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.

Monday, April 27, 2015

Kicking Dust on "Little Foot" Dating Methods

The australopithecene "Little Foot" was given an age based on index fossils related to the strata where it was found. Standard radiometric dating methods were "unreliable". Now the dates are being revised according to cosmogenic nuclide dating. However, this method has serious flaws.

Evolutionary paleontologists and anthropologists are rummaging around in their saddlebags in an attempt to validate an australopithecene as part of human ancestry. "Little Foot" was given an age based on index fossils related to the strata where they found it. Standard radiometric dating methods were "unreliable". Now the dates are being revised according to cosmogenic nuclide dating. However, this method has serious flaws, and the selection of eleven samples is suspect, especially only two were in close proximity to the fossils.

All of this galloping around, trying to change "facts", making assertions and whatnot will not make evolution true and negate the Creator's work.
Australopithecus prometheus (StW 573)—nicknamed “Little Foot”—began in 2014 to make a bid for the attention accorded to the more well-known australopithecine Lucy. Would Little Foot, from the evolutionary point of view, finally fill the shoes of its mythological promethean namesake by offering humanity an appropriately mythological gift, the gift of identifying our oldest hominid ancestor?

Little Foot’s age has been a matter of great debate since discovery of its nearly complete skeleton buried in a South African cave in the 1990s. Research we reported here one year ago aged Little Foot significantly by showing that the fossil was the same age as the breccia (a kind of conglomerate rock) in which it was buried and not the flowstone insinuated later amongst its pieces.
To finish reading, click on "The Latest on “Little Foot’s” Bid for Status as Humanity’s Most Ancient Ancestor". Also, you may want to check out a related (but shorter) article that focuses on cosmogenic nuclide dating, "Myths Dressed as Science".

Saturday, April 25, 2015

Creationist Scientists Dismantling Uniformitarian Paradigms

Generally speaking, particles-to-paleontologist evolution requires long ages. Secular geologists (and some compromising Christians) accept faulty justifications for claiming that the earth is very old. Part of this is uniformitarianism (the present is the key to the past, processes that we see now are constant). But geologic explanations based on uniformitarian assumptions seem to be mostly appropriate for telling shaggy dog stories around the campfire while riding the Owlhoot Trail. That is, they're interesting stories, but don't match up with observed evidence.

Evidence for old-earth geology and uniformitarianism is being chipped away by observed evidence. Creationist scientists are accelerating the process.

They tend to reject the Genesis Flood and explanations from creationist scientists who offer differing explanations of observed evidence regarding geologic history — no catastrophism allowed here, Hoss. (Despite their biases, some geologists do allow for some catastrophes in Earth history). The huge catastrophe of Genesis Flood actually fits observed data far better than the offerings of secular scientists.

Research by the Institute for Creation Research further undermine uniformitarian geology.
ICR’s ongoing Column Project (an analysis of over 500 drilling-core and outcrop samples from across North America) has revealed surprising results that smash entrenched uniformitarian thought. The rocks continue to support the biblical account of one worldwide Flood.

The main area of interest concerns the six megasequences that comprise most of the fossil-bearing strata on Earth. Megasequences are defined as packages of sedimentary rock bounded top and bottom by erosional surfaces, with coarse sandstone layers at the bottom (deposited first), followed by shales, and then limestone at the top (deposited last). The corresponding size of the sedimentary particles is also thought to decrease upward in each megasequence ... The megasequences are interpreted as representing the depth of the sea at the particular time each one was laid. The base sandstone layers of each megasequence are believed to represent the shallowest sea level, the shale a little deeper water environment, and the limestone the deepest water environment in each sequence. By tracking these changes in rock types, geologists are able to define each megasequence.
To drill down into this article, click on "Grappling with Megasequences". 

