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

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Zircon Crystals and Rethinking Early Earth Life

The more things change — the more things change. A heap of evolutionary icons are being overthrown, often by evolutionists' own science. (Sorta like being shot with your own gun.) There are numerous challenges to the age of the solar system and the universe (especially with discoveries regarding Pluto), Lenski's virus experiments prove that a virus can stay pretty much the same, endosymbiosis needs a re-think and some actual evidence, water on primordial Earth is being reexamined, Lucy was an extinct ape that walked on its knuckles, and more. It's a good time to be a biblical creationist!

Another evolutionary re-think in progress. Carbon in zircon crystals moves evolutionary time way, way back.
Zircon in Jack Hills, Australia's Narre Gneiss Terrane
Image credit: NASA/GSFC/METI/ERSDAC/JAROS, and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team
But wait, there's another bronc bucking in the corral at the Darwin Ranch! Zircon crystals are showing traces of carbon. Darwinists are assuming that the carbon came from ancient life forms, and commence to using assumptions and circular reasoning (especially the dreadful radiometric dating stuff). Guess that means "carbon footprints", huh? Time to rewrite the science textbooks yet again. Instead of propping up Darwin's failed hypothesis, scientists should see that the evidences does not support evolution, but rather, shows that God created life, the universe, and everything recently.
Zircon crystals—little time capsules preserving bits of Earth’s ancient past—have in our recent past given evolutionary scientists a whole new view of conditions on the early Earth. Previously thought to have been a Hadean hell of molten magma for a very long time, the early Earth is now seen in the light of zircon-trapped atoms as a place that cooled enough for water to condense within 160 million years of being spit out of a solar nebula and coalescing as a fiery ball. Now the discovery of flecks of graphite in an Australian zircon crystal has raised the possibility that life evolved very quickly in that ancient world, 300 million years earlier than previously thought.
To read the rest, click on "Did Earth’s Earliest Life Leave Carbon Footprints in a 4.1 Billion-Year-Old Zircon?

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Early Earth Ocean Excitement

"Science is self-correcting", they say. Not hardly! Scientists tend to cling to their paradigms. Sometimes it's out of pride, other times it's because an idea is presumed to be an undisputed fact, other reasons — but especially if it involves evolution in some way. Evolutionary theories keep getting retooled these days, don't they?

The old textbook concept of an ancient dry Earth is being challenged, but some scientists are resisting the change. They should go all-out and accept the fact that the Earth was created recently, oceans and all.
Image credit: morgueFile / kconnors
For a long time, the established view was that, since Earth and the rest of the solar system formed out of hot gasses at about the same time, it was dry when it cooled off. A new theory gets traditional long-age scientists all het up because it says Earth was wet, and did not get water from asteroids. That causes consternation, because other scientists need the asteroid theory, despite contrary evidence, because asteroids and things supposedly brought life here so it could evolve. These science-deniers are suppressing the truth that creation scientists have been telling them all along: the evidence shows the Earth is much younger than fits into their schemes, was created wet, very good — and fit for life.
Time to rewrite the textbooks again. Earth started out wet, scientists now claim, overturning decades of dogma.

“Earth may have kept its own water rather than getting it from asteroids,” reads a story title in Science Magazine , a summary of a paper in Science. The authors concluded, from divination of lavas on Baffin Island collected in 1985 (Astrobiology Magazine), that the mantle must have gained its water directly from the protoplanetary nebula.

Astronomers had been telling the public for many years that Earth started out dry and got its water from comets. When the deuterium ratio of comet ice turned out to be too high, they had a problem.
To read the rest, click on "New Earth Ocean Theory Is All Wet". No, you won't need to put on your wellies


Monday, November 23, 2015

The End of Endosymbiosis

One of the difficulties for spore-to-sportscaster evolution is the evolution of the cell. The hypotheses of endosymbiosis has simple bacteria-like cells way back yonder being the ancestors for the cells found in plants and animals today, including the trillions of cells found in humans. With advances in genome sequencing (and a mighty helpful reduction in cost), endosymbiosis is in a world of hurt.

