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, August 21, 2017

Fast Fossilization Defies Deep Time

The standard deep time story about fossilization includes elements of something dying, sinking, getting covered, and then over millions of magical Darwin years later, it became permineralized (minerals seep in and make a cast of the organism), and then someone finds it. Sounds nice, but if you have your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring© handy, you'll learn that the story above is just that — a story. It doesn't work that way in real life. Especially when paleontologists are finding an increasing number of well-preserved specimens that include delicate parts.

The other morning, I noticed a clump of mushrooms had sprung up in some wood chips in the yard, but not as impressive as those pictured below. (I ain't eating them without a mycologist giving me the go ahead, though.) Went back a couple of days later, and they were scattered. People kicked at them, animals frolicked, whatever. They're delicate. If you pay attention, you'll suddenly notice wild fungi popping up, then fading away in a short time, even if they're left alone.

Mushrooms are delicate, so having one well-preserved as a fossil is amazing
Credit: Freeimages / Alan Belmer
I had a joke about mushrooms, but it y'all might find it to be in spore taste —

"Stop that, Cowboy Bob!"

Here is an article about three delicate, well-preserved items in fossils that fly in the face of standard secular mythologies, instead supporting rapid burial, which is necessary for fossilization. Then they stayed put for all those Darwin years while massive geological changes happened around then? Not hardly! 

We have billions of fossils all over the world. Secularists have implausible stories, but the logical explanation of such fossilization is the global Genesis Flood — which means fossils did not take millions or billions of years to form, so the earth is not billions of years old. To read about these three quick but lasting impressions, click on "A Bird, a Mushroom, and a Fly Fossilized Fast".

Saturday, August 19, 2017

Noah: Man of Destiny — Book Review

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

After all the reading and MP3 listening that I do, it was nice to read a work of fiction for a change. Noah: Man of Destiny by Tim Chaffey and K. Marie Adams is the first book of The Remnant Trilogy. Seems like whenever you get the first book of a series, it is not self-contained and you want to continue — if it's good. This child liked the book and wants to keep going.

Disclaimer: none. I bought this book all by my lonesome. Nobody gave me a promotional copy or anything like that. I guess some legal-type people want to know about such things. I'd be open to receiving promotional copies of the next two books, unsubtle hint, wink wink nudge nudge.

I did not review this on Amazon where I purchased the ebook because they allow trolls to run free and attack other reviewers. Especially creationists. Also, Christian and creationist material on there is frequently attacked by people who cannot even be bothered to read it. This happens frequently, so I'm content to use this here medium. Hope I use the medium well.

So, let's saddle up and ride.

Tim Chaffey is affiliated with Answers in Genesis, and very involved with the Ark Encounter (the life-sized model of Noah's Ark). His work with AiG and AE helped give him some insights as well as ideas that were used in this book. K. Marie Adams works in the AiG graphics department, and has other pertinent training, interests, and experience. Like any historical fiction, there has to be some artistic license. Chaffey and Adams used speculation about conditions of Earth way back yonder, but stayed true to the clear narrative in Genesis in their efforts to communicate the truth. (This is in stark contrast to The Shack, a work of fiction that taught blatant heresies.) Some reasonable possibilities were used, such as references to the land of Nod, and real people from Genesis were included.

Noah: Man of Destiny is very readable and fast-paced, and doesn't get bogged down in lengthy descriptions of unnecessary details. For example, there were instances of long trips on the river which could have made the book a great deal longer but may have proved dull for many readers. I saw a review on Amazon complaining that this was a romance novel. Yes, he meets Emzara who becomes Mrs. Noah (the name was taken from legends, as the Bible is silent on her name, so artistic license was used). But this bit of romance did not take up nearly as much space as the critic implied, and is not "graphic"; the book is accurately described as family friendly.

Something else that I appreciated was being unable to predict situations. It's something that gets boring or annoying for me. When I thought, "Okay, here's the bad thing that's going to happen", I was pleased to be wrong. 

There were several things I wanted to point out, but there's no need for spoilers. After the story abruptly ends (it's the first of a trilogy, remember), the last part of the book has some things that I consider "behind the scenes". It addresses some questions and concerns about why the authors chose to include some details and leave others out, such as Noah's ignorance about certain things, including deep theology. Don't forget, we have the advantage of the Bible to guide us, and the story is about a young man living a few hundred years before God called him to build the Ark. Other details were "borrowed from the Bible", discussed in a section of the same name.

There were one or two complaints I have, and they're minor. They involve editing, and only happened about three times early in the book. Someone seemed to have a bit of trouble with interrupted sentences or sentences that trailed off. The other complaint was that the ending was too abrupt.

Overall, I was pleased with the Noah: Man of Destiny and recommend it. I give it four out of five stars.

