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

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Cry "Reason" and Let Slip the Dogs of Creation

"But Cowboy Bob, shouldn't that title read —"

Yes, I know, the real phrase is, "Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war", from Shakespeare. I figured it was the leashed I could do.

Creationists have used dog breeds for many illustrations, including the variety of diversification that our Creator built into the genetic structure of the dog kind, and also how breeding (artificial selection) reduces the fitness for survival of the animals. 

New genetic study of dog kind diversity
Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / Bill Perry
In days long passed, dogs were bred for their abilities. Now they are also bred for their appearance. A new study surprised scientists because they expected certain breeds to be related due to similar traits, and vice versa. But with all of the genetic studying, there is no evidence supporting Darwin's dreadful idea; dogs are still dogs and are not turning into something completely other — even with human interference.
People have loved (or hated) dogs for thousands of years. Dogs were frowned upon as dirty scavengers in Biblical times, but for many centuries more recently, they have been man’s best friend. Because of their usefulness for hunting and herding, people groups around the world have bred individuals to accentuate traits they desired. A new survey of 160 dog breeds, described in Nature, shows that genetics is now allowing scientists to untangle the complicated lineages of different types.
To finish reading, click on "Dog Breeding: Exploring the Limits of Change". Yippie ky yay, secularists!

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Elephant Species in Darwin's Room

Ever heard the expression "the elephant in the room"? Not sure if it's used much outside these here United States, but it basically means an obvious problem that people are uncomfortable discussing for various reasons, including a desire to avoid making problems for the group. A problem for scientists as well as us reg'lar folk is the definition of species.

Image credit: cropped from Freeimages / fabrizio colombo
It's a common term and convenient, and people can use it to sound all sciencey and stuff. Carl (also, Carolus) Linnaeus was the creationist who is called the "father of modern taxonomy", and originated the concept. It's had problems ever since, as the classification system becomes increasingly difficult. Can two critters reproduce? Maybe, but they're on different continents. Similar characteristics? Not so fast, Freddy, lots of things have similarities but are unrelated in other ways. Scientists dispute whether or not to classify certain organisms as different species. The biblical term kind works, but people want smaller details, and secularists prefer the more difficult man-made term. Can't get the Creator any credit, because evolution, right?
When you think of the largest land animals on earth today, what comes to mind? Most people would probably say those creatures with long trunks and sharp ivory tusks. But do you mean the floppy-eared elephants of Africa or their small-eared cousins in Asia?
Identifying animals is much harder than you might think. Indeed, it touches on one of the most fundamental questions of biology. This difficulty actually has a name: “the species problem.”
To finish reading, click on "Defining Species—An Elephant-Sized Problem". Also, you may be interested in a more recent post here, "Bears, Hybrids, and Evolution".

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Science, Miracles, and Natural Law

When the hands at the Darwin Ranch are playing cards down at the bunkhouse, sometimes a troublemaker will bring up the subject of miracles. They promptly dismiss miracles as impossibilities because miracles don't happen, and besides, they violate natural law, whatever that is. Then they go back to cheating a poker.

Jesus heals blind man, miracles excluded by naturalistic presuppositions
Christ Healing the Blind Man, Eustache Le Sueur, 1600s
Of course, the naturalists' mantra of "Miracles do not happen because they are impossible" is based on circular reasoning as well as materialistic presuppositions. As for violating natural law? There's a prairie schooner-full of of natural laws that we're not rightly cognating on yet, but scoffers and evolutionists still rely on certain unknown and unseen things by faith. They have the a priori atheistic assumption that God does not exist and therefore cannot make himself known in his creation. I'll allow that the word miracle is thrown around far too often when something is most definitely not a miracle, but people are pleased about some good circumstance. There are also documented instances of healing that cannot be explained through natural means, so scoffers reject them and place faith (again) in Science of the Gaps, and even believe in the "miracle" of evolution without real evidence. Even though we do not know how something works does not mean it does not happen. There are times that referring to something as a miracle is indeed the most logical conclusion — especially the most obvious miracle, creation itself.
Atheists and agnostics don’t like miracles (though ironically they need them to justify their evolutionary worldview: Five Atheist miracles and A miracle by any other name would be … called science?). They often claim that miracles are somehow impossible, or inherently improbable, or unprovable—although their proofs become circular, as explained in Miracles and science. The idea is that miracles can be safely ignored as an option before the evidence is considered . . .
To read the rest with your miraculously, intelligently-designed eyes and brain, click on "How do miracles happen?"

Monday, June 19, 2017

Chicxulub Crater Questions

If you're heading south down Mexico way, past Mexico City but before the Guatemala border, you can find the Yucat√°n Peninsula. That's the place that some folks of the long age persuasion say that a meteorite or asteroid hit some 65 million Darwin years ago and led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. While some call it a "smoking gun" piece of evidence for the dino demise idea and an old earth, others (not just creationists) are not so certain.

Chicxulub meteorite dinosaur extinction not compelling
Artist's conception of Chicxulub impact / credit: NASA Goddard
While the site looks like it would have accommodated a large object from space, but the "smoking gun" didn't eject expected amounts of iridium, which is common in meteorites. Other minerals found there that could be from a meteorite are sparse, and the expected melting is nowhere near deep enough. Creationary scientists speculate that an impact may have happened at the time of the Genesis Flood (the results of the Flood would have eventually led to the demise of dinosaurs), the impact was nowhere near as large as the secular science industry is proclaiming.
In secular literature and movies, the most popular explanation for the dinosaurs’ extinction is an asteroid impact. The Chicxulub crater in Mexico is often referred to as the “smoking gun” for this idea. But do the data support an asteroid impact at Chicxulub? I recently reviewed the evidence and found some surprising results.
To read the rest of this short but interesting article, click on "Chicxulub Crater Theory Mostly Smoke".

