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.

Saturday, February 28, 2015

The Virus, the Evolution, and the Creation

It seems for the most part, when someone says, "I have a virus", they are talking about a bad invader. Fact is, not all viruses are wicked things, since some are actually beneficial. You could even say, "I have a virus" without meaning something that made you sick, because we have virus variations inside us already.

Not all viruses are bad, and some are essential. Exogenous retroviruses are the stuff of evolutionary legends, and now we have speculation that because they affect the brains of mice, they must have played a part in human evolution. Not hardly.
Influenza virus illustration from CDC.gov
Imagine taking the train out of Galveston. Some of the passengers seem to have always been there, and even have their own duties. Then some bandits come along and not only rob the passengers of their money and jewelry (and my best pocket watch!), but they start changing things for their own destructive purposes. The passengers who look like they've always been there can be likened to endogenous retroviruses that have functions, and the bandits are like exogenous retroviruses that come along and wreak havoc.

Endogenous retroviruses are essential for the development of the human placenta. Working from their worldview, evolutionists have no idea how they got inside us, so they assume that they are remnants of invading viruses in our past. Of course, this is faith-based speculation, since they have no evidence or eyewitness accounts of what happened those alleged millions of years ago. It makes more sense that they were put there by our Creator.

Research on mice reveals that endogenous retroviruses are important in their brain development. Good observational science is once again being fouled up with evolutionary speculations about how the stuff was probably a part of our evolution. Declaring "evolution" by offering guesses without evidence pays well; I'm in the wrong line of work!
About 8–10% of human DNA, as well as the DNA of animals like mice, consists of scattered DNA sequences matching those of retroviruses. These sequences are called endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) because they are actually a part of the healthy host cell’s DNA. (Exogenous retroviruses—like HIV that causes AIDS—come from outside a cell and infect it.) How ERVs came to be part of our DNA and what they are doing there have been the subjects of much speculation and research. Scientists have known for some time that placental formation depends on ERVs. Evolutionists credit such viruses with making mammalian evolution possible. Now scientists have shown that ERVs play a crucial role in the development of the mouse brain.
This article is nothing to sneeze at. You can read the rest by clicking on "Endogenous Retroviruses: Key to Mammalian Brain Development?" On a related note, you may want to check out "Viruses — Architects of the Brain?"

Friday, February 27, 2015

Formerly "Extinct" Shark is Just Frilled to be Here

Once again, the irrevocable force of evolution produces no change. Remember the coelacanth story? Considered extinct by evolutionists and paleontologists for millions of years, it turned up alive and well — and pretty much unchanged, much to the dismay of Darwinistas. The lack of change was not much of a surprise to biblical creationists, however.

The fossil record does not support evolution at all, so excuses are made. When different critters have similar features (such as sonar in bats and dolphins), they call it "convergent evolution", although there is no plausible record or model for such things happening. Also, when something disappears from the fossil record, it is assumed to be extinct. But worse, when something disappears for alleged millions of years, then fossils in more recent strata are found, they resort to weird science explanations like "ghost lineages".

Darwinian evolution showing inaction: A frilled shark that was presumed extinct was caught, and was the same as its fossil counterpart.
From video footage of a frilled shark / NOAA.gov
A living frilled shark was found looking very much the way its fossilized counterpart looked. This adds insult to injury, since evolutionists have no idea how sharks allegedly evolved in the first place; a shark has always been a shark because that's what it was created to be. (That doesn't stop the wild speculation, such as how sharks and humans are related — but I know some lawyers that make me wonder if it's true after all.) There are no decent transitional forms (living or fossilized) to support evolution, and along comes a frilled shark that was presumed lost. Really, they should stop betting on losing hands like evolutionary conjecture.
On January 21, 2015 the news broke—an Australian fisherman hooked a "living fossil." Called the frilled (or frill) shark (genus Chlamydoselachus, belonging to Order Hexanchiformes), this creature was thought to be 80 million years old.1 It looks mighty frightening, but is it truly "prehistoric" and somehow linked to shark evolution?
You can read the rest of this short article by clicking on "The frilled shark . . . is still a shark". 

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Imaging and Ancient Civilizations

Aren't science and technology wonderful? They are useful applications of observational science (where your view of origins is, or should be, irrelevant to doing the science). The remains of two formerly unknown ancient civilizations have been discovered through satellite imaging and the use of drones equipped with radar and infrared. Naturally, archaeologists are quite excited.

Two formerly unknown ancient civilizations give lie to the evolutionary idea that ancient humans were stupid and brutish. The true history of ancient humans is found in the Bible, not evolution books.
An excavation of a Roman / Phonecian site in Malta. Image credit: freeimages.com / bearcatroc
Darwin's disciples preach that early humans were stupid brutes, what with being freshly evolved out of the jungle and all that. However, there are frequent discoveries that give lie to that idea, and show how early people were actually quite intelligent. The true history about early humanity is not found in evolution books, but in the Bible. You can read about the two amazing discoveries by clicking on "Lost Civilizations: Human History Hidden in Plain Sight".

