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

Saturday, August 1, 2015

Refusing the Fused Chromosomes

A popular myth among evolutionists is that, since there is a difference in the number of chromosomes between humans and great apes, there must have been a chromosome 2 fusion way back when. The original speculations admitted that the supposed fusions were inconclusive, and further studies show many flaws that give lie to the story.

A popular myth among evolutionists is that, since there is a difference in the number of chromosomes between humans and great apes, there must have been a chromosome 2 fusion way back when. The original speculations admitted that the supposed fusions were inconclusive, and further studies show many flaws that give lie to the story.

Even at the outset, the sequence was 800 bases long, and not the thousands that it should have been. Data compared to known mutation rates, no sequence of satellite DNA at the alleged site of fusion, and many more. A creationist scientist is investigating further, and his findings are not evo-friendly. Fact is, we were created, old son, and did not evolve, despite the tales and tails.
One of the most common arguments evolutionists use to promote the theory that humans evolved from an apelike ancestor is the idea of a “chromosome 2 fusion.” This story proposes that in a common ancestor shared by humans and chimps, two small chromosomes somehow fused end to end to produce human chromosome 2. This supposedly explains the difference in chromosome numbers between humans and great apes—humans have 46 chromosomes, while great apes such as chimps, gorillas, and orangutans have 48.

To understand the concept associated with an end-to-end fusion model, it is important to know what the ends of chromosomes, telomeres, look like. Telomeres are made up of special chromosomal end sequences of the six-base DNA sequence TTAGGG that are repeated over and over again in perfect tandem. In fact, typical human telomeres are quite large, between 5,000 to 15,000 bases long.
To read the rest of the article, swing on over to "More DNA Evidence Against Human Chromosome Fusion".

Friday, July 31, 2015

"Scripture on Creation", the Creation Research Society, and Dinosaur Soft Tissues

One thing I appreciate in radio programs and podcasts is when the people involved seem to actually enjoy doing them, and it sure seems that way with Scott Kump and biochemist Dr. Ben Scripture with Scripture on Creation. In a previous post, Dr. Scripture and Scott were discussing some material from a publication of the Creation Research Society. Specifically, how "Dino Dave" Woetzel has been involved in expeditions to investigate reports of a possible living dinosaur in Papua New Guinea. Can you imagine trying to round up and corral some of those bad boys? They're gonna need a bigger fence for the big ones.

This pair of short podcasts takes a different branch on the trail. Still about dinosaurs, but now focusing on the scientific aspects in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Volume 51, Number 3. Mark H. Armitage has been very involved in the CRS iDINO project to scientifically examine data on soft tissues found in dinosaur bones, and Phase II will be giving attention to the process of fossilization. (You can see an interview of Mark H. Armitage on Ian Juby's "Genesis Week", here.) This whole thing has been a stench in the nostrils of evolutionists and other "deep time" advocates because it challenges the "millions of years" paradigms. If you want to see what those soft tissues look like, click here.

This is another area where evolutionary presuppositions hinder real scientific inquiry; they "know" that dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years, so there won't be any soft tissues to be had, now, will there? Yes, there are. The biblical creationists are doing the research that secularists are ignoring.

Advocates of long-ages are hindering scientific research with their flawed worldview, so biblical creationists have to do it. Check out "Scripture on Creation" for information on the iDINO project, soft tissues in dinosaurs, and more.

Dr. Scripture's podcasts are less that 15 minutes each. To hear each one, there are a few clicks to make. First, go to this radio program link. Then, click on the "Launch Sermon Player" link. Look for the 7/9/15 and 7/1/15 links, "Reports on soft dinosaur tissue. Part 1" and "Reports on soft dinosaur tissue. Part 2" to listen on the site or download. If you're having difficulties, here is a direct MP3 download link to Part 1, and a direct MP3 link to Part 2.