Friday, August 18, 2017

Orchid Pollination — Design, Not Evolution

We have had some heavy-duty material here lately, this piece of light reading may be a nice change of pace.

Aside from hybridization and other forms of artificial selection, thousands of orchid species exist in nature. I'll allow that I'm tempted to assign human characteristics to some of them, such as conniving, deceptive, ingenious, and others because of their amazing abilities to get themselves pollinated. They look nice, too.

Credit: Morguefile / Moonlightway
Most of us know that one of the most important ways for flowers to get pollinated is to let insects — especially bees — do the job. Some orchids mimic insects to attract them, as well as giving a fragrance that appeals to them. There are even a few varieties that have a kind of "catch and release" program for bees — the Bucket Orchid even produces a liquid that makes the male bee attractive to female bees! Other orchids mimic insects to get the attention of other insects.

Darwin's disciples cannot explain the mimicry and symbiosis involved, so they appeal to the secular miracle of "convergent evolution", which is a non-explanation. So many things must be in place from the beginning or the pollination process is ineffective. The logical conclusion is that the Creator is demonstrating his abilities to use specified complexity yet again.
There is no evidence whatsoever that flowering plants evolved. Charles Darwin himself once commented: ‘Nothing is more extraordinary in the history of the vegetable kingdom, as it seems to me, than the apparently very sudden and abrupt development of the higher plants.’ The orchid family is one of the largest plant families, with about 30,000 species. Orchids come in many shapes and sizes, the best known probably being the insect–mimicking species. Many of these mimics have very ingenious ways of attracting pollinating insects, appealing to the senses of both sight and smell. Can evolution explain the origin of these mechanisms?
For the rest of this short article, click on "Orchids … a witness to the Creator". You may also like a related article about the Greenhood Orchid makes an insect think romance is in the air, "The Love Trap". 

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Developing Engineered Adaptability

Organisms adapt to changing conditions, which is something on which both creationists and Darwinists agree. How they adapt is where the controversy lies. Evolutionists rely on naturalistic explanations while biblical creationists maintain that evolutionary speculations and storytelling are inadequate, but engineering principles of creation are the best approach.

Mapping out Engineered Adaptability in refuting evolution and affirming design in creation
Credit: Pixabay / StockSnap
Creationists have long promoted the Creator's design, pointing out the failures of evolutionary explanations for what is observed, emphasizing how creation is the only logical explanation for adaptation, and so on. Some creationists are pursuing Engineered Adaptability, developing a framework for a design-based theory that uses enginering causation and principles. A "map" of sorts for a series on Engineered Adaptability that is more focused has been proposed.
A map is crucial for all travelers, from fun-seeking vacationers to serious scientific researchers. This month’s article is a map of the Engineered Adaptability series and highlights the places future articles will stop en route to its destination—a design-based framework that explains adaptability. To keep everyone traveling together, the articles will decipher information from peer-reviewed forums and supply an orientation so readers know where they’re headed.
To read the rest, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Arriving at a Design-Based Framework for Adaptability".

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Secular Cosmologists Increasingly Desperate

Rational people think that if a hypothesis or theory is not supported by evidence, it is discarded and everyone moves on to something better. Unfortunately for science and reason, the Big Bang has been tweaked, adjusted, had the top sawed off and stapled on the bottom, sprayed with patchouli essential oil, run over with a steam roller — okay, I'm exaggerating just a bit. The fact remains that the Big Bang has failed, but instead of being discarded, it is modified for further failures. Then modified again, repeat as needed and call it science.

Big Bang continues to fail, secular cosmologists increasingly desperate
Credit: NASA/GSFC (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The current patch involves dark matter, dark energy, and other things involving "dark". There is no evidence that these things exist, but cosmic evolutionists cling to these things anyway. It should be obvious why: they despise the rational alternative, that God created the universe, and much more recently than fourteen billion years or so ago. Lack of science is causing scientists to say things that could be attributed to chawing down on peyote buttons.

Here is an article with several startling examples of nonsense that is worthy of Hugh Ross, just click on "Cosmology Still in the Dark". Also, you may like an article about unwarranted excitement over lifeless, smelly, dangerous molecules in space. For that, navigate to "Dead Molecules Found Around Star!"

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Evolution and the Human Sense of Smell

We hear about how impressive the sense of smell is in animals, especially dogs. According to Darwinian mythology, humans do not have an acute sense of smell. People have believed that idea for a long time, but it's based on assumptions and conjecture, not actual science.

