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, June 24, 2016

Soft-Tissue Deniers Refute Themselves

Although there are many advocates of goo-to-gigantosaurus evolution that deny the inconvenient truth that soft tissues exist in fossilized bones, the evidence just keeps on accumulating. Various rescuing devices have been presented, but they involve many assumptions, circular reasoning, and some dishonesty. They have enough problems dealing with 65 million evolutionary years, but things got worse.

Things got worse for fossil soft-tissue deniers. More have been found in "older" strata, and scientists offer a self-refuting excuse.
Assembled from Redkid.net sign generator
An interesting development is that molecular analysis of fossilized bones found in Poland show what evolutionists do not want to find. Worse, the rescuing device they rustled up was self-refuting. Seems like a lot of effort to deny the evidence of recent creation, doesn't it?
Those who have difficulty accepting reports of collagen (a type of protein) preserved in supposedly 80-million-year-old dinosaur bones will scratch their heads with new vigor over a recent report. Supposedly 247-million-year-old fossils from Poland show signs of excellent preservation and even hold blood vessels.

A team of Polish scientists, publishing in the online journal PLOS ONE, removed the bone's biominerals before using several spectroscopic techniques to analyze the organic remains. They found the same amino acids that modern reptiles use to build proteins like collagen. The study authors concluded, "We interpret the data presented here as evidence for the presence of organic residues in these specimens that may derive from collagen or its degradation products."

But proteins have shelf lives shorter than one million years. This makes discovering them in fossils of supposed great antiquity virtually inexplicable.
To read the rest, click on "Organic Residue Is 247 Million Years Old?" Also, check out "Interview with Microbiologist Dr. Kevin Anderson on Dinosaur Soft Tissues", available 6-25-2016.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Fossil Forest Flusters Secular Geologists

There are several fossil forests, and one in particular was discovered a spell back a few hours' drive from my neck of the woods. Geologists and botanists reckoned that, since they were very old in Darwin years, a few simple trees would be all that existed. More evidence shows that they were riding up the wrong trail again.

Assembled at Sign Generator
Their problems lie in using uniformitarian ("the present is the key to the past", slow and gradual processes) assumptions, and those assumptions keep on failing. In fact, a form of catastrophism is used now and then when it's convenient. In the case of this forest, they're closing in on the truth (the Genesis Flood), but are still tied up in their worldview.
There are many reports of fossil ‘forests’ across the earth that display vertical tree remnants. Vertical tree stumps and trunks are assumed to be in situ, which seems to be the definition of a fossil forest. Evolutionists think that the first forests would have been simple and composed of a single type of tree:
“Think for a minute about ‘early’ life on land. Complexity is probably not the first thought that springs to mind. Botanists also tended to consider the earliest forests to be simple entities composed of a single type of tree.”

This was reinforced by the discovery in the 1920s of the ‘earliest’ fossil ‘forest’ in Gilboa, New York, that was believed to be composed of just one type of tree that grew in a swamp.
Spectacular sandstone casts formed by fossilized stumps of hollow tree ferns over 6 m (19 ft) tall with slender trunks had been excavated. They resembled modern palms or tree ferns.
To read the rest, click on "‘Earliest’ fossil ‘forest’ surprisingly complex".

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Evolution and Agriculture

An earlier post discussed how evolutionists have limited understanding of human nature. We supposedly evolved, then sat around for a huge amount of time before showing any signs of the ambition we exhibit today. Similarly, those jaspers collecting our tax dollars are dodging the questions about how and why farming developed.

Evolutionary concepts are inconsistent. In this case, they cannot explain how and why farming suddenly popped onto the scene when supposedly humans had been around for a long time.
Image credit: Morguefile / Jusben (modified)
According to the hands down at the Darwin Ranch, not only were we ignoring technology and cities, but we hadn't bothered to do agriculture, either. It just suddenly appeared in history, even though farming types moved around, interbred, and so forth. If you study on it, even their concept of late-blooming agricultural skills is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview. The biblical creationist worldview makes much more sense, in that we did not evolve but were created recently, and were intelligent from the get-go. That old Earth stuff really interferes with historical science, old son.
If intelligent humans were around for hundreds of thousands of years, why didn’t any of them think about farming sooner?