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Anti-Creationists and Facepalming

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Sometimes, anti-creationists riding the Owlhoot Trail want to slap leather with creationists but they don't bring a gun to a gunfight. They don't even bring a knife or a pointed stick. I reckon they don't want to say anything meaningful, they just want to "prove the st00pid dumb creotard" wrong. Problem is, they show their own lack of thought and look mighty silly.

Courtesy of Why?Outreach
Too many people read just the caption of a picture or a few lines of text and then leave a comment. Unfortunately, this short attention span trend is common and seems to be growing, and the ignorant comment is a bane to many Page owners and bloggers.

I shared this picture, "The Lincoln Memorial Disproves Old Earth Theories" about stalactites and stalagmites that had formed quickly under the memorial. Apparently, this guy didn't bother to pay attention to the excerpts in the caption or look at the two links. He complained, "The formation of concrete stalagmites and stalactites is a fundamentally different chemistry than limestone formations in cave systems. This proves nothing." It proves you didn't do your homework, Danny Boy. That assertion has been discredited. Yes, I deleted that comment as a courtesy to the readers.

Near about that time, someone left a rude comment on the site of a recent podcast interview I had. Here are the first two paragraphs, then I lost interest in the question-begging epithet and other fallacies of the so-called "Dr. Barton" (as if I didn't know who this really is):
Sorry. I tried but, Mr. Sorensen, you presented so much scientific misinformation and half-truths that I had to turn you off within 15 minutes and go listen to some people who know what they’re talking about discuss fossilized plants, viruses, and the “Bible” (though not on the same podcast).

Your understanding of C14 was woefully inadequate and misleading. The reason that there is a set level of C14 in rock that is millions of years old is because of background radiation. If you look at the literature and studies, then you will find that C14 decays to the point where radiation from other sources (uranium, cosmic radiation, and the like) creates a background level of it that can vary from place to place and from geological layer to geological layer.
Not only is he insulting me, but the host of the show and the intelligence of readers, and insulting the scientists who do the radiometric dating in the first place. He used the question-begging epithet, circumstantial ad hominem attacks, straw man, arbitrary false assertions, and other fallacies. Further, he ignored the facts that carbon-14 has been detected in coal, diamonds and other places where, according to old-earth dogma, it "should not" be. And it's not in a couple of isolated instances, either. His highfalutin posturing only made him look foolish, and I don't think he understands carbon-14 as well as he pretends. This video should help educate that "doctor":

For "Evolutionists and Atheists Love to Pick Cherries", a narcissistic atheopath decided that this was about him, even though it fits several misotheists I've encountered. The quote from the article:
Cherry-picking to misrepresent Christians and creationists is not limited to the Bible and high-profile people. I've had my own material blatantly misrepresented, quotes taken out of context (including the use of parts of quotes, and in the case of comments, the material to which I was responding), straw man arguments, appeal to motive fallacies, and more. I've been called a "liar" without evidence (unless you count repeatedly asserting it, which is a fallacy in itself). These blatant misrepresentations... I get a mite irked being called a liar by liars. My experiences are typical, as I have seen this happen to many others as well. That's one reason that I encourage Christians to learn about logical fallacies, so they don't have to be intimidated by atheopaths and anti-creationists.
If the shoe fits, etc. In his whining, he ignored the main point of the article, cherry-picked this section, and then did not even quote all of it, just "I've been called a 'liar' without evidence..."! Since he used the appeal to motive fallacy (and others), I'm not going to link to that comment and reward his bullying and ego.

I disremember when this happened, but someone was being insulting because the "Oort Cloud" was described as a made-up rescuing device because short-term comets should have been used up long ago, giving evidence for a young solar system. An owlhoot came along and said...well, take a look at his comment and my response:
Used under "Fair Use" for education.
One of the best was several years ago. I was telling someone about the amazing complexity of the DNA molecule, and the guy couldn't get around that fact, but still clung to his blind faith in evolutionism. He replied that maybe DNA was simpler back then. Oh, please.

