-Book Review — Mysteries of Time and Creation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This mini e-book on creation for kids is also good reading for adults. Also, it is free in most places.

Cheri Fields is a "2nd generation homeschooling mom of six, minister’s wife, writer, and science lover". She has not only harnessed the power of the Web, but saddled it up and blazed some trails. Her desire is to present biblical creation science to children, so in March 2012, she began her ministry of "Creation Science 4 Kids". (There's a link in the lower left on this site as well.) I'll let you click around there for a spell and see what all she offers with articles, podcasts, and so forth. But my focus right now is on her mini e-book.

Mysteries of Time and Creation: A Short Intro to Young Earth Creation is a free e-book 'xceptin' at Amazon, who charges $.099 USD. (By the way, I stopped posting reviews on Amazon because that company does nothing about trolls who make the review system almost worthless when it comes to creationist and Christian material, so I do reviews on my sites.) Anyway, you can get the free download or read it online, and I'll link to that part later.

The first section is, "Millions of Years Ago…Really?" We're bombarded with the confident assertions that Earth is millions of years old. Cheri contrasts this with what the only eyewitness alive today (God) says in the Bible, and what the word "day" means.

"Adam and Eve" follows with biblical reasons that they were real people and the consequences of sin.

"What happened to the rest of creation when Adam sinned?" expands on the previous section, and about the coming restoration.

After that is "Why do books, shows, and museums talk about millions of years if God is telling the truth?" This section describes ideas that man has come up with to rebel against the Creator and God's Word, including naturalism and uniformitarianism. Secularists present their ideas as scientific fact, but they have no real evidence to support them.

This flows into three more sections, "Radiometric dating", "Carbon Dating", "Starlight", and "Other Ways to Find Millions of Years". These are used to prop up the evolutionary "deep time" views, but are not only fraught with problems (including circular reasoning), but incomplete ideas. Cheri shows some of the problems with evolutionary "evidence" and how evolutionists necessarily reach fundamentally flawed conclusions.

"Signs the Earth isn’t that old" lists some of the many evidences for a recently created Earth that evolutionists conveniently ignore. She lists six of the many available indicators. By the way, it's interesting that proponents of atoms-to-author evolution will ignore so much evidence that creationists present and ignore the flaws in their own system, then point to dubious "scientific" evidence as if it refutes all of the other material that they did not bother to examine. But I digress. I do that.

If Cheri gets a notion to make an expanded second addition, I suggest two things that give "deep time" advocates conniption fits: soft tissues in dinosaur bones, and how the solar system itself does not act "old". For that matter, these two items alone might warrant a separate volume if she had time.

From here, we move away from how old things are, and on to how living things got here in "Life on Earth". Spontaneous generation is discussed as well as the newer version, abiogenesis, and that there is no scientific evidence that such a thing could happen. (Even many evolutionists admit that abiogenesis is impossible.) Evolution, natural selection, adaptation, mutation are all addressed. She has a strong area about DNA, which is tricky for kids, but she does not get too deep in the subject.

There are supporting links for many of the points raised, as well as links to her own site. I have no idea if she's into presuppositional apologetics, but Cheri uses a principle that I firmly believe in: don't divorce the Bible from the evidence. We can present a passel of scientific evidence, but people will filter them through their presuppositions and worldviews (we all do this). It's not about evidence and intellect, but rather, a spiritual problem. (Antony Flew was an atheist and decided that God exists because of the evidence. Unfortunately, he apparently died a Deist.) Naturalistic philosophies cannot accept, address or understand spiritual matters. Presenting the biblical message completes the message.

Although Mysteries of Time and Creation is written for kids, is a short e-book (hence the term "mini"), with short sections, Cheri Fields does not "talk down" to readers. I reckon that doing so gets insulting, even to young readers. Instead, it's written without too many cumbersome, expensive words. (Long ago, I discovered a good way to learn about a new topic is to start with children's books), Adults who want to know about the basics of biblical creation science and get a launching point so they can do further research. This book is excellent for the young and not so young. There are also links to other creation resources specifically for the young 'uns.

You can download it from several sources, but the Smashwords gives you the top three formats plus the option to read it online. Also, clicking on the "more" button gives three additional formats. You want to read it, you have several ways to do so. It's worth your time, and won't take up too much of it.
To obtain, click here


Friday, October 2, 2015

Evolutionists Protecting Phoney Jobs

In the politically incorrect and guaranteed offensive movie Blazing Saddles, Governor Le Petomane (Mel Brooks) has a realization, and shouts, "We've got to protect our phony-baloney jobs, gentlemen!" This is what evolutionary scientists have been doing for decades.

Although evolution is worthless and actually harmful to science, its proponents continue to protect their money tree by playing fast and loose with the data. An old, failed concept of the "Tree of Life" is being reworked again.

Evolution actually hinders science. So what do those owlhoots do? Make statements about how evolutionary interpretations are the only way to examine scientific data, make circular arguments, ignore inconvenient information, denigrate people who think for themselves and reject evolution, and then try to bring back failed hypotheses. Darwin's "Tree of Life" has long been uprooted and eaten by mustangs, but they are trying to rework it through a faith-based initiative couched in confident assertions, cherry picking, and scientific jargon. But it's as helpful as prairie dust to clothes drying on the line. When all the evidence is examined, the obvious fact is that life was created, and evolution is false.
A valiant effort to construct Darwin’s tree icon in an open-source way may only serve to perpetuate a myth.

What do evolutionists do to look busy like scientists? They stitch together leaves on branches. That is, they assume Darwin’s view of universal common ancestry (the “tree of life” image), then try to find ancestor-descendent relationships between “leaves” (observable species) on the tips of branches here or there. One group may try to unite the marsupials. Another group may try to unite the slime molds. A third may try unify bats by common ancestry. This “tree building” exercise, called phylogenetics, assumes that all the branches connect to a common, single root.

Yet nobody has tried to connect all the branches into a single tree—till now. The new project, however, depends on the veracity of earlier published trees, which are usually controversial. In fact, published phylogenies often point out severe conflicts, alternative possible trees, or confounding influences like horizontal gene transfer (HGT) or “convergent evolution.” When assembling them together, the overall tree cannot be better than the branches. So is the result a tree of life or a tree of lie?
To read the rest, head on over to "Propping Up Darwin’s Tree of Lie".