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences just printed a special section about human evolution. Let’s see if any of the papers can answer the question of why farming was delayed so long in the evolutionary history of man.
To read discussion on the papers and more, click on "Why Was Farming Delayed?"

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

The Source of the Sun's Power

At the risk of being Captain Obvious, we get a heap of blessings from the sun. Living things depend on its energy for various reasons, we get warmth, time and seasons (Genesis 1:14-15), and other benefits. Without it, this planet would be a lifeless ball of ice hurtling through space. But you knew all that. Aside from thankful but deluded people who worship it, thoughtful folks have wondered what powers the sun.

There are two main theories for the source of the sun's energy. Nuclear fusion seems to be the best, but it does not automatically mean that the sun is billions of years old; it's just built to last a long time.
The Sun, Edvard Munch, 1916
Is it powered by gravitational collapse? Nuclear fusion? A combination of both? In 1979, a couple of astronomers presented a paper where they thought they had evidence that the sun is indeed shrinking. Some creationists stampeded to present that idea because it fit with a younger universe paradigm, but secular and more cautious creationists realized that this idea should be filed under, "Don't go there, girlfriend". Still, where is the evidence for nuclear fusion? Why, neutrinos, of course. But why are only a third of the elusive little critters recorded? The alternate neutrino theory apparently took care of that problem.

So, we have the nuclear fusion idea, and this shows that the sun can last a few billion years. Secularists extrapolate backward and work solar evolution from the failed Big Bang concept, saying that the sun is billions of years old already. A problem with that idea is that projecting into the past is not justified; just because it's built to ride long and hard doesn't mean it's been doing that for a long time already. There's another problem: the sun is very stable, which is an indicator that it was created comparatively recently.
The 19th century saw the first scientific explanation for the sun’s energy. William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and Hermann von Helmholtz proposed that the sun derived its energy from the conversion of gravitational potential energy. This process (now called the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism) would cause the sun slowly to shrink, but the shrinkage would be so gradual as to be virtually undetectable. The Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism is a viable model, and astronomers think that all stars derive at least some of their energy from this mechanism at some stages. However, scientists generally rejected the Kelvin-Helmholtz model toward the end of the 19th century, because it could power the sun for “at most” 30 million years. At that time, many scientists were committed to gradual geological and biological evolution, processes that required much more time than the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism would allow.

If the conversion of gravitational potential energy does not power the sun, then what does? Early in the 20th century, astronomers began to suggest some sort of nuclear power source for the sun. Eventually, increased knowledge of nuclear physics revealed that the fusion of hydrogen into helium in the solar core is the most likely source of the sun’s energy. The sun contains abundant hydrogen for fuel, and from physics we know that the conditions in the solar core are sufficient to sustain the fusion of hydrogen into helium. If this is the source of the sun’s energy, it could power the sun for nearly 10 billion years.
To read the rest, click on "Is the Sun Shrinking?"

Monday, June 20, 2016

Flying High Without Oxygen

Let's start by over-stating some basics. First, we depend on oxygen to survive. Down around sea level, the pressure is fine and we can get what we need. You go up the mountains, the air is thinner. Death Valley is below sea level, so don't be in a great hurry to go from there to Denver, the "Mile High City". (Baseball players don't always cotton to playing up there.) Mountain climbers need to take extra precautions, as do pilots. (For that matter, your big ol' jet airliner trip was in a pressurized cabin.) Fighter pilots have oxygen masks. Taking your dog with you on a bombing mission can be bad news if you're both unprepared; going up too high too fast, or just too high at all, can be disastrous.

Attaining high altitudes can cause difficulty for many creatures, and even be lethal. So, how do birds comfortably survive altitudes that we can't handle?
Whitney Smith, the 53rd Wing honorary commander
US Air Force photo / Sara Vidoni
(Use does not imply endorsement of this site or its contents by the US DoD.)
So how is it that birds can easily fly at altitudes that would be lethal to humans? Evolutionary explanations are obviously pure guesswork, and the best (and obvious) explanation is that birds are designed by their Creator with hearts and respiratory systems to deal with the situations.
If dogs were meant to fly, they would have bodies designed for it. Flying at altitudes so high that the lack of oxygen is a serious problem requires bodies specifically equipped for breathing thin air. This need is illustrated by an amazing German Shepherd named Antis that flew in combat missions during World War II at altitudes of up to 16,000 feet.1 How did this dog survive flying in oxygen-starved altitudes?
. . .
What about high-flying birds that have no such oxygen mask? How can they survive elevations of 15,000 feet and sometimes higher without a supplemental source of oxygen? Many bird migrations occur at extremely high elevations: 21,000 feet for the mallard duck, 27,000 feet for swans, even 36,000 feet for vultures!
To read the interesting story about Antis as well as information about bird design, click on "High-Altitude Flying Is for the Birds".