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

How Do You Know What You Know About Geological Time?

Much of what we think we know about the geologic column is based on layers of data. However, data are interpreted according to the worldview and consensus of the scientists. A date is established, and other information is added, building up on the original foundation. Unfortunately, much of it is based on circular reasoning and reinforcement.


The geologic column is built on flimsy evidence. It is sustained by circular reasoning that Reinforcement Syndrome. The data actually fit Genesis Flood models from biblical creationist geologists far better than secular models.
Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures
In addition to the circular reasoning and reinforcement, "evidence" to support the geologic column and "deep time" is flexible. That helps, since the ruling belief system of the day, evolutionism, relies on long ages.

You'd think that if something is found to be in error at or near the base, the whole thing would collapse like a house of cards built by a bored saloon patron. But no, it still stands with "facts" getting reclassified and plugged into different areas. "See? We still got us an ancient world!" Not hardly. The facts fit Genesis Flood models from biblical creationist geologists far better than secular models — and without the tampering.
Many people are intimidated by the certainties claimed for the ages of the rocks, fossils, and events of the past, and the precision claimed for these details. The edifice of the geological column and timescale (figure 1) can seem so well established with copious data from the rocks, ‘fossils’, and dating laboratories, as to seem true. As a result, many Christian scholars think the millions and billions of years of the geological column and also as claimed for evolution, have been proven. However, the ‘reinforcement syndrome’ is a large part of this so-called precision in which concepts arbitrarily believed during the start of the Enlightenment in the 1700s are assumptions that go into all earth science data analysis.
To read the rest of the article with its many examples, click on "The reinforcement syndrome ubiquitous in the earth sciences".

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

New Theory Suggests No Big Bang

The Big Bang has little resemblance to the original concept of yesteryear. It would be adjusted when scientists discovered problems with it and to hopefully fit in new supporting data. Although there are people who insist that it's a fact (and some think it negates the Creator), the Big Bang is full of speculations, conjectures, suggestions of things that should exist but cannot be found, and more. Actual science took yesterday's noon stagecoach out of this fantasy land. Many people reject it on scientific as well as theological reasons.


The Big Bang has been adjusted for decades until has little resemblance to the original. Now a new theory is presented that uses quantum mechanics and relativity, eliminating the Big Bang altogether.
Modified from an image by NASA / JPL
A new theory is puzzling. It draws from relativity and quantum mechanics, postulating that there was no singularity, no Big Bang. That would rule out the Big Bang's predecessor, the Oscillating Universe, since bang-expand-contract-crunch-repeat would not be possible. Imagine the gravity of the situation. Will this new theory become the new sheriff in town and gain wide acceptance? Unlikely, as the linked article below suggests.

There are some Christians who have compromised sound theology with current science trends. They are cautioned that if they base their faith on "science" instead of trusting God's written Word, where will they be when a theory or discovery is overturned? Trust God, not the every-changing speculations of man-made science beliefs.
A recently published cosmology incorporates an alternate geometry and attempts to include quantum mechanical effects. The authors of the model suggest that they have answered several problems of modern cosmology, such as the identity of dark matter and dark energy (or alternately, the cosmological constant). An interesting feature of this model is that it rules out a big bang singularity origin of the universe. It is not clear exactly what the authors of the model mean by this; however, it does not appear that this model is compatible with biblical creation.
To finish reading, click on "Study Says Universe Had No Beginning and No Big Bang?" For more on the subject, see ICR's "Secular Study: No Big Bang?"

Monday, February 23, 2015

Cholesterol, Global Warming and Evolution — HUH?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

On the surface, this is a strange article. Keep going and you'll see that the three items in the title actually have a common link — and the link is not missing. It's about "settled science".


The reversal of the "eating cholesterol-rich foods is bad for you" concept, global warming, and evolution have a common thread.
Modified from morgueFile / lemai13
No, I haven't had peyote buttons. A Yaqui sorcerer tried to give me some once, but never mind about that now.

This article has an odd origin. I was listening to my favorite weekday Conservative show by Chris Plante while working overtime, and I got some information as well as an inspiration. The big news is that you don't need to worry about high-cholesterol foods after all — most of our fat blood comes from genes, not victuals. (Strange, I heard that years ago. Now it's accepted?) Even though there were some nay-sayers including Ancel Keys back in the 1955, most people acted like it was "settled science", so we have to just shut up and accept it. Now the "truth" discarded, you don't have to worry so much about cholesterol. Maybe Cousin Eddie will start eating squirrels again.

Chris Plante pointed out that the cholesterol report smacks of similarities to anthropomorphic global warming. We are causing the world to burn and it's "settled science". I'll take it further than Chris did. Those deniers, even though there are scientists and meteorologists who reject it, should just shut up and go with the consensus. Sometimes, scientists are attacked, but not refuted. Might makes right, majority rules, all that.