People need to pay attention. Not only do keyboard warriors like this need to learn the current science of their own worldviews so that creationists don't have to keep correcting them, but (as seen in the first two instances) they need to read or listen to the material so they don't embarrass themselves and self-respecting evolutionists. Of course, if they weren't so hell-bent on rejecting the Creator and believing something that ain't so (evolution) despite contrary evidence, they wouldn't feel the need to act like this. 

I reckon the biggest facepalm is that these jaspers are rebelling against God and the authority of his Word. I'm not going to go into detail on this again, but I'll say that In an atheistic and evolutionary universe, science is not possible; logic does not apply, nor would there be the expected uniformity of nature. Many of them seek meaning in attacking "religion", creation, and God (while also pretending he does not exist), butGod gave them life, and gives life meaning.

And creationists? You have to work at it, you can't refute evolution through captioned pictures and only reading introductions to articles. Scriptural and scientific truth is on the side of biblical creation. Let's act like it.

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Verifying Venusian Volcanism?

Are there volcanoes on Venus? In some ways, that seems fitting, what with Venus being exceptionally hot and full of toxic gasses. However, it's supposed to be billions of years old, and that would cause difficulties for "deep time" advocates. Other "old" objects in the solar system are not acting their age, including Pluto, so Venus can join the party.

Scientists suspected volcanic activity on Venus for years. Now there is evidence that not only is Venus very active, but acting like a young planet.
Computer-generated image of Sapas Mons on Venus / Image credit: NASA/JPL
Back in 1982, the Soviet Union's Venera 13 and 14 probes to Venus transmitted images that scientists suspected were a volcano, which they named Sapas Mons. Galloping ahead to 2010, research showed further evidence that Venus is geologically active. Saddling up for another hard ride to 2015, scientists reveal that they believe Venus to be not only volcanically active, but them thar hills are young, old son. Which strongly indicates that Earth and everything else was created recently.
The tortured surface of Venus appears to have been formed through recent geologic processes, and its rocks contain no record of deep time. What if Venus were young rather than 4.5 billion years old? It would explain quite a bit, including a brand-new discovery made by scientists peering through its dense atmosphere.

Gathering clues from Venus' cloud-covered surface is no easy task. Astronomers based at Brown University stitched together 2,463 images of a rift system called Ganiki Chasma taken by the Venus Express spacecraft as it orbited the planet. The astronomers created a time-lapse mosaic of the rift system and saw intriguing spots that would suddenly burn bright then quickly fade.
You can finish reading up on this hot topic by clicking on "Discovery: Volcanoes on Venus".

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Evolution and Allele Frequencies

When someone points out that evolution has not, and cannot, be observed, you run into problems with definitions. Sometimes there are multiple meanings to words and people can"talk past" each other, so it's best to nail down the definitions for potentially hazardous terms. Like evolution, which has several definitions.

"Evolution" has several meanings. Watch out for equivocation when people assert that it's "just a change in allele frequencies".

You can encounter someone asserting, "What's the problem? Evolution is just a change in allele frequencies, and has been frequently observed. Therefore, evolution is true". (This is occasionally accompanied with an abusive ad hominem like, "...you ignorant creationist fool, you".) Problem is, that owlhoot is being sneaky by changing up the meanings of the word evolution. It's a logical fallacy called equivocation. 

Image by Why?Outreach
 Sure, creationists know full well that there are variations (such as eye color). But that's not evolution in the amoeba-to-atheopath sense, no new information is added, and so on. If we're talking about evolution where something changes into something completely different, let's start and finish with that, Theodore, and don't be switching definitions on us, you savvy?
Creationists should learn to spot the fallacy of equivocation—where someone illegitimately switches the definition of a word in the middle an argument—because evolutionists often trade on this error. S.U. from the US needed assistance answering one such evolutionist.

He first quotes the critic and then follows with his request for help:
To read the quote (which I reckon is a question-begging epithet), the question, and the response, click on "Evolution: just a change in allele frequencies?"

Monday, July 27, 2015

Were Pandas Ignored by Evolution?