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Ideologies In Collision

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There are several major paradigms active in the world today that have many adherents and are also in conflict one another. Some try to have a kind of synthesis of views, while others have no interest. There is a unified focus, but I don't reckon that participants are aware of the grand scheme. I don't see a kind of shoot-out at the OK Corral of philosophy, though.

There have been several philosophical eras over the years that had odd names as far as I'm concerned. Doesn't modern mean today? Not when it comes to labeling. The last three are premodernism, modernism, and postmodernism. (Some are saying that postmodernism is already morphing into something else, but there's no title yet as far as I can tell.) One of the main characteristics of postmodernism is that people believe that there are no absolutes. Forget presenting truth to postmoderns, they've asserted that there are no absolutes (a self-refuting claim) and that truth is relative.

Biblical Christianity and atheism can be held in equal disdain according to postmodernism because of their belief in no absolutes. (Some atheists are compromising their "standards" by redefining atheism as a "lack of belief", which is disingenuous, but may be seem palatable to postmoderns.) While many atheists have a moral code, atheism does not provide a consistent moral standard, and is consistent with postmodernism. Barna Research shows that many Americans base morality on subjective personal experience — many people believe that when it comes to trends of this nature, Europe and Canada embraced them years ago.

My father observed that people need a "religious experience", so they tend to get a philosophy with trappings. Who burns incense? A partial list includes Eastern religions, pagans (Wicca seems to be the best-known pagan religion), Roman Catholics, Native American religions, New Age meditation practitioners, people who just like the stuff, and so on. Who does chanting? The same sort of list applies. Who does ritual? Ditto.

Evolutionism is a form of paganism, and paganism has been increasing of late. But evolution also has adherents in scientism. How can "no authority" and "ultimate authority" philosophies coexist?
Allegory of Earth by Cornelis and Paul de Vos, ca. 1600
Neopaganism is growing worldwide, and can be seen in numerous "transformational festivals" that are extremely experience-oriented, and fit with postmodern views. There is no ultimate authority for them. This can be seen as a variation on New Age philosophies, which are eclectic in nature and are a buffet-style religion where you pick what you want, leave the rest. Many New Agers include a version of Christianity (but they don't cotton to the real Jesus of the Bible by any stretch of the imagination). Extreme environmentalism has a great deal of pagan influence and appeal as well. Pagans just don't seem to care about Jesus or any aspect of the Bible. For a fascinating interview of Carl Teichrib by Janet Mefferd on this subject, click here. Note that it is on Sound Cloud, which requires you to sign up before downloading, but I have not had any problems with them after registering.

Evolutionism is an ancient pagan religion, and Charles Darwin did not create a scientific version of it based on materialistic naturalism. Professing atheists embrace evolution because atheism needs it, and indeed, they have their own secular "miracles" that provide a sort of mystical experience. Here's a place where things get more confusing: the political philosophy of fascism is closely related to paganism. Atheists and secularists who promote evolution are actually promoting fascism. (For a detailed article on this, see "Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism".) There are atheists who embrace paganism.

Competing with postmodernism are materialism and scientism, where the only reality is material (no God allowed). Truth is reached through the empirical method (another self-refuting claim) and through the applications of science. Professing atheists often use a "scientific method" (a philosophy of interpreting evidence that is in a state of flux) to determine truth. People have tended to put intellectuals, and especially scientists, on pedestals, accepting what "scientists say" as truth.

