Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman

Welcome to the home of "The Question Evolution Project". There is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution. Evidence refuting evolution is suppressed by the scientific establishment, which is against the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Using an unregistered assault keyboard, articles and links to creation science resources are presented so people can obtain evidence that is not materialistic propaganda. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Monday, May 29, 2017

Galactic Evolution Stumpers

According to deep time adherents, some celestial objects just won't act their (assigned) ages. There are many links on this site alone to how planets, moons, and whatnot are showing signs of youth instead of millions of years. Secular cosmologists keep on plugging away with their narrative, even when they repeatedly encounter observed evidence that refutes their predictions. Probably because they find recent creation detestable, despite the evidence. They continue to present things they know are untrue, even according to their mythology.

Galaxy cluster MOO J1142+1527, credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / Gemini / CARMA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Beginning with Big Bang and deep time presuppositions, astronomers and cosmologists are baffled when galaxies that are supposed to be very old have "stopped forming stars". Not that anyone has actually seen stars forming, we're only presented with presumptions based on their paradigms. Still, there is yet another game changer where the evidence refutes cosmic evolutionary expectations, but the same old song will still be played. Ya wanna dance?
When you see the words “challenging” and “requires substantial revision” in the abstract, you know trouble is coming.

Eleven astronomers from five continents are unanimous: this galaxy doesn’t fit current theory. Here’s what they found, as announced in Nature.
To find out what was found and why it upset them so (as well as what they're not going to do), click on "Galaxy Evolution Crisis: Start Over".

Saturday, May 27, 2017

Pupplies Help a Child's Health?

Way back in the olden days, we had a small dog, but my parents were not overly concerned with protecting me from the unsanitary beast. Nor were they all that worried about unsanitary cats, once they became part of the family. Proper hygiene was in order, and that was enough. (By the way, some people have scared pregnant women into avoiding cats, but the danger there is mitigated by taking care when changing the litter box.) I know people who would want to have "kisses" from their German Shepherd and have her lick their faces, even on the lips. I can't do that.

Children Playing with Puppies, William Collins, 1812
The idea that dogs' mouths are cleaner than ours is a myth, they have their own bacterial flora. No need to overreact, though. Our society has been "too clean" these past years (the word germaphobe is used too freely in my opinion, as a true germaphobe suffers from obsessive-compulsive disorder), and are actually doing harm to ourselves and our children; we're lacking bacteria, microbes, and important things our system uses. 


So, Snoopy licked Lucy's face? He is probably doing her some good. Darwinists appeal to "co-evolution" to explain these things, but it's a "scientific explanation" pulled out of thin air. The fact is, certain bacteria were created for our benefit, and we were created to use them.
Many people react with revulsion when a dog licks their face—especially babies. Such a reaction is justifiable based on the unsanitary habits of Rover. However, recent research supports the idea that babies actually benefit from living with dogs.
 . . .
These authors approach human-microbe relationships from an evolutionary “survival of the fittest” worldview where life develops through a long progression of deadly struggles. The host-microbe relationship is regularly portrayed in warlike terms, which explains why puppy microbes are labeled “pathogens” even though they do not cause disease. The system that links the infant to the beneficial microbes is also labeled an “immune” system which conveys a defensive concept rather than functioning as the comprehensive regulatory interface it actually is.
To fetch this article in its entirety, click on "Puppies Provide Protection".
  

Friday, May 26, 2017

Non-Evolution of the Frog

You may find this difficult to believe, but some owlhoots present the development of a tadpole into a frog as an example of evolution. Now, they're using the vague definition of evolution as change over time, and then implying that this change illustrates all life evolving from a common ancestor. Not hardly!

Tadpole to frog is not evolution it is genetically encoded instructions placed by the Creator
Chiricahua Leopard Frog credit: Jim Rorabaugh / USFWS|
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Mr. Jeremy Fisher was once a tadpole, a critter that people sometimes go "hunting" and raising. It undergoes drastic changes and becomes a croaking hopper that eats flies. (If you get the right one, it'll sing and dance for you.) The changes it goes through are quite dramatic, actually. Everything is changed and rearranged through and through. How does it know how to do this, and how do the changes happen the right way, in the right order? The Creator put the intricate design plans into it's DNA, which defies changes-by-chance evolution.
Never mind about a frog to a prince—doesn’t a frog show evolution happening within its own life cycle? From a fish-like tadpole (complete with gills) the ‘frog baby’ rapidly ‘morphs’ its way to a brand new life-style! The mouth widens, the tail dissolves, the fly-catching ‘bungy’ tongue develops, nostrils form, and bulging eyes migrate around the head. Lastly, when the lungs mature and four legs have grown, the graduating tadpole celebrates by hopping right out of the water and living on land.

This amazing transformation (metamorphosis) is a lot more than skin deep. Virtually every organ and body system is radically reworked.
To read the rest, hop on over to "From a frog to a … frog!"
  

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Vague Terms Acceptable in Science

It is an established fact that everywhere we turn, we are assaulted with remarks about evolution that assume it to be an undisputed, every scientist in lockstep, fact. Whether it's an animated feature for children, advertisements, nature documentaries that invariably give homage to Darwin, proselytes of evolutionism on the web, or many other possibilities, evolution is confidently asserted. 


