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.

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Plant Intranet is Tree-mendous!

Many years of study have been invested in the study of plant communication. Not only with each other, but within themselves. It's like having branch (heh!) offices that communicate on a molecular level. Supplies are low at the fort, so a message is sent to the commander to send more on the next stagecoach. Actually, it resembles a kind of intranet with e-mail (tree mail?), but without spam. 

Assembled from components at Clker.com
Scientists hacked in and blocked the communication, and found out that yes indeed, the communication is not just idle chatter. Although evolutionists give credit for evolution, that is a catch-all claim that cannot be supported, Instead, this shows the work of the Creator and his provision for even "simple" things like plants.
How do roots respond to what the top of the plant experiences? With an elaborate communication system resembling email.
The authors of a paper in Science Magazine don’t use the words email or intranet, but the signaling system they describe fits that description:
To read the rest of the article, get rooted at "Plant Intranet Seen in Action".

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Are Long Ages Essential in Mineral Exploration?

Some people insist that the geologic column and belief in "deep time" are essential for people in geology-related fields to do real science work. I reckon this to be a uniformitarian version of the evolution mantra, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". Not hardly. Neither assumption is true.

Yes, geologists use the geologic column, with its inaccurate assumptions of long ages, as a means of classification and reference. If they used the Great Flood of Genesis as a reference point, they would be more accurate in their work.
One of the most basic techniques is to observe the rocks in the field and plot the different kinds of rocks on a map. This would be the easiest, cheapest and most fundamental method of geological exploration. We also use magnetic methods, either on the ground or airborne. Other methods include aerial photography, seismic exploration, drill cores, gravity anomalies, and electrical methods. Plus we sample rocks from the surface and from drill cores to analyse their mineral content for resource potential. As you can see, all these techniques depend on making observations and measurements in the present and none of them gives any direct measurement of millions of years.
Read the rest of Tas Walker explanation in "Is the geologic column with its millions of years essential for mineral exploration?"

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

What's With All the Leafy Trees?

Evolutionary scientists are proposing an answer to why we see more trees with leaves than evergreens and so forth. It seems that examination of leaf fossils of the K-T boundary gave them the idea that a meteorite impact 65 or so million years ago was responsible. The resulting climate change caused the extinction of the dinosaurs and also gave the faster-growing seasonal plants an edge in the changing conditions over the slower-growing plants. Also, it was said that survival of the fittest does not apply, and some species had built-in properties that helped them survive. Wait, isn't that what creationists say about adaptation to change?

Found this big boy near my parking space.
The scientists established a series of conjectures about changes in trees that have me stumped. For one thing, catastrophic processes are invoked by the alleged changes of the meteorite impact, and this does not fit uniformitarianism. But then, some evolutionary geologists back off from their dogma and use catastrophe now and then when it's convenient. These scientists downplay some data in their report, and insist that their evolutionary interpretation is the only one, and adhere to their presuppositions. Fact is, their actual data fit biblical creation interpretations based on the Genesis Flood far better than the contrived "explanations" that were offered.
By turning the leaves of time at the K-T boundary, evolutionary scientists report they have found the reason fall is filled with leaves that change color. A University of Arizona team examined what they believe to be 2.2 million years’ worth of fossilized leaves from southern North Dakota’s Hell Creek Formation. “When you hold one of those leaves that is so exquisitely preserved in your hand knowing it's 66 million years old, it's a humbling feeling,” says the research team’s lead author Benjamin Blonder. Blonder and colleagues say their data correlates the evolutionary rise of deciduous trees with the famous meteorite that left the Chicxulub (pronounced cheek’-she-loob) crater near the Yucatan Peninsula.
Don't worry, I won't leaf you hanging. You can read the rest at "Timely Tale Tells Why Leaves Turn, Or Does It?"

Monday, October 27, 2014

DNA Redundancy — Not Really

Once again, we see several things happening at once. DNA is full of surprises, evidence shows the hand of the Creator's work, evolutionary scientists are surprised instead of seeing fulfilled predictions, and so on. As we keep saying, it's a great time to be a creationist, and I reckon it's only going to keep getting better.

DNA studies are showing codes within the code; what was considered a redundancy (maybe like a back-up plan) turns out to have even more function. Evolutionary scientists need a bit more caution and humility before declaring things "junk" or giving them some other write-off because they don't fit into their evolutionary presuppositions.
Discoveries of DNA sequence that contain different languages, each one with multiple purposes, are utterly defying evolutionary predictions. What was once hailed as redundant code is proving to be key in protein production.

Proteins are made of strings of amino acids encoded in the protein-coding regions of genes. A previous discovery demonstrated the same three-sequence series of letters in the DNA that code for an amino acid (called a codon), can also tell specialized proteins that turn on genes (called transcription factors) where to bind to the DNA in the genome. However, a new discovery is attributing even more function to the sequences of codons and overturning a widely held myth about the genome and how it functions.
To read the rest, click on "Dual-Gene Codes Defy Evolution...Again".