Friday, April 24, 2015

Scientific "Facts" Keep Getting Reversed

To many people, science is the ultimate source of truth. But scientific claims are constantly changing. The only real, ultimate truth comes from the written Word of the Creator.
What is the most ironclad kind of fact known to man? To many, it's a fact based on science. "I don't reckon you should dispute that, pilgrim, it's a scientific fact!" Of course, a claim, consensus, or theory is not the same as a fact, but people put a lot of stock in something when you preface it with, "Scientists say..." Then it's promoted to "fact" status in the eyes of a passel of people.

Many think that science is the ultimate source of truth, and they forget (or do not even know) that many indisputable science facts have been discarded over the years. Take a look at phlogiston, f'rinstance. For that matter, the "scientific method" itself (whichever "scientific method" you choose) evolves.

Pay attention to the news from creation science ministries, and even from the secular science press. You keep getting news about something that has changed that had previously been established. Evolutionary "science" is touted by some tinhorns as a fact, yet scientists are constantly being surprised by findings (especially in astronomy and cosmology, it seems), the alleged transitional form called "Lucy" is about to be shelved, and scientists decide to rewrite evolutionary history — so much for evolution having the predictability aspect of a real theory.

Recent news informs us about changing statuses of how salt affects our blood pressure, textbook theories of volcanoes, neuroscience, evolution of mammals, and more. To read about these, saddle up and ride over to "Scientific Claims Are Reversible". Scientific "truths" frequently change. Man-made science philosophies come and go. The only real, ultimate truth comes from the Creator in his written Word (Isaiah 40:8, Hebrews 13:8), and that is where we should be placing our highest trust.

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Stars, Creation Week, and Scriptural Gymnastics

Some Christians seem to get mighty frightened by the pronouncements of secular scientists, so they tamper with the Bible. Especially when it comes to Genesis. Christians began ceding science to secularists, and it accelerated when Darwin, Lyell, and their ilk were convincing people that their views of long ages and origins were right. Wouldn't want people to say mean things about us Bible believers, would we? No, we need to appear "enlightened", and do scriptural gymnastics so the Bible doesn't say what it means. Then you get odd views like the Framework Hypothesis, the Day-Age Theory, the Gap Theory, and so on.

Some Christians are intimidated by the pronoucements of secular science trends.Is it scripturally feasible to suppose that the stars were created before creation week? Not hardly!
Triangulum Galaxy image credit: NASA/Swift Science Team/Stefan Immler
Some people act like distant starlight is a smoking gun to discredit all of creation science, so they let the secularists lead their minds and spirits into the corral where they won't bother anyone. But scientists are not infallible, and some investigation shows that the dominant Big Bang theory has many major problems — including distant starlight and heat transfer.

Theologically, is it valid to reinterpret the Bible for the sake of current trends in science philosophies, saying that the stars were created long before the actual creation week? Not hardly!
Kenneth M. from New Zealand criticizes one of our classic articles, Morning has broken but when?, which refutes modified soft gap theories that make stars much older than the earth rather than Day 4 creations as God’s Word teaches. In particular, Mr M takes issue with the section, ‘Can stars be billions of light years away in a young universe?’ Dr Jonathan Sarfati responds.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Were stars created in creation week?

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

New Creature Discoveries Testify of Creation

New creatures are discovered each year. This is of interest to creationists as well as their secular counterparts.

Thousands of creatures are identified each year. Some of these are known species that have been reclassified, and the majority of new discoveries are insects, but there are also mammals being found. Some are actively sought, but many are discovered by accident by people who recognize that they're seeing something special. These findings show that the world is a big place, and there is a great deal yet to explore. But also, they reveal that God designed a great deal of diversity. This is of great interest to creationists.
High in the Andes, a furry member of the raccoon family has lived quietly for centuries without detection. It is the first carnivore discovered in the Americas in more than three decades. Will it be the last? Why do creationists care?

“They stopped me in my tracks,” recalls biologist Kristofer Helgen about his surprise when opening a drawer full of mysterious, reddish-brown furs. Though housed in the Field Museum for more than 50 years, this species had never before been described in the scientific literature. He then led a field trip to Ecuador and confirmed they still live—the first member of the order Carnivora discovered in the Americas in more than three decades.
To finish reading, click on "Olinguito—The Last Carnivore?

