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.

Friday, March 27, 2015

Showing Backbone in the Cambrian Explosion

The Cambrian explosion is a serious problem for evolutionists, yet they keep trying to salvage evidence for their paradigm from it. The reality is that the Cambrian layers give evidence of creation, and also the Genesis Flood.

One of the biggest burrs under the saddles of evolutionary paleontologists is the Cambrian explosion. According to their paradigm, fossils were made gradually, showing evolution from simpler to more complex life forms, over millions of years. The Cambrian layer has many fossilized life forms that are fully developed, and evolutionists have struggled to explain this away. By the way, fossils in the pre-Cambrian? Not so much. That makes things worse for them.

David Attenborough does evolution documentaries, and he discussed a critter that supposedly was an ancestor to modern backbones. As is typical in these kinds of discussions, it is speculation without basis. In fact, what is found in the Cambrian explosion is evidence of creation (there are no undisputed transitional forms of something changing into something else), and also supports the Genesis Flood — especially with those well-preserved soft tissues that show sudden burial. Yippie ky yay, secularists!
The evolutionary origin of vertebrates 525 million years ago is the subject of a captivating video recently featured on Smithsonian.com. In this lavishly illustrated five-minute clip, charismatic evolutionary spokesman David Attenborough explains how a paper clip-sized Cambrian creature called Myllokunmingia has revealed how and when life took its first successful step toward the development of a backbone.
To discover when the first sign of a backbone appeared, Sir David takes us to China’s Chengjiang Formation where Myllokunmingia—which he says is “the earliest creature we know of that we can truly call a vertebrate”—was found in a Lower Cambrian rock layer. China’s Chengjiang Formation and Canada’s Burgess Shale are two famous sites revealing the Cambrian explosion—the abrupt appearance of diverse animals deep in the fossil record.
To read the rest, click on "Cambrian Explosion or Creation Week—Key to Vertebrate Success?

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Three Scientists Einstein Admired

Albert Einstein was an acknowledged genius. Who would someone like this look up to? The three people in pictures on his study wall may surprise you.

It's generally acknowledged that Uncle Albert was a clever lad. The name of Einstein is associated with genius, even in sarcasm, such as, "Nice going there, Einstein!". In addition to the General and Special Theories of Relativity, many people thought he had a great deal of wisdom. He did not have godly wisdom, however, rejecting the gospel message. Einstein did have a kind of Deist view of God, despite the dishonest claims of atheists like Clinton Richard Dawkins. So, who did this smart feller see fit to look up to, and what was special about them?
There’s little doubt that the most famous scientist of the 20th century was Albert Einstein (1879–1955). Today his name is synonymous with ‘genius’. Most people today would recognize his most famous equation, E=mc2, (though many would be hard-pressed to explain what it actually means!). But even Einstein had his science heroes.

So whom would the great Einstein have admired? They must have been incredible scientists for Einstein to have thought highly of them! And they were. Einstein had pictures of his three heroes of science on his study wall. They were Isaac Newton (1642–1727), Michael Faraday (1791–1867), and James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879).
To finish reading, click on "Einstein’s heroes—biblical creationists". 


Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Water on Outer Moons

There have been several reports that there may be water on moons of Jupiter and Saturn, the asteroid Ceres — and maybe some just up yonder on our own moon. With advances in space exploration, it turns out that our solar system is a busy place, what with volcanic eruptions, methane geysers and what not. With speculations of water, naturally come speculations of life evolving from whatever is out there.

Speculations of the existence of water on outer moons of the solar system raise questions for cosmic evolution. Not so much for creationists, however.
Ganymede, Jupiter's largest moon, may have an underground ocean. Image: NASA / JPL
Of course, the various forms of water need to be investigated further, and there needs to be more involved, even for goo-to-you evolutionists, for life to happen. Also, evolution requires huge amounts of time, and the reports of water don't bother to address the problem of how water can last more than a few thousand years on a solar system alleged to be billions of years old. A young solar system is exactly what is expected by biblical creationists.

You can read the information by clicking on "Water Worlds Tempt with Life, Not Youth".

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Orphan Genes — Bee-Lieve It!