Easily the most despised competitor for postmodernism is the oldest, which is biblical Christianity. We assert that there are moral absolutes, and the consistent moral standard is revealed in the Bible, which was inspired (θεόπνευστος, "God-breathed"). Worse for postmodernists are those of us who believe in special creation. For that matter, there are tinhorns who try to mix bad theology with current secular science trends and then act as if they know more than what Jesus believed and taught about creation. (For my detailed examination of theistic evolution, begin with "Waterless Clouds, Wandering Stars".) Like many other false teachers, TEs use philosophy to perform eisegesis.

The elevation of personal experience has corrupted biblical Christianity, where Scripture is compromised in favor of emotional experiences and good feelings. There are professing Christians that are exceptionally shallow on Bible knowledge and clear thinking, but are more than happy to embrace false teachings that give them an emotional high and feel good about themselves. Problem is, these owlhoots don't even realize that they're following false teachers, partly because they believe the authority of what "the pastor says", and sit there with their Bibles closed. This is the opposite of the Bereans in Acts 17:11. Those people get good feelings and that mystical experience, even though those things did not originate in God.

Here are a few tips for those emotionally-driven but biblically shallow people: the Holy Spirit does not testify of your feelings, Pastor Feelgood, you, a religious organization. Instead, the Spirit testifies of Jesus (John 15:26), and God is not the source of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). Direct personal revelations from God are not only false and contrary to biblical teaching, but also deny the sufficiency of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17). As the saying goes, I'm just saying. I'm also saying that we all need to check teachings and experiences with the Word of God. You savvy?

There is a drive for unity in world religions, but there is also a conflict regarding ultimate truth and authority from postmodern philosophies. Atheism and biblical Christianity are rejected, but paganism and related New Age philosophies are acceptable to postmodern thinking. I wonder what will become of the synthesis of paganism with evolutionary thinking down the trail.

Did you notice that there's a strong element of pride in all this? "I'll do what I want, what makes me feel good". It was pride that caused Satan to be cast out of Heaven (Isaiah 14:12-14, Ezekiel 28:11-19), and pride that caused the fall of man (Genesis 3:5-7). Such people are actually committing idolatry by worshiping themselves and becoming their own gods. The real God still takes a mighty dim view of pride today, and many people are setting themselves up for a lot of pain.

Psalm 53:1 tells us that the fool says in his heart that there is no God. This shows us that atheists are fools as defined by God, but it goes deeper. People who have disdain for the authority of the Word of God are saying that he does not exist or is irrelevant, God will certainly not punish me for my sin and for rejecting his Word. Someone like this is a fool. This includes atheists, pagans, theistic evolutionists, secularists, religious people, and more. We need to humble ourselves and repent, accepting the real truth in God's Word and salvation through Jesus Christ who is God the Son, our Creator.

Friday, June 17, 2016

Can Amino Acids Survive on Mars?

The speculations about life on Barsoom Malcandra Mars are very old, which has given rise to fantasy and science fiction stories about it. For a spell, scientists seem to have said, "There ain't no life on that one, old son", because they realized that the temperatures and atmosphere were not conducive to life. But it remained a curiosity, which increased with the adoration of evolutionism by secularists, which in turn fueled efforts to find evidence of life out there, thataway. Since abiogenesis is an absurd concept on Earth, there must be some way to find excuses to disbelieve in the Creator in the far reaches of space.

Scientists set up tests to see if amino acids could survive the UV radiation on Mars. Even with conditions set up in their favor, results were less than spectacular.
Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech
Evolutionary scientists are not above cherry-picking data and setting up tests in such a way as they validate evolution. Although gamma-ray bursts that should extinguish life were given a bit of a nod, conditions on Mars were set up in a lab and (Mr. Gordons should like this) the survivability of amino acids under certain conditions was studied. Naturally, this involved speculations and assumptions. Even with conditions set up in their favor, results were less than spectacular.
UV radiation quickly degrades amino acids on most Martian minerals, a new study shows.

Using the “Open University Mars Chamber” in the UK, four British scientists watched to see what happened when amino acids were subjected to ultraviolet (UV) light. They spiked 11 different minerals known to exist on Mars with different concentrations of amino acids, then irradiated the rocks with UV ray levels expected at local noon for a total of 28 hours of exposure, the equivalent of about 6.5 Martian days’ worth of UV dosage. They published their results in an open-access paper on Icarus. Here are the highlights:
To read the rest, click on "Amino Acids Unlikely to Survive on Mars".