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Body Types and Paleoanthropology

Most people have probably seen the classic evolution on parade pictures in one form or another. It starts with a monkey, then something slightly larger that is less monkey and more human, repeated several times, until you have the modern human. It starts from evolutionary presuppositions that have things getting larger as they became more advanced, and your alleged ancestors grew a mite bigger and were classified into groups. Body size and structure had a lot to do with the classifications. Of course, evolutionists conveniently neglect to tell you that "archaic" people were sometimes quite a bit bigger and stronger than modern people. Those changes are environmental, not evolutionary.

People come in a variety of sizes, but we're all classified as fully human. Some paleoanthropologists may be catching on to a commonsense approach, people in the past had diversity as well.

Years ago, I noticed someone who looked like he belonged in a textbook on evolution. His facial structure and jaw looked "primitive". For that matter, I've seen, conversed with, gawked at, watched pictures, whatever, of people that have a wide range of sizes, but they're all fully human. We have diversity now, I reckon that common sense should tell us that people had a variety of sizes in the past, since we were created to have variety. Some paleonanthropologists may be catching on.
People don’t all look the same today; body types vary tremendously. Why should we assume differently about the past?

You give it a name, say, Homo erectus, and the mind pigeonholes it into a category. All H. erectus are supposed to fit. But then reality hits; the boundaries between the pigeonholes are fuzzy, and may overlap. It becomes harder to pigeonhole each new fossil. Are the boundaries real? Are we deceiving ourselves with our own classification scheme?

This report should reverberate like thunder to paleoanthropologists: “Earliest humans had diverse range of body types, just as we do today.” That’s a press release from the University of Cambridge talking. The increasing realization that ancient humans don’t look like clones of each other threatens to unravel many assumptions about human ancestry.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Body Diversity Threatens to Undermine Paleoanthropology".

Monday, April 20, 2015

Horizontal Gene Transfer and Creative Reality for Evolutionists

In a series of comments on a post in a group, remarks were made to the effect that proponents of molecules-to-mechanic evolution have creative reality, and do not want to be confused with facts. We can see the truth of that, especially when those facts interfere with their preconceptions. Some Darwinist owlhoots make strong pronouncements of scientific facts that are nothing but conjecture. Unfortunately, people do not examine the material carefully, and think that an aspect of evolution has been proved.

Evolutionists can get creative with their reality. Making things up about horizontal gene transfer does not affect the truth.

A recent study on horizontal gene transfer made such bold pronouncements, but hidden in the text is an admission that there is nothing there to hang your hat on. Further analysis shows that the research is fundamentally flawed. Y'all can't make assertions pretending that evolution is true and that the Creator isn't there, old son.
As the genomes of many new creatures rapidly fill the public DNA sequence databases, the problems for the grand evolutionary story are becoming overwhelming. One issue is the fact that different creatures have unique sets of genes specific to their kind with no apparent evolutionary history. To explain this glaring problem, evolutionists have resorted to the myth of pervasive horizontal gene transfer.

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is the process whereby genes are transferred from one type of creature to another without sexual reproduction. Earlier in my career, I participated in a study (published in the journal Science), in which we found that the pathogenic bacterium Wolbachia had transferred large portions of its DNA into the genomes of both worms and insects. The Wolbachia bacterium is able to do this extraordinary feat by targeting the cells of reproductive organs so that the transferred DNA is literally inherited in the host. However, we also observed that very few of these transferred genes were found to be expressed (turned on). They were clearly just genomic baggage. This is actually one of the few clearly documented cases of horizontal gene transfer showing that a specific type of parasite-host relationship is the mechanism for the foreign DNA importation to occur and be heritable.
To read more and discover the serious flaws in the study mentioned earlier, click on "Another Horizontal Gene Transfer Fairy Tale".