This bears repeating: despite the claims of Darwinists, science is an enemy of evolution, especially when it comes to genome studies. The concept of genome evolution gets lassoed and tied down because of "orphan genes". These things perplex evolutionary scientists because they are unique to certain organisms and giving them unique traits.

"Orphan genes" have been problematic for evolutionists. The problem became worse for them in honey bees, and orphan genes can be useful to creation scientists.
Pixabay / PollyDot
Honey bees are already frustrating to evolutionists since they have a complex social structure. The orphan genes provide them with traits not found in other bee species, including special means of communication, and they are found in various organs — again, unique to these bees. The orphan genes are of special interest to creation scientists, since they can help genetic research in the created kinds.
A key type of rogue genetic data called orphan genes has just been spectacularly reported in honey bees. Orphan genes conflict with ideas about genome evolution, and they are directly linked with the evolutionary enigma of phenotypic novelty, unique traits specific to a single type of creature.

Many creatures possess similar sets of genes that produce proteins with similar biochemical functions. Common genetic code would be a predicted feature of purposefully engineered biological systems in creatures that share the same environment and have somewhat similar life requirements. In addition to these common genes, different kinds of organisms also have unique sets of coding sequences specific to that type of creature called orphan genes. In a review paper about orphan genes, the authors stated, "Comparative genome analyses indicate that every taxonomic group so far studied contains 10–20% of genes that lack recognizable homologs [similar counterparts] in other species."
To read the rest of this sweet article, click on "Honey Bee Orphan Genes Sting Evolution". By the way, don't be in too big a hurry to kill off the first dandelions of spring, seems that they're good for honeybees. I reckon you might want to wait a little while if you can.

Monday, March 23, 2015

Book Review — In Defense of Easter

In Defense of Easter: Answering Critical Challenges to the Resurrection of Jesus, written by Tim Chaffey
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

When I was accepted to be on the review team for The War on Christmas, I was given a couple of other e-books as thank-you gifts. I was not asked to give a review at all, let alone, a favorable one, but I thought you should know how I obtained my copy of Tim Chaffey's In Defense of Easter: Answering Critical Challenges to the Resurrection of Jesus.

Then I put it off. To be direct with you, I wasn't all that thrilled with another book giving a defense of the faith on this topic since there are so many others available, and many articles on apologetics sites. Still, the topic is important, so I carved out some time for it.

Turns out that I was getting set to ride down the wrong trail. In Defense of Easter has a somewhat different approach in some respects than other books, and there is information on bad arguments against the resurrection that were not around before, plus some material that I had never heard of.

This is not a cumbersome tome at 216 pages (softcover), and also available as an e-book (like mine). You can read it a little at a time or dive in. Section One is "The Case for the Resurrection", and has 5 chapters about evidences for the resurrection of Jesus, including infallible proofs and remarks from historians.

Section Two is "Alternative Theories", chapters 6-17. These include some of the nonsense that is spread by misotheists on the Web, some of the more common excuses to disbelieve (such as the stolen body, wrong tomb, faked death, not really but mostly dead), and Chaffey also dispenses with some of the esoteric spiritual resurrection concepts.

Chapters 18-25 comprise Section Three, "Other Relevant Questions". For me, Tim sets this book apart from other apologetics books in this section. Chapters include material on alleged contradictions, how the resurrection of Jesus was different from other accounts of people that he raised from the dead, how Genesis ties in with the resurrection, how the resurrection is a source of comfort, and whether or not Easter is a pagan holiday. 

That last one about accusations of Easter being a pagan day was a bit of a disappointment for me because I wanted more information to corral that wild horse. Still, there is enough information to put the "You're a pagan" judgmental nonsense away, and he made some excellent points. Also, perhaps Tim was thinking that, since he works at Answers In Genesis (as well as being involved in Midwest Apologetics), AiG has done several articles to deal with the "pagan" accusations. If you want to see those and other articles, I assembled several at "Is Easter a Pagan Holiday, and Should Christians Celebrate It?" So, I reckon that my "complaint" on the lack of discussion is rather small after all.

Think about it. God the Son, the Creator of the universe took the form of a man. He died for your sins and mine, and defeated death with his bodily

I recommend In Defense of Easter. It can be obtained from the publisher, Midwest Apologetics (but I did not see a link for the e-book there), Answers In Genesis (both softcover and e-book), and other sources.

