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.

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Bananas About Nothing

Genesis 1:1 is not only the first verse of the Bible, but also foundational, because the other miracles make sense. The hands at the Darwin Ranch are going to a great deal of effort to work around this powerful but simple truth, using arguments akin to throwing trail dust (and, uh, other stuff on the trail) into the air.


Atheists are trying to get out of the truth of the Bible by saying that everything came from nothing. Science, physics, common sense, and God's Word say otherwise.
Image courtesy of the Earth Science and Remote Sensing Unit, NASA Johnson Space Center, who is not endorsing this article.
Since everything that has a beginning has a cause, some atheist owlhoots are saying that the universe came from nothing. And they're not only serious, they're calling their worthy-of-peyote-induced-hallucinations "science". Never mind the First Law of Thermodynamics, Einstein's general relativity, and even common sense. David Hume taught that same "something from nothing" belief, but Elizabeth Anscombe pointed out that if a banana dropped onto your plate, you'd be thinking of every other possible explanation than, "Hey, this thing came out of nothing! How good is that?" If you study on it a spell, you'll realize that it's obvious that God did just what he said and created everything.
In one sense, Genesis 1:1 is the most important verse in the Bible: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” If we can believe this verse, no other verse in the Bible should be a problem. For example, if God can create the whole universe, then raising people from the dead and causing a virgin to conceive would be easy beyond words.

. . .

Conversely, if we can’t trust this verse, then nothing else in the Bible makes sense. Since this verse is so foundational, it is not surprising that atheists have feverishly attacked this concept. Some of the attacks are childish, while others have the veneer of philosophy or advanced science.
If you're ready to do some serious thinking and learn something, click on "In the beginning God created—or was it a quantum fluctuation?

 

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Rapid Erosion and a Young Earth

One of the simplest evidences for a young Earth that frustrates secular geologists is the rates of erosion. That is, if our planet was as old as claimed, even using uniformitarian rates of erosion, we wouldn't be seeing the mountains that are clearly there today.


Rapid erosion is evidence for recent creation, and does not support long-age uniformitarian geology.
Cliffs of Dover, 1890 / Image credit: Library of Congress
We see rapid erosion happening today, and it's not fitting into long age schemes. Sections of cliffs fall into the sea in England (don't stand too close to the cliffs of Dover, big drop-offs happen a little too often for comfort), and Yosemite Valley has big chunks falling about once a year.
Recently in Dorset, England, bad weather washed a massive section of a cliff into the sea revealing scores of ammonite fossils. Creation scientists are interested in this cliff fall because substantial erosion was accomplished in literally seconds. It didn't take hundreds of thousands to millions of years of slow and gradual erosion.

The cliff fall at Dorset isn't the only recent example of rapid and significant erosion. Uniformitarian geologists claim the famous White Cliffs of Dover, composed of calcium carbonate, were formed in the Cretaceous Period between 65 and 140 million years ago. But there is evidence of significant fracturing every decade or so causing authorities to urge visitors to stay far away from the cliff edge lest they topple into the ocean when the rocks give way. No, the evidence supports recent creation, not long ages.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Rapid Erosion Supports Creation Model". 

 

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".

 

Labels