Research is threatening endosymbiosis, an idea about how cells evolved. More than that, research is affirming creation, not evolution.
Image credit: Darryl Leja, NHGR / National Human Genome Research Institute
New research is a vexation for evolutionists, which is not surprising, since endosymbiosis was based mainly on superficial resemblances and all. One problem is that there is no evidence for mitochondrial genes having an origin in the bacterial cells. Another is that there is no sign of the kind of steady, gradual progression that we've all been assured is a registered trademark of evolution. What we find is organized complexities specific to organisms, just the way our Creator planned things out.
One of the biggest problems for evolution is how animal and plant cells, eukaryotes, could have been derived from precursor bacteria-like cells called prokaryotes. Unlike prokaryotes, eukaryotic cells are highly compartmentalized and contain membrane-bound organelles such as the nucleus, mitochondria, and (in plants) chloroplasts that are not found in bacteria or archaea (non-bacterial single-celled prokaryotes). Along with numerous other genetic and molecular differences, these complex cellular organelles not found in prokaryotes, form an unbridgeable gap for evolution to somehow accomplish.

Evolutionists have long struggled to present a non-speculative explanation for the origin of the eukaryotic cell nucleus and other complex cellular features. One idea that has been quite popular for about 50 years is that mitochondria and chloroplasts were derived from a mythical process called endosymbiosis. The heart of this explanation is the fact that the mitochondrion possesses a small circular piece of DNA containing some of the genes it needs to function, combined with a process of organelle replication. This functional combination looks similar to how bacterial DNA is constructed and how bacteria reproduce, but the appearances are only superficial.
To read the rest, click on "Endosymbiosis: A Theory in Crisis".


Saturday, November 21, 2015

Audio Series: "God and Evolution" by Andrew McCaskill

This resource is a free series of 16 lectures on God and Evolution. There is some science, but also strong theology. Theistic evolution is shown to be fundamentally flawed.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

As regular readers may have noticed, an advantage to my data entry job is being able to listen to things. Rows of people in Cubicleland are plugged in to music, radios, audio books, and in my case, podcasts. I happened across this series called "God and Evolution" by Andrew McCaskill on Sermon Audio, and am pleased to share it with you.

The lecture series is a mite longer than I usually share, what with being sixteen parts and all. But I reckoned it was important. It was presented April-September 2015 at Emmanuel Baptist Church in Verona, Virginia. Mr. McCaskill isn't one of those yee-ha entertainment-driven teachers. Instead, he is soft-spoken and more concerned with delivering his content. You won't be overwhelmed with science, but there is some as well as serious theological content involved; Andrew show serious flaws in theistic evolution. Y'all know how I feel about that stuff.

Andrew McCaskill has taught biology for sixteen years. Six of those years were in Thailand, where he led creation/evolution seminars to help Thai Christians understand the implications of the origins debate. Nowadays, he's teaching biology at Grace Christian School in Stauton, Virginia as well as teaching at his church. But that's not enough! He's also studying at Reformed Theological Seminary, and has a wife and four children. Busy guy!

These talks can be heard online or downloaded (either way is free) from Sermon Audio. The picture below (click for more bigness) is what you'll see when you click on the link I'll give in a moment. If you're not a member of Sermon Audio, don't worry about it when you get a prompt to sign up. Click on "Maybe later", and the download starts right away.  Some of the lectures have notes in PDF, so if you're inclined to getting those, click on the title of the message and look for the "PDF Text" button below the download audio options. 

I think you'll be educated and blessed by paying attention to these lectures. Click here for the "God and Evolution" series at Sermon Audio.

God and Evolution Series by Andrew McCaskill at Sermon Audio

Friday, November 20, 2015

Meteorites, Circular Reasoning, and the Age of the Earth

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The age of the Earth is determined primarily through radiometric dating methods. However, radiometric dating is loaded with scientific difficulties, circular reasoning, presuppositions, and other anti-science posturing by long-age proponents. (Links to an eight-part series on radiometric dating difficulties can be found here, and you can also search the site for articles on "age of the earth".) The workers at the Darwin Ranch don't bother to use Earth rocks very much. Instead, they calculate the putative age of the Earth from space rocks.

The age of the Earth is primarily calculated from space rocks using radiometric dating. This leads to a great deal of presuppositional circular reasoning.
Meteor Crater, Arizona / Image credit: NASA
The cognating on using meteorites and other space rocks is that the rocks right here on the place they're trying to find the age for are no good, what with plate tectonics fouling them up and all. Using their presuppositions, secular scientists assume that, since everything was formed at the same time billions of evolutionist years ago, space rocks are more pure and can yield reliable dates — except that radiometric dating is fundamentally flawed, see the articles linked above.