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Science, Evolution, and the Religious Experience

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In a previous article, I discussed how people idolize scientists and the religion of Scientism is gaining popularity. Many people will blindly accept what "scientists say" because of their unfounded high view of science and scientists (that article is here). Regular readers may recall that my father was a pastor in a liberal church. I asked him why we did so many ritual things (which I disliked), and he said that people need a "religious experience". Although I still reject that for a church setting, I see truth in that in other areas. Scientism, atheism, and other worldviews tend to be sterile and clinical; even atheists are garnering a religious experience with their own churches.

Scientism, atheism, Jedi religion, Evolutionism, liberal Christianity, New Age, and others seek a religious experience. Why is that?

Although many Darwinists and atheists hate this fact, evolution is a religion. It started way back yonder, long before Darwin plagiarized Erasmus Darwin and others, back to the Epicureans, and possibly older views. Charles Darwin didn't come up with evolution all by his lonesome, he made gave a religious view a veneer of science and popularized it. If someone dares to question evolution, show evidence against it, and poke fun at evolutionary high priests like Clinton Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin, Laurence Krauss, and even tinhorns that want to be famous, watch out for the stampede of the faithful, riding into town to shut you up. Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that secularists were embracing New Age religious views, or even full-fledged Hinduism. 

This Scientism thing goes beyond evolutionism. Have you noticed the increasing popularity of science fiction, UFOs, Raelism, and the Jedi Religion? Science fiction fans have an almost religious fervor at conventions and such, space aliens bring a message of "hope" rooted in evolutionism, with Raelism and Jedi taking on a spirituality. Why is that, old son?

I believe some of it is that desire for a religious experience. But another part of it is a desire for God. People know that God exists (Romans 1:20), but choose to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18, Psalm 53:1). These forms of religious experience vary from liberal Christians embracing Darwinism, militant atheopaths going on a secularist jihad, people enamored with science philosophies, or even people just seeking some kind of religion. But all of it is essentially rebellion against God our creator and the salvation offered through Jesus Christ. After all, we can't earn salvation, we have to humble ourselves and receive it God's way, not our way.

Here are two broadcasts that aired on March 19, 2015 (I heard them the next day and got all agitated, so I wrote this article). The first one is where Janet Mefferd interviews Dr. James A. Herrick of Hope College. I don't know his views on creation, but what he says makes a lot of sense. It's free, you can download it or listen on the site, click here for that interview on the Janet Mefferd Show

The second broadcast is somewhat related, and I hope Christians will listen to it. Amy and Scott interview Warren Smith about how the New Age is gaining popularity and entering the church even more. Like the other show, this one is free to listen to online or download, click here for the interview on Stand Up for the Truth.

Friday, March 20, 2015

Revisiting the Failed Miller-Urey Experiment?

In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey had a notion to do an experiment to back up the assumptions that, using science and and intelligently-designed apparatus, life could form by chance. The obtained some amino acids, and Darwin's Cheerleaders were overjoyed that chemical evolution had a basis in their worldview. However, the experiment has long been discredited (they used a trap to remove the amino acids from the environment so they wouldn't be destroyed), and the "reducing atmosphere" concept of the early earth has long been abandoned.

Image credit: Yassine Mrabet/Wikipedia (modified)
Of course, this bit of historical science used assumptions, and they wanted to test their ideas to see if they worked. Scientists do that. However, even though the experiment is invalid, when creationists point out its many flaws (including that it argues against abiogenesis), evolutionists will circle the wagons to defend it. A newer attempt to bring the experiment back into respectability by using a computer simulation and saying that it's valid on the quantum level. Not hardly. The logical conclusion is that life originated by the hand of our Creator, but that is anathema to materialistic evolutionists.
This feedback answers Aleksey K. of Ukraine, who asked about revisitation of the iconic Miller Urey experiment. The media claimed that it could have produced many more amino acids than previously thought. This is followed by a box about the nature of Earth’s early oxidizing atmosphere, which falsifies one of the important premises behind the experiment.
You can read the question and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati's response (with several important links) at "The Miller–Urey experiment revisited".