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

Saturday, February 25, 2017

Going Daffy Over NASA's Seven Newest Planets

A reader of The Question Evolution Project contacted me about the "big news" that NASA discovered seven new planets that are in what is called the habitable zone. I had not investigated the story very much since these stories tend to be ridiculous: "It's Earth's twin, except it would be like living in lava". I chose to wait for a response from a creationist organization so I didn't have to step in piles of evolutionary dogma and hysteria, and the wait paid off, as you'll see below.

NASA 7 newest planets
Possible surface of TRAPPIST-1f, credits: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Secularists go daffy over news of possible planets in the habitable zone, and their lapdog press joins in the fun by spreading exciting but actually very fake news. Many speculations, but only a thimbleful of actual science.

Why the excitement? So secularists can deny that Earth is a special place that was uniquely created for us. Since abiogenesis (chemical evolution) is impossible, some evolutionists push the problem out into space in hopes that life evolved out there somewhere, and found its way here.
If a planet is in the habitable zone, it means that it's not too hot, not too cold, just right for maybe perhaps could be water on it. And according to the fake news, if there's water, then life could evolve there, God the Creator need not apply. This child knows that there's a passel of information that needs to be examined before going into woohoo conjecture land.
Secular scientists are excited about the recent detection of seven Earth-size planets in the constellation Aquarius, a nearby solar system. According to the report, three of the planets orbit a parent star, called TRAPPIST-1, at a distance that would allow water to exist on their surface.

Many evolutionists are giddy with the suggestion that life on one or more of these planets is just around the corner. But this wholly unwarranted extrapolation lies far beyond the known facts. Just because a planet may be positioned for surface water to exist doesn't mean water is there. Even if liquid water is present does not mean complex organic life is even remotely possible.
To read the rest, click on "Seven Earth-size Planets Discovered". EDIT: For another article on this subject, see "Discovery of 7 Earth-Sized Planets Orbiting Star TRAPPIST-1".

Friday, February 24, 2017

Evolutionary Psychology is Quackery

Although some owlhoots try to say that evolution is only about biology, we know that they're being disingenuous. Darwin's fake science concepts have been used to "scientifically" justify immoral behavior, and are at the root of other evils in Western society. While the field of psychology is evolutionary and God-denying in nature, evolutionary psychology is incoherent at best, and controversial even among evolutionists. It's quackery.

Evolutionary biology is harmful
Made at Image Chef
In this pseudoscience (along with evolutionary thinking in general), there is nothing special about humans except that we're more highly evolved than other animals. We are reduced to responding to stimuli, and our behavior is strictly functional, without God and biblical morality. Our behavior is "explained" in speculative evolutionary terms, many of which are contradictory and worthy of the tabloid press. The Christian worldview, beginning at creation, is the only way to make sense of the human condition, and has the necessary preconditions of intelligibility. God's written Word is the place to start.
Tabloid journalism isn’t alone in supplying dubious or salacious stories. Consider headlines based on evolutionary psychology regarding why certain behaviors happen: “It’s evolution: Nature of prejudice, aggression different for men and women”; “Some STIs Are Beneficial, and May Have Boosted Evolutionary Promiscuity”; “There’s an Evolutionary Reason Guys Like Curves”; “Female animals look drab to avoid sexual harassment, study shows”; “How make-up makes men admire but other women jealous”; “Does Postpartum Depression Serve an Evolutionary Purpose?”; “Whether It’s a Peacock Or a Porsche, Men Like to Show Off, Study Finds”; “Lady Liaisons: Does Cheating Give Females an Evolutionary Advantage? A 17-year-long study upends the most common evolutionary explanation of female infidelity.”

Can these stories be taken seriously? Or are they another major evolutionary blunder that, in this case, should be laughed off just like tabloid-style headlines? Evolutionary psychology explains human behavior as a legacy of preprogrammed adaptive actions that emerged from our alleged evolutionary struggle to survive. It applies evolutionary biology to daily living. However, does either field have scientific merit? The opinion amongst evolutionists is split. One study advocating for indoctrinating medical students with evolution claims that “evolutionary biology is a unifying principle that provides a framework for organizing medical knowledge from other basic sciences.”
I hope you have a mind to read the entire article. To do so, click on "Major Evolutionary Blunders: Evolutionary Psychology for Serious Tabloid Readers". 