Saturday, October 25, 2014

That "Quote Mining" Monkey Business

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There was a time when people would cite something, give a reference, and that was that. If there was an inaccuracy, it would be calmly pointed out and corrected. Not so much on the Internet anymore.

Sometimes creationists produce quotes from evolutionists who admit doubts about their belief systems, their commitment to naturalism, flaws in their process and so on. We can almost guarantee that atheists and anti-creationists will cry, "Quote mining!" Naturally, they'll quote mine the Bible up one side and down the other, but never mind about that now. EDIT: From the "Wish I'd Said That Department", this just in:
When the quote is provided and the source is cited and the quote mine charge is given, is the burden of proof of the accuser to provide the full context AND demonstrate that it was taken out of context.

Quote mining is essentially finding a quote or phrase and lifting it out of context for misleading purposes. It is essentially making someone say something contrariwise to what he or she really meant, and twisting it for your own purposes. It's a form of selective citing, and all of this is related to the straw man fallacy. Most of the time when I've seen the accusation of quote mining, it is because someone doesn't like the straightforwardness of an evolutionist or atheist. On the other hand, I've seen lowlifes that take creationists out of context and misrepresent us by leaving out parts of conversations or putting words in our mouths. This was done to not only poison the well against the individuals (and creationists in general), but to lead into ad hominem attacks.

Do creationists do quote mining? Odds are that they have to some extent. More importantly, did they quote mine an evolutionist to make him look like he's becoming a creationist? I haven't seen that, and I've been above dirt for a few decades. What I've seen on both sides of the fence is when people will give an incorrect reference, use an inexact quote — or worse, just pass along information on the Web that they never checked out. Those are usually innocent mistakes, and occasional carelessness.

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”  George Wald

The above text graphic is a quote from George Wald. It is cited from an issue of Scientific American from 1957 (there are some variations on the issue number, month and year). It is widely circulated on the Web (see 1, 2, and this message to Bill Nye 3 for starters). Some atheopaths express their hatred and ignorance at the same time with profane retorts 4. The quote has also been used whole or in part in printed books (see 5, 6, 7, 8, for instance).

Back a spell, I wrote to a creation science ministry:
How do you deal with charges of "quote mining"? When we used an extensive quote from George Wald about how he chose to believe in spontaneous generation, even though it was scientifically impossible, we were accused of taking it out of context. Some even said it was fabricated, never said that in 1954's Scientific American. What do you do with such accusations?
To paraphrase their reply: There's nothing wrong with using quotes from evolutionists as long as we don't rip them from context. If we quote Stephen Jay Gould where he said there is no evidence of transitions in the fossil record, that's fine. But if we say that he's denying evolution, then we're in the wrong. When they claim we're quote mining, they need to back up their claims; after all, our society believes in "innocent until proven guilty".

Have I ever laid eyes on the original or a scan of that Wald quote? Nope. Is it a real quote, or something that has been made into a kind of legend that gets passed around? There are owlhoots that will flat-out accuse the quoter of lying, making up the quote or using fake material. But I have never seen someone produce a scan of the original. Frankly, when they say, "The real quote is...", it sounds like they are making stuff up themselves. They could be citing the wrong document (remember, there are different references given for the source) 9.

Is the quote real? By my way of reckoning, yes it is. I don't know if it would stand up in court, but I have a few reasons:
  • Scientific American, Harvard University (he was a professor there), his relatives and other people would probably have filed lawsuits
  • Christian authors are not "Liars for Jesus", despite the claims of riders on the Owlhoot Trail. Just use a bit of sensibility. They want you to consider evidence for the holy Creator God, who hates lying. Is he going to approve of dishonesty to trick you into getting your sins forgiven? Not hardly!
  • Accusations are not refutations, nor are contradictions. 
  • Since he lived until 1997 and the quote was around for several decades before his death, Wald probably had opportunities to refute alleged quote miners.
  • An author claims to have discussed this quote with George Wald, and there is no rebuttal 10, 11. Yes, I realize that this is verging on the argument from silence when I mention there's no rebuttal, but the fact that someone discusses correspondence with Wald adds to the overall weight of things to consider.
There is another reason that I think this quote may be real. In a way, it makes the earlier debate about quote mining pointless because many of the same principles are reaffirmed later! In the Scientific American book of articles called Molecules to Living Cells, 12 an article by Wald appears with a similar quote:
We tell this story [of how spontaneous generation has been disproved] to beginning students of biology as though it represents a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.