Saturday, June 17, 2017

Fast Frog Food Flusters Evolutionists

Most of us probably know that frogs eat insects with the use of their sticky tongues. Have you ever seen it happen? Probably not, since the procedure takes less than the blink of an eye. Also, they eat more than insects. And yes, toads have the same food-zapping apparatus.

Frog sticky tongue meal process defies evolution

There are many factors at work here. The tongue flips out, but it's very soft and acts like a shock absorber so it doesn't knock lunch into the next county. At the same time, the saliva is honey-thick at the start, but much thinner when it reaches its prey. After it reels in its lunch, it has to get it off the tongue. Many factors have to be happening correctly at the same time, or nothing works, nothing makes sense to have without the rest. Gradual evolution is woefully inadequate to explain frog feeding, this is all in place because of the wisdom and planning of our Creator.
Frogs have the incredible ability to catch and eat a wide variety of prey, from hairy to furry to oddly-shaped. This prey can be up to 1.4 times their own body weight. A recent study published in Journal of the Royal Society Interface sought to figure out how frogs can accomplish this since not much research had been done previously. Their findings were summed up in an article from Science News.

After viewing slow-motion video footage, conducting experiments, and analyzing frog spit (it took several hours of scraping fifteen frog tongues to put together enough spit for just one test. Now who says science isn’t glamorous?), researchers discovered that the frog’s super-soft tongue and unique saliva work in tandem.
Stick with me now. You can read the rest by clicking on "Super-Sticky Spit: How a Frog Gets a Meal".

Friday, June 16, 2017

A Blast of Evidence against Uniformitarian Geology

Way back in 1770s, David Hume said, "For all inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities". James Hutton was studying geoscience, which was not yet a formalized field of study (doctorates would b given in geology many decades later). Still, he liked what he was doing and published books in the late 1700s, establishing uniformitarianism, summarized as "the present is the key to the past"; processes we see in geology today are the same as they've always been.

Hutton influenced lawyer Charles Lyell, who expanded on Hutton's work. He wanted to save geology, "freeing the science from the old dispensation of Moses." When people like Lyell oppose the Bible, it's no surprise that they're willing to lie to promote their views. From here, failed medical student and backslidden clergyman Charles Darwin became excited by Lyell's uniformitarian-promoting, God-denying tomes. Through paganism, plagiarism, and his own observations, Darwin came up with his own version of evolutionism. Evolution demands long ages, and Darwin's Flying Monkeys© attack any evidence for a young earth with the fervor of MS-13 gang members. On the web and in paper, of course.

Mt. St. Helens eruption supported biblical creation science
Credit: NOAA/NGDC, Department of Natural Resources, State of Washington
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
When Mt. St. Helens reminded the world of its presence in 1980 (and not without warning signs by any means), geologists were justifiably excited about the opportunity to make observations, take measurements, and do scientist stuff. What they found is reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition: nobody expected what was found! Even worse for views of Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin's supporters, this little volcanic explosion ("little" in comparison with other volcanoes) provided refutation for uniformitarian speculations and supported biblical creation science. Sure, they come up with excuses at the Darwin Ranch, but not much in the way of actual science to explain away the facts — especially the fact that the world was created recently, and not billions of Darwin years ago.
After decades of inactivity, Mount St Helens coughed to life in March 1980, some two months before its explosive eruption. Its smoke and rumbling were warning that something big was building up. Officials set up an exclusion zone around the volcano based on scientists’ ideas about how an eruption would occur. However, the blast was larger than expected, plus it first erupted sideways to the north instead of vertically. Of the 57 people that died, all but three were outside the exclusion zone.Wrong geological ideas can be deadly.

Wrong geological ideas have also led people to wrong ideas about the Bible—that the events it describes were mythological and did not actually happen. Mount St Helens changed that, which is why I have been so interested in what happened. The eruption demonstrated that geologic catastrophe can produce in hours and days geologic features previously believed to have taken millions of years. When we see what the volcano did in such a short time, we can better appreciate how the catastrophe of Noah’s Flood formed the much larger geological features on planet Earth.
To read the entire article, click on "Learning the lessons of Mount St Helens — How its eruption backs biblical history".

Thursday, June 15, 2017

The Emotion in Your Eyes

People have a whole heap of ways to express emotions, what with tone of voice, facial expressions, gestures, and so on. It seems that our eyes can convey a great deal. Notice how many songs talk about the eyes, and we use expressions like, "I see it in your eyes"? Pictures can convey some of the emotions, but when we're with someone, we can discern an emotion. I was upset and hiding it by giving myself a stone face, but people still knew something was wrong. People who know me can tell when I'm up to something, also.

Credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures
We were created with many special muscles, more than apes have, to help us communicate in a way that is unique to humans. Darwin's disciples have invented a silly story that an ancient ancestor copied from an ape, but conveniently ignore several important details, including evidence and a model. Face it (heh!), we were designed to be different, old son.
Unlike animals, we communicate all kinds of information with our eyes. One subtle glance might express doubt and another joy, all without a word. How did we get this way?
Evolutionary psychologists take Charles Darwin’s answer seriously. Supposedly, artful eye expressions evolved from primates that had no eye expressions. When psychologists from Cornell and the University of Colorado in Boulder presented their research results about eye expressions, they dragged up some evolutionary baggage. The journal Psychological Science carried their 2017 report.
To read the rest, click on "Why Eyes Express Emotion", see?