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Channel Island Mammoth Puzzles Paleontologists

An article in The Washington Post discussed an excellent mammoth skull has been discovered on Santa Rosa of the Channel Islands, which doesn't fit. It's not a pygmy mammoth, which were native to the area, and it's not a Columbian. Is it a variation of the dozen or so currently known mammoth species, or something entirely new? And — how did it get there, anyway?

A newly discovered mammoth skull is playing mind games with evolutionists, and a newspaper enthusiastically spread inaccurate information.
Mammoth sculpture image cropped from Pixabay / hansbenn
The Post had some misstatements of facts, and included some obfuscation on the word evolution, using evidence and conclusions that biblical creationists agree with Darwinists about, but imply that molecules-to-mammoth is responsible. They also had some problems with the dating claims, and a few other alternative "facts". The time frame and the location of the beastie can be explained with the creation science model of the Genesis Flood and subsequent Ice Age.
According to a report recently published in The Washington Post, researchers have uncovered the cranial remains of an enigmatic mammoth. “I have seen a lot of mammoth skulls and this is one of the best preserved I have ever seen,” declared Don Morris, a retired archaeologist associated with the find. Discovered on Santa Rosa Island (one of the Channel Islands, approximately 106 miles from Los Angeles, California), it seems that this exceptional specimen has led to more questions than answers.

Something New?
The article states that the animal’s age at death, species, and relatedness to other varieties of mammoth are presently undetermined. The tusks of juvenile mammoths are short and mildly curved, while those of adults are typically long and coiled. This specimen features one of each tusk style—an unprecedented condition—the significance of which is still unknown. As the article points out, future dental studies may help us better pinpoint how old the animal was when it died.
To read the rest, click on "Mystery Mammoth Points to a Global Flood and Ice Age".

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

The Bad Complexion of the Secular Science Industry

Ever hear of having a relationship "warts and all"? Kind of ugly wording, but it makes the point that someone accepts both the good and the bad of the other party involved. The face of the secular science industry covers up its flaws, especially regarding common-ancestor evolution and global warming. It has a bad complexion, and tries to cover up numerous flaws, which causes trust issues.

The face of the secular science industry covers up its flaws, but its complexion needs a great deal of work.
Image credit: Pixabay / kinkate
There are methodological errors, such as poor estimates of wildlife, observer interference, publication bias canonizing "facts" in science, storytelling to influence acceptance of untrue evidence, terribly flawed peer review. From there, move to moral errors, including misconduct (and covering it up), scientific racism. Then we have a passel of logical errors: leaving self-defeating proposals that are laughable from the get-go remain unchallenged, a solvent involving gene transfer being promoted as evidence of evolution, a dreadful concept of galaxy formation with infinite regress. 

Yes, the science industry has a lot of covering up to do, but it would be far better for all if they'd just clean up their act, be honest, and have the scientists get some ethics from the Creator, then do their jobs proper-like instead of cranking out half-baked propaganda. Hope you can squeeze in some time to read the article that I'm going on about, just click on "Big Science Pops its Zits".

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

How Old are the Hawaiian Islands?

According to secular geologists, the Hawaiian islands are millions of years old. This figure is primarily reached through the highly suspect methods of radiometric dating. Biblical creationists have presented into evidence for the age of Earth controversy many items that are ignored by secularists and religious compromisers, such as "101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe".

Hawaiian islands formation show creation
Image credit: NASA/GSFC/JPL, MISR Team (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Uniformitarianism, the belief that the slow, gradual processes observed today have been constant and unchanging, can work against secularists. Using their assumptions and methods, the observed rate of erosion for the Hawaiian islands shows that they cannot be millions of years old! In fact, recent creation and the Genesis Flood geology presented by biblical creationary scientists are by far the best answers to