Big news for evolutionists vague words like maybe are unscientific
Made at imageGenerator.net
We expect vagaries in science terminology from cinema, music, or whatever. Unfortunately, it is becoming more common in mainstream scientific journals to read things like, "Scientists think...perhaps...it is thought...maybe", and then have erroneous, unscientific conclusions pawned off as being conclusive. Is that ethical? The only thing conclusive is the written Word of God, who told us how he did the creating. Supplanters who attempt to replace God really do not know what happened in the distant past. An article about the development of instinct is quite telling.
Why does America’s most prestigious scientific journal put up with a story like, ‘somehow it evolved in an ancestor’?

The word ‘somehow’ appears twice in this summary on Phys.org of a Perspective piece in Science about the evolution of instincts:
To read the rest, click on "Instinct: ‘Somehow’ Is Not an Evolutionary Explanation".
  

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Fooling with Fish Stories to Prove Evolution

People who want us to believe in fish-to-firefighter evolution have been doing some finagling about the development of gills and, ultimately, where we came from. One indicator that bad science is being presented is when the question is begged. In this case, the hoary canard, "Ontology recapitulates phylogeny" was presumed. Also, evolution is used to support abortion, since the unborn child supposedly goes through a fish stage with "gill slits".

Fish gill development does not show evolution
Discus fish image credit: Pixabay / Bergadder
A study of fish embryos and gill development assembled some good data. Unfortunately, the study was used to prop up evolution. The reasoning was faulty, beginning with the presupposition of Darwinism. They assume that embryos show their evolutionary stages, and ignore the facts that superficial resemblances to gill slits in creatures are imaginary. Those things that appear to be gill slits are actually an important part of development.
Can a landmark discovery about how fish embryos grow their gills connect us firmly to roots under the sea? Cambridge University zoologists J. Andrew Gillis and Olivia R.A. Tidswell think so.
Fish use gills to extract oxygen from water. Evolutionists maintain that vertebrates without gills—like us—have gills “present as vestiges in our own embryology.”1 (More on that below.) But where did gills come from in the first place? Enquiring evolutionists want to know! To find out, they look for similarities in the gills of different sorts of fish embryos. They hope to thereby unveil the gills of the common evolutionary ancestor of all fish and to gain a clue about how very different groups of fish—jawless, bony, and cartilaginous—diverged.
To read the rest, click on "Does Gill Embryology Show Fish Evolved from a Common Ancestor?"
   

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Squid Squadron

Every once in a while, an unbelievable story told around a campfire or in a tavern is based in reality: 
I'm tellin' ya, we was sleepin' below deck in the boat, see. Woke up the next mornin', and breakfast delivered itself right smack on the deck. It was a squid. Musta flew up there!
Don't be too hasty to dismiss the seafarer's experience: squid do fly. They're not just jumping (breaching) like "devil rays", or doing some impressive gliding like flying fish. While it's not as free and easy as a bird, some species of squid take to the air in their version of powered flight. Specifically, it's jet-propelled flight, and it's not just a hop, either.


Flying squid do exist and refute evolution
Made at Atom Smasher
I reckon that there's a heap more to learn on Earth, and our money could be better spent here instead of searching for space aliens, but I digress.

This is clear evidence of creation, since all of the pieces had to be in place and functioning at the same time, or they would be meaningless in the squid, possibly even harmful. Some tinhorns are so locked into their cult of naturalism, they insist that even though there is no mechanism for evolution and the logical conclusion is that this is a product of the Creator's intelligent design, evolution did it. Despite ideologues, the evidence is compelling, and the flying squid activity is a marvel. 
Many a seafarer has observed schools of flying fish suddenly breaking the ocean’s surface and gliding at great speed just above the water for short distances, using their pectoral fins as wings. However, mariners’ reports of flying squid similarly soaring above the waves were generally regarded sceptically. But no longer, with the scientific community increasingly documenting the phenomenon.

So sailors finding squid high-and-dry on their vessel’s deck in the morning (as many do) can now more boldly say how they likely got there: many species of squid can, and do, fly.
To read the rest, jet on over to "Squid do fly!" For more evolution defiance, see "Paleontologists Show a Squid is Still a Squid".
 

Monday, May 22, 2017

It's Another Bird, Not a Feathered Dinosaur

Riddle me this: What is the size of a chicken, has drumstick-shaped legs, feather follicles, slender tail, and feather follicles?

"That's a dinosaur, ya idjit!" 

Well, no. Although proponents of dinosaur-to-bird evolution try very hard to see feathers in dinosaur fossils and ignore bird features, even if they did find a dinosaur with feathers, it would only show that a dinosaur had feathers and not prove that they evolved into birds. They tend to make outlandish extrapolations like that.


Credit: Freeimages / Armend (AD)
At any rate, further research on a feathered dinosaur candidate shows that it had feathers and many features found in modern birds. There were some other features that we don't see very much in modern birds today. Still, it's another bit of wishbone — I mean, wishful — thinking that didn't pan out for evolutionists, which is no surprise for creationists, and probably no surprise for those evolutionists who reject the dino-to-bird story. They really should slow down before theorizing and then having to retract their speculations. Better still, realize that birds and dinosaurs were created separately.
Most people, when they see something new, quickly try to categorize it. They want to associate it with something familiar. They say, “That’s an odd piece of jewelry,” or “That’s a rock.” But getting careless with this generally helpful tendency can lead to error, like when the “jewelry” turns out to be a memory stick on a lanyard or the “rock” turns out to be a piece of man-made building material. So, what about people who categorize certain fossils as “feathered dinosaurs”? New descriptions of the Chinese fossil Anchiornis give reasons to rethink this popular categorization.
To finish reading, click on "Actual Feathers on Mystery Fossil Indicate 'Bird'".
   

Labels