I've lost count of the owlhoots who tell me to clam up about biblical creation because Darwin killed God and evolution is a fact, and (wait for it...) "settled science". There are also people who want us to compromise and mix "settled science" evolution with creation. Evolution is not science at all, since it fails the basic requirements of a scientific theory (repeatable, observable, testable, and so on). The inconvenient truth is that evolution is a matter of belief, and there are many scientists, both secular and creationist, who do not consider evolution to be a fact. Evolution is supported by speculation presented as science, storytelling, wild conjecture, fraud, and outright lies (especially by Darwin's Drones who troll the Web, trying to silence those of us who present reality). We should obediently join the dancing in Darwin's Disco. "Settled science"? Not hardly.

"But Cowboy Bob, how can all of those scientists be wrong?"

They're human, and have their own presuppositions, biases, and rebellion against the authority of Scripture. They're not infallible, and I don't think most of them have the faith in themselves that science worshipers have. They've been wrong before, and they're wrong now.

The claim that ingesting cholesterol-rich foods is bad for you, anthropomorphic global warming, and scum-to-skeptic evolution have a great deal of hand-waving cheerleaders, but those things are not "settled science", not by a long shot. Sometimes, settled science ain't quite so settled. If people looked for the truth in God's Word, there wouldn't be so much fudging and insistence on speculation with global warming and evolutionism.

If you want to hear the Chris Plante show, you have two options. First, go the site and look for the "2.20.15" link. If that fails, this direct MP3 link may help. In either case, go to the 1 hr. 14 min. 35 sec. mark or thereabouts so you don't have to wade through the entire show. Political Conservatives might end up subscribing to the RSS feed, though. 

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Placing Blame — Anti-Creationist "Morality" and "Logic" in Action

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Have you noticed that molecules-to-man implies improvement? I've never read or heard something like, "Wow, that critter had some bad evolving along the way!" Everything seems to be "good".

Darwinistas have their starting point that evolution is true in all things. I keep posting research where good science is ruined by attempts to find how something evolved, or the presuppositions that evolution is the cause of everything, not just biological evolution. One of the many things these people insist on is that morality itself has evolved.

But there is no improvement in morality. Things are going from bad to worse, and what was considered bad before is now applauded as good. But anti-creationist and anti-Christian bigotry are on the increase. Christian values are not tolerated by people who claim to be tolerant, and hypocrites who say they oppose bullying will engage the in cyber-bullying and stalking of creationists.


Subjective morality and double standards.
Morality never evolved in the first place. People who believe that are deceived, and think that they are "good without God", then plainly demonstrate otherwise. They will misrepresent and even lie outright about Ken Ham, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Eric Hovind, me, and many others who are famous and not-so-famous. They believe they are doing something good by promoting evolutionism and attacking creationism.

The Question Evolution Project on Facebook had another faker attack (I discussed earlier ones here) from the same sidewinder. As I keep saying, people who accept friend request from obviously new and blatantly fake names are asking for trouble, including identity theft. Think about it. The atheopath lies to people and says that our Page is his. Then he boasts and justifies his "morality": "That just comes with you being so weak that you yourself recognize your position can't even stand up to scrutiny on the internet from some random guy". Yeah, "some random guy" is a criminal and serial impersonator. Note the straw man stuff, too. Later, he said, "And you're overlooking the fact that this started with me being censored, not me making these profiles. And this isn't illegal, by the way, since this isn't a real name." Red herring, since he's not breaking a law with that fake name, but he's a serial Facebook Terms of Service violator — this is one of those times. It's very Lowe.



Note that this is justified in his own putrefying mind because he was "censored". People like this hide behind "free speech" when they want to turn every corner of teh interwebs into their own urinal, and sometimes censorship is necessary — there is no such thing as totally free speech in society. Besides, the guy has his own Pages and groups in which to rant and rave. Some of us reckon that they're doing this because they've lost the debate, and science is not on their side, but they are desperate to bolster their false worldview.

Ironically, this guy and the owner of a poor imitation Page that was created out of a desire for revenge never bothered to read the "About" section of The Question Evolution Project's Page — it's not a debate Page, and not a place for narcissistic atheo-fascists to promote their own propaganda.

But it's my fault, right?

This goes back a long ways, back to the Garden. The serpent deceived Eve, and she ate of the forbidden fruit, then Adam joined in. When God asked what they had done, Adam blamed God, "The woman that you gave me" (Gen 3:12). Eve blamed the serpent (Gen. 3:13). Where I come from, people are responsible for their own choices.

Doing evil is seen as doing good, and attacking God's people is considered a righteous crusade by the lost. However, God does see all of these things. We are promised persecution (2 Tim. 2:12, Matt. 5:11-12), but we are to remain faithful (3 John 1:3, Heb. 6:12). Don't worry, old son. They'll get what's coming to them. Until then, their "morality" is getting worse (Rom. 1:22).

Labels