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 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'".
   

Saturday, May 20, 2017

Faith in Science of the Gaps


Atheists will tell you that they have no need for religion because they believe in reason and science. If you point out that atheism is a religion, they tend to get on the prod, which shows their ignorance of religion and philosophy. Further, secularists have hijacked science from its biblical basis, and argue from their a priori presuppositions, one of which is the arbitrary assertion that science must be based upon atheistic methodological and philosophical naturalism only. Such assertions are irrational and lead to faulty conclusions.


Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes.
Also, note the question-begging straw man in the assertion.
Secularists frequently generalize about creationists, claiming that our explanation is "GodDidIt", so there is no need for scientific investigation. This is a lie. There are many creationary scientists who want to learn what makes things work, even how God did something. They take this straw man argument further and say that we use "God of the Gaps" (that is, gaps in our knowledge). Listen up, Pilgrim: everyone has gaps in their knowledge except our Creator, and misrepresenting how we seek to fill those gaps is counterproductive and even bigoted. In fact, they use "Evolution of the Gaps", being certain of evolution and having blind faith in it even though the evidence is lacking or even contrary to what is being discussed.

Science does not work under an atheistic worldview, which is irrational and incoherent. It can only exist in a biblical worldview, where laws of logic and the constancy of nature make sense. Atheists have some serious problems with their faith-based "Science of the Gaps" approach, especially when it comes to the first cause. If you study on it, you'll see that science does not support atheism.
Atheists often use science to argue that God does not exist because He is no longer required. God was a convenient idea that answered any problem and could never be disproven. In times past, God was needed for the things we couldn’t explain—He was God of the gaps in our knowledge. Now science is closing gaps in our knowledge, and as those gaps disappear, so does God.

Proponents of this argument complain that ‘God did it’ is an unscientific and unreasonable explanation for observations that we make. Theirs is a strong argument against superstitious beliefs in God—i.e. using the supernatural to explain the unknown. When the supernatural is used merely to plug gaps, it will of course disappear when the gaps disappear. We no longer need Thor to explain thunder and lightning, because discovering electricity provided a natural explanation. We don’t need Poseidon either, because we now know the wind and moon cause waves and tides.
I hope you will read the rest of this extremely interesting and enlightening article. To do so, just click on "Science of the gaps".
 

Friday, May 19, 2017

Mimicking the Amazing Bat

Some of y'all have been watching too many movies. I hope you put what I call "the eww factor" on hold so you can appreciate the amazing design of a critter that some folks love to hate: the bat. You may want to read this article on bat myths and facts. I find bats fascinating, and could make this post unnecessarily long with remarks about how beneficial they are, that some people set out bat houses, and so on.

Credit: Department of the Interior/USGS
(Usage does not imply endorsement)
Stories on the evolution of bats strike out. The bat is recalcitrant when it comes to secularists' guesses about its origin. Instead, it is a testimony of creation and intricate design. It's not a mouse with wings, and not a rodent at all. Those wings are very intricately designed, as is the flight system itself.

Scientists are studying the vampire bat's saliva, draculin (great word, some scientists show humor) in hopes of helping stroke victims. There is also work being done to make robot bats! This is extremely challenging, since the bat flight system is loaded with specified complexity endowed by the Creator.
Researchers have been working on Bat Bot (or B2), a robotic lightweight flier designed to mimic the incredible aerial ability of a bat. Thin silicone wings are stretched over a carbon fiber frame, and a tiny onboard computer, five motors, and sensors allow the robot to fly autonomously. This unique design, copied from God’s creation, allows the Bat Bot to twist, cruise, dive, and maneuver in ways similar to a bat.

Bat Bot clocks in at just 3.3 ounces with an 18.5-inch wingspan. It can flap its membranous wings in sync as well as fold each wing and move each leg independently. Eventually researchers hope B2 will be able to hang upside down and perch right side up, just like its live counterpart. It can currently fly a distance of less than 100 feet. However, unlike the real thing, B2 can’t land on its own yet. It still lands on a net to protect its sensitive electronics.
Fascinating stuff. You can read the rest and see a short video by clicking on "Bats Inspire High-Tech New Flying Robots".

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Making Life in a Lab

Many devotees of molecules-to-miscreant evolution have realized that abiogenesis happening on this world is impossible, and some will distance themselves from the problem with the falsehood that "abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution". Others cling the the failed Miller-Urey experiment, and come up with other incoherent origin of life experiments. Some even invoke a kind of animism.


Miller-Urey experiment abiogenesis fail
Image modified from Yassine Mrabet  /Wikimedia Commons
The Miller-Urey experiment was saddled up and ridden hard as "proof" that life could have happened by chance, but it proved next to nothing. Using intelligently-designed equipment in a controlled environment based on the now-abandoned "reducing atmosphere" concept, the researchers obtained some amino acids. These building blocks of life were caught in a trap and removed from the toxic environment, which invalidates the experiment. (Many images on the web conveniently leave out the trap part, or neglect to label it.) Some owlhoots make excuses that maybe perhaps somehow there were natural traps on Earth, but they do not provide evidence for such speculations.

Let's step back a mite. Suppose the experiments were legitimate, and the amino acids could be produced in this imaginary atmosphere. What then? They had a long way to go, and there are many other factors to consider. No, the logical conclusion is that life originated with God, just like he said in his written Word.
In 1953, the same year that DNA’s double helix structure was discovered, a young graduate student named Stanley Miller sparked some gases and formed amino acids. These are the building blocks of proteins, a major component of living cells. So thousands of newspapers worldwide erroneously reported that he had, in essence, created life in a test-tube. This experiment became textbook orthodoxy.

However, textbooks tend to present alleged ‘proofs’ of evolution without critical discussion. Unless students consult outside sources, they often over-value the connection between organic molecules and life. Bold claims such as ‘organic molecules could have arisen on a lifeless Earth’ tend to mislead students into believing that organic molecules are life. However, ‘organic’ does not mean the molecules are alive, but simply refers to any molecule that contains the element carbon.
To read the article in its entirety, click on "Life in a test-tube".

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Bears, Hybrids, and Evolution

When scientists commence to assigning species classifications, the dividing lines get a mite blurry. Scientists occasionally have difficulty if a critter belongs to a separate species. One of they key points is if an organism can reproduce sexually. So, why are some things classified as different species if they can interbreed?


Brown bear DNA genome creation science
Alaskan brown bear credit: US Department of Transportation
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Creationists refer to the biblical phrase created kind, which is similar to the family classification. All of the varieties of dog, such as the little yap dog, police dog, dingo, wolf — all are descended from a single dog kind, probably a wolf. The quest for nonexistent evolutionary history of bears was the impetus for sequencing the genomes of four bear species. Instead of supporting evolutionism, the results are more in keeping with creationary models. After all, the bears can hybridize, so even Darwinists are wondering if they're fouling up with their classifications.
The world-wide variations on bears could have come from one original type.

It has been known that Alaskan brown bears can hybridize with polar bears. The resulting mixed breeds, sometimes called ‘pizzlies’ or ‘cappucino bears’, were thought to be rare. Now, in a surprising study from Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum, scientists have found that mixed breeds of bears are not as rare as they had assumed:
To read the rest, click on "All Bears Are Brethren". 
  

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Extra-Solar Planets and Creationists' Expectations

Exoplanets (extra-solar planets) are simply planets outside our own solar system. The first confirmed exoplanets were discovered around a pulsar in 1992 by radio astronomers, but we don't know a great deal about them. In 1995, the first exoplanet around a star similar to the sun, 51 Pegasi b, was discovered. It's a big one, half the size of Jupiter, which is the largest planet in our own neck of the woods, so to speak. Getting any indication of their existence is difficult, and any pictures are the result of imagination, not observation. Still, astronomers have put notches on their collective belts for over 3,000 of the things. Probably quite a few more out there.


Creationists can expect evidence from exoplanets of young universe.
51 Pegasi b credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
(Usage does not imply endorsement)
Why all the hubbub? Since it is impossible for life to form on Earth, use your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring© and discover that life must have evolved out yonder and come here one way or another. That just pawns off the problem and gets into the problem of infinite regression, but let's set that aside for now.

It's reasonable to expect that, if we get good views of exoplanets and their stars, they will have some of the quirks we see around us. After all, secular theories of solar system formation do not hold together, as evidenced by youthful action of various objects, the retrograde rotation of Uranus and Venus (those mavericks go opposite everyone else), magnetic fields such as creationist Dr. Russell Humphreys predicted in our own solar system, and more observations that startle devotees of evolutionary cosmology. (Know why your predictions don't work, gang? You have the wrong starting point. The universe was created, and created recently.) We can expect to see evidence of recent creation in exoplanets. The article linked below tells us some of the ways that exoplanets are detected, as well as more details on what creationists can expect.
In the last two decades, astronomers have discovered over 3,000 planets orbiting other stars. These are called extra-solar planets, or exo-planets, and they’ve caused a lot of excitement and speculation. What do we really know about these distant planets, and what is their significance for biblical creation?

Astronomers long suspected that stars might have orbiting planets just as the sun does. However, it’s nearly impossible to observe something as small and faint as an exo-planet next to the bright glare of its host star. So, astronomers have relied primarily on indirect methods of discovery.
You can read the rest of this article by clicking on "Exploring Exo-planets".
 

Monday, May 15, 2017

The God of Evolution and the Horsefly

Time for another creature that most of us detest, but has some interesting information when it comes to creation and evolution: horseflies (or horse-flies).

"Why do they call them horseflies, Cowboy Bob? They're nowhere near as big as a horse."

That's because they're big Chicago Cubs fans, and do a great deal of shouting at the games, so their voices —

"Fallacy of ambiguity on the words horse and hoarse."

Good call, you're learning. Horseflies got their name because they bother horses. And livestock. And humans. Like mosquitoes, the female horsefly bites to get blood. Since this nasty thing is indiscriminate and persistent in its painful biting, it also can spread disease, so you should treat the bites. (They're sometimes called gadflies because of their annoyance, much like some anti-creationists I could name.) Don't be expecting to pull up stakes to escape them, since they're on most of the planet.


Horsefly survival defies evolution
Credit: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Over yonder in southeast Africa, the larvae burrow into the mud. But mud dries, so how can the unpleasant thing survive? By making a chamber around itself. Apparently, this behavior is unique. While creationists say that the Designer equipped them with this ability, evolutionist nature worshipers are giving credit to their god of evolution, which has apparently chosen to bestow this method of survival upon the horsefly. Hail Darwin, blessed be!
AUGUST, 1929: in the sun-baked southeast African territory of Nyasaland (now called Malawi) medical entomologist (insect specialist) W.A. Lamborn discovered an extraordinary behaviour of the larva of the horsefly, genus Tabanus.  
Remarkable and novel
He wrote a detailed description, and sent specimens, to his long-time friend E.B. Poulton, an Oxford University professor and fellow of the British Royal Society. Poulton judged ‘this elaborate adaptation’ in the larva of a fly to be ‘so remarkable and novel’ as to warrant immediate communication to the Royal Society, which published Lamborn’s findings in one of its scientific journals in early 1930.
Years later, George McGavin, a well-known Oxford entomology professor, came across the story. He described the unusual behaviour of Tabanus as an ‘ingenious trick’ which, he said, ‘is literally unique to this one genus of horsefly’.
To read the rest, buzz on over to "Bypassing the cracks — An amazing evolution-defying design in a tiny insect". 
 

Labels