Because the giant panda has the configuration of a carnivore, some evolutionists say that it is an evolutionary failure, or left behind by evolution. This speculation is based on evolutionary presuppositions and limited thinking, and entirely unwarranted.

Modified from "Giant Panda Tai Shan" / Fernando Revilla / Wikimedia Commons
These critters are baffling, I'll allow. They are classified as bears and have the innards of carnivores, but primarily eat bamboo. A lot of it. Bamboo isn't exactly full of protein and other nutrients, so what gives with these black and white vegetarians? It turns out that they know how to get what they need, their Creator gave them the right equipment, despite the protestations of Darwin's Disciples.
Is the giant panda a poorly evolved vegetarian? Or highly specialized, well-designed herbivore, a living link to a time when all animals were vegetarians? Despite having teeth, jaws, and a short digestive tract typical of the more carnivorous members of the bear family, the giant panda depends on a bamboo diet. Though occasionally enjoying a meaty meal, the giant panda subsists primarily on a daily diet of 20 to 30 pounds of bamboo leaves, stems, and shoots. The giant panda is an endangered species, and its vulnerability to habitat destruction makes understanding of how it meets its nutritional needs of great importance if it is to be protected rather than allowed to succumb to the evolutionary ideal of survival of the fittest.
To read the rest, click on "Giant Panda’s Vegetarian Plight: An Evolutionary Dilemma?"

Saturday, July 25, 2015

Bad Science, Bad Theology, Bad Morals in Geocentrism

In July 2013, I posted material on how there are still some people who believe that the Earth is nicely bolted down. Yes, despite observable science, they hold to the geocentric view, that the sun goes around the Earth, and not the geokinetic solar system we know and love. Some of this comes from an insistence on clinging to misunderstood Bible verses. To see that post, click on "Geocentrism — An Embarrassment to Creationists" and especially the article that is linked.

Some people still believe that the Earth does not orbit the sun or rotate on its axis. Part of that is based on misunderstanding the Bible. Others resort to subterfuge to present a geocentric view. Real Science Radio presents a great deal of evidence to further refute geocentrism.
"Bolted Earth", modified from an image by NASA's Earth Observatory
Before we get to the good stuff, I have to give some information from the Irony Board. There's a Page on Facebook called "Evolution is a Religion of Origins". While they post some occasional good anti-evolution material, it is run by a vituperative Sacred Name cultist. If you disagree with the One True Church™, you're a pagan. While I believe that the teachings of Roman Catholicism do not lead to salvation, this cultist has an extreme hatred for Catholicism, and is also a geocentrist. Ironically, that Page posted material affirming geocentrism by Robert Sungenis. Problem is, Sungenis is president of Catholic Apologetics International! Feel the irony? Sungenis is behind the "Galileo Was Wrong" site, and was involved in a film called The Principle. He has a bad reputation, even among some other Catholics.

It's ironic that some people who think they're being true to the Bible and reject geokinetic (heliocentric) science as "pagan" are promoting a pagan science that went back to Ptolemy, Plato, and Aristotle! They used epicycles and other rescuing devices to get around the difficulties in geocentrism. Atheists and anti-creationist evolutionists frequently employ various rescuing devices and excuses when confronted with reality. That's natural, everyone uses rescuing devices to some extent because we argue from our worldviews. It's just that anti-creationists and atheists cling to them beyond the point of absurdity. For instance, some claim that everyone is lying about the Earth orbiting the sun and rotating on its axis. That's one huge conspiracy theory, Theodore!

Here's the payoff. Bob Enyart was asked to support The Principle, and was misled by the producer as to its content. He apologized, and did a two-part radio show rebutting the movie. You'll find out just how disingenuous Sungenis and friends are with their propaganda. The links are below, and they have a passel of information that gets down to Earth (heh!), plus the material in the podcasts themselves. The audio is free to listen online or download. One note, Bob and Fred  talk about the "Hydroplate Theory" of Walt Brown. I don't know enough about it, other creationists consider it weak, so I am not endorsing it.