I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. What the controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the belief that living organisms arise spontaneously under present conditions. We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions in some former period, granted that they do so no longer.
He is appealing to his philosophical bias instead of logic, and has some flaws in there. Wald uses some loaded words by calling religion "mysticism" and calling materialism "reason", and implies the untrue but popular opinion that there is a war between "science" and "religion". He even plays a victim card when he laments that the "philosophical poverty of our time" is the rejection of spontaneous generation, even though it has been disproved, because he will not accept special creation. From there, he went to the completely unscientific assumption that unobserved and disproved spontaneous generation should not be rejected in favor of creation because it may have happened "under different conditions in some former period". This goes against the law of biogenesis 13.

So, I've tackled two items here. First, the accusations of quote mining are often a dodge from anti-creationists because they do not want to deal with the truth, and they do not substantiate their accusations. Second, the George Wald quote is probably real. Even if someone proves it to be inaccurate, the verifiable quote I have provided above shows his determination to believe something unscientific because he refuses to believe in Creation. Of course, I reckon he's a young earth creationist now, since he died in 1997 and had a face-to-face meeting with his Creator.

Do we quote evolutionists? Sure, nothing wrong with that. Will proponents of evolution object? Be sure they will. But contradiction and denial are not refutations. Calling us liars without evidence makes them into liars. Have them back up their claims.

Friday, October 24, 2014

Evolution's Lack of Prediction Ability and Benefits

Evolutionists insist on interpreting observations through their Darwin spectacles and forcing facts into their paradigms. "Nothing in biology makes sense without the guiding light of evolution", that kind of thing. That saddle's on the wrong horse, Hoss.

We're told that Darwinian evolutionary theory is useful in making predictions. Is it? In some ways it's true, because there are so many things pretending to be predictions, sometimes they get a vague "prediction" right and then shout it from the rooftops. The reality of the situation is far different. Over and over, we keep hearing about how something is discovered that is not predicted by evolutionary ideas, and even where discoveries cause evolutionists to "rethink". The scientific method according to evolutionists is quite biased and unscientific. For more about this, I suggest you click on "How Explanatory Is Evolutionary Theory?"

Darwinoids will also insist on using "evolutionary thinking" (those Darwin spectacles I mentioned), saying that evolution is useful and even necessary, and give credit to evolution — but evolution had nothing to do with it. Worse for them, what they are calling "evolution" in their thinking is actually based on engineering and strategy. The reality is that evolutionary thinking should be reigned in; it is not involved in real science. You can read about that by clicking on "How Useful is Evolutionary Thinking?"

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Gilgamesh, Genesis and Myths

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

People who want to detract from the Bible's historical and divine nature have tried to wave it off as just myth. Worse, they ignore a lot of reality by saying that the Hebrews copied from the myths of other people, touched them up and then declared them to be holy writ. I read the Epic of Gilgamesh and studied on it for a spell. (I thought "epic" meant "very long", but not necessarily; it could mean epic "style". The Gilgamesh epic poem is not all that long, especially since a lot of it is missing.) The part of this that is of interest to biblical creationists is the story of the global Flood in the 11th tablet.

Some things about the Epic of Gilgamesh just reared up as obviously mythology, what with gods and goddesses getting angry and fighting each other, Ishtar having snits because Gilgamesh won't giver her a tumble, references to the Anunnaki (pick your story about who they were, some people believe that the Anunnaki are our reptilian overlords from the planet Nibiru, and other variations), simple paganism and so on. Quite a bit of obvious fantasy there.

So it seems to me that the line of thinking would be that the Hebrews weren't clever enough to come up with their own stories. So, they got the Sumerian tablets of stone. Or did they get the later ones from their long-time enemies the Assyrians? Or maybe the Babylonians?

"Surely you can't mean Assyrians!"

I do mean Assyrians. And don't call me Shirley.

Anyway, in this way of cogitating, the copied Flood account tablet was supposedly modified and tweaked for the Israelite culture, and the rest of the poem was discarded.

Library of Ashurbanipal / The Flood Tablet / The Gilgamesh Tablet / Wikimedia Commons /Fæ
Just from my own reading, such "they copied the myth" ideas are ridiculous because of the vast differences. I'll refer you now to chapter seven of Nozomi Osanai's thesis, entitled “A comparative study of the flood accounts in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis” for some interesting analysis.

To ride further on this trail, there is a great deal of confusion today about the meaning of the word "myth". Some things are called myths that have a basis in history, and the Bible (especially Genesis) is called a myth by people who haven't really studied on it. For more information on the differences between the Bible as history and ancient myths, I refer you to "The Myth About Myths in Early Genesis". Yes, the Bible has miracles. But even those read quite a bit differently than the ancient pagan material.

Even a cursory reading of the ancient mythologies shows a huge difference between them and the historical narratives of the Bible. You don't have to be a scholar to see them, you don't need to have disbelieving scholars and scientists add their own ideas of what it means and explain it to you. True scholarship shows that Genesis is not mythology. The Bible is for everyone, not just people with advanced degrees.