Further, there have been many instances of the solar system refusing to act its age. That is, there are many instances of our celestial neighbors showing signs of comparative youth, not "deep time", such as Pluto, Venus, and others. So they have very doubtful assumptions that the solar system is old and that the rocks that fell to Earth are old and more pure. This circular reasoning is used to calculate the age of our planet.

The crater pictured above was formed 50,000 imaginary years ago by an asteroid that hit Earth. Or was it a meteorite after all? Sure would be nice if they had evidence for that alleged time, though. Fragments of the big ol' rock were analyzed, and when scientists found dates they liked, they confidently asserted Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. And they want that big number so that evolution can happen — or so they think.

Their conclusions were flawed from the get-go, with a whole passel of conjecture based on erroneous presuppositions being passed off as facts. What's worse is that people fall for what "scientists say". The evidence shows what biblical creationists have been telling us all along: Earth is not billions of years old, there is no microbes-to-magician evolution, and God created everything just like he said in his Word.

Thursday, November 19, 2015

DNA Repair Mechanics

DNA is vitally important, but is subjected to abuse through use; various stresses cause considerable hurt. Passing along such seriously damaged DNA to the next generation would lead to a quick extinction of humanity, and wouldn't be much good for other living things, either.

DNA and cells wear out. A 2015 Nobel Prize was awarded for research into the intricate repair mechanisms, inadvertently exhibiting the handiwork of the Creator.
Combined clip-art images from Clker
The 2015 Nobel Prize for evolution —

"No, Cowboy Bob. There is no Nobel Prize for evolution."

Oh, right. That's mighty silly of me. Anyway, the 2015 Nobel Prize for chemistry was awarded for research into how cells repair their own DNA. It's not just a matter of enzymes, but also communication of information, and repairs are conducted. This process is clearly from the grace of our Creator, and evolution is impossible.
Tomas Lindahl from Sweden, Paul Modrich from the United States, and American-Turkish researcher Aziz Sancar were awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for uncovering how cells repair their own DNA.1 DNA repair mechanisms keep us alive, and understanding them undergirds a fuller comprehension of how cells work and fend off the disastrous consequences of too many mutations. The research of these three men implies that cells have always used DNA repair mechanisms, thus uncovering evolutionary mysteries that have not yet found sensible solutions.

Their pioneering work, mostly conducted in the 1970s and 1980s, opened a door to what has become a large research field. Investigators around the world continue to uncover new enzymes and communication networks, including feedback protocols and cellular subroutines, all aimed at protecting DNA. Good thing this happens in every cell on the planet, because otherwise DNA would lose vital information.
To read the rest, click on "2015 Nobel Prize Highlights Cell Repair Mystery". Also, see the Genesis Week video, "DNA Fixer Upperer".

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Where Did the Mind Come From?

If you study on it for a spell, you'll realize that the brain and the mind are extremely complicated. DNA is busy doing work, perception is happening, signals are being relayed so we can make sense of what our senses tell us, we have abstract thought, composition, and much more. You've really got to hand it to the brain!

The purposeful, complex activities of the brain and mind show the work of the Creator. Of course, some evolutionists give ridiculous praise to evolution.
Image credit: Pixabay / geralt
There has been a tremendous amount of research being conducted regarding the brain, thought processes, various aspects of neuroscience, and the like. Some give the typical hand-waving adoration of Darwin (it seems like some scientists consider this obligatory), there is some dreadful science with fact-free conjectures — and some that not only shows how evolutionary thinking has nothing to do with biological science, and even hints at the Creator.
Evolutionists take swipes at saying the most complex matter in the universe is a product of blind, aimless processes of nature.

Did sight emerge from blindness without wanting to? Did thinking emerge from irrational matter? These are the propositions evolutionists must accept in their attempts to build a human brain from nonliving solids and fluids, and ultimately from a nothingness that exploded. Let’s look at some evolutionary perspectives on the mind, then consider discoveries that point to creation.
To read the rest, head on over to "The Mind and Brain: Evolved or Created?"