Human sense of smell far more acute than evolutionists led us to believe
Credit: Pixabay / shixugang
But just study on it for a spell. Ever wake up in the morning because you smelled coffee brewing? Or bacon frying? Maybe you were awakened by the smell of smoke and wanted to make sure your place wasn't on fire. Personal fragrances are sold at exorbitant prices. Know why? Because people can smell them. (Some are marketed to men with the idea that if women get a whiff of this particular fragrance on you, they'll — oh, you know.) Show of hands: how many people like the smell of cut grass? Various scents stir our memories and emotions. Interesting that we can save and reproduce sounds and visuals, and to some extent what we physically feel, but there are no recorders for smell and taste, but I digress.

Evolutionists essentially believe that we evolved our way out of our sense of smell to make room in our brains for language capacity. Since we're so highly evolved, our sense of smell became mostly vestigial — useless junk. No, we were created, and we have our parts for specific reasons. Those unscientific, unfounded evolutionary conjectures interfered with scientific research in this area for a mighty long time. That's changed.
We’ve all heard that, compared to mammalian animals like dogs, humans have a poor sense of smell. Did you know that this notion is a 19th century myth? And that this commonly accepted myth is based on an evolutionary idea rather than scientific evidence?

“Poor Human Olfaction Is a 19th Century Myth” — Rutgers University neuroscientist John McGann’s review published in Science — traces the origin and consequences of this belief and reviews evidence to the contrary. How good a sniffer you are, it turns out, depends on what you’re trying to sniff out and how you measure olfactory quality and ability.
To finish reading, nose on over to "Humans’ Poor Sense of Smell Is an Evolutionary Myth".

Monday, August 14, 2017

Assumptions on Understanding Data

It is not a matter of our facts and their facts because scientific evidence is interpreted according to assumptions. Someone may say, "That fossil on my mantlepiece shows that the world is billions of years old", while someone else can look at the same rock and say, "That rock is evidence for the Genesis Flood". Everyone has the same data to work with, and we all start with our own beliefs.

More to Do credit: Freeimages / David Stern
Many times, atheists will claim that science is atheistic by nature, but that is one of the unsustainable presuppositions they hang on scientific methods. For that matter, I've seen the demand, "Prove scientifically that God exists". This shows a lack of logical thinking as well as a misunderstanding of both the capabilities and limitations of science; it cannot prove anything (let alone the existence of God via the category error), but science can show if a hypothesis or theory does not work.

The kind of science that we can see, repeat, test, and so on is operational or experimental science. My example at the top about the rock on the mantlepiece is an example of historical or forensic science, where scientific methods are used in efforts to reconstruct the past. Strictly speaking, things like cosmology and evolution are not science; no human saw the origin of the universe and certainly cannot repeat it. 

By the way, some tinhorns object to the term historical science, and especially the obvious distinction between historical and operational sciences. You'll see it referred to as if it was specific to Ken Ham (just like Bill Nye the Leftist Guy referred to "Ken Ham's" creation science, as if he was the only one who believed it). Creationists are not the only ones to make the distinction. It was interesting to see that the term historical science was used since 1900 by the International Congress of Historical Sciences, and was used in The Philosophy of History by Friedrich von Schlegel in 1935. Here is one of several examples I found of a secular scientist making the distinction in a paper.

Somehow, particles-to-pugilist evolutionists (the internet keyboard warrior sidewinders) play some equivocation games by equating science with evolution, then calling creationists "science deniers" which is a blatant lie. The claim is based on their presuppositions for interpreting evidence as well as failing to understand science itself. Science is a methodology, old son.

A more direct example of faulty assumptions is the claim that the giant panda's "thumb" is evidence against the Creator and for mindless evolution. That fails in the light of reason, because anti-creationists are assuming that the appendage is a failed thumb, but it actually works quite well for the panda's purposes. Their interpretations of what is observed in the panda led to wrong evolutionary and anti-theistic assumptions.

Because of anti-creationist propaganda, it may bring a prairie schooner full of startlement to tell y'all that creationists do not reject observed data, and no scientific fact controverts the Bible. We reject storytelling based on evolutionary assumptions masquerading as science, and we present creationary interpretations of evidence. In fact, observed data are better handled through biblical creation explanations and models; the same data are harmful to evolutionary views.
The whole point of science is that anyone doing the same experiment under the same conditions should get the same result. (The pioneers of modern science believed this because they believed in a divine Lawmaker who upheld His creation in an orderly way.) So, if you can’t do repeatable experiments, it’s not science. This includes many ideas of origins. One example is cosmogony (‘birth of the universe’), quoting a co-founder of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey:
“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science,” says James Gunn of Princeton University, co-founder of the Sloan survey. “A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.”
Dr Michael Turner, a theoretical cosmologist at the University of Chicago and the person who coined the term Dark Energy, tried to salvage cosmology by conceding that it’s different from experimental science and is instead historical science.
To read the rest, click on "'This changes everything!' — The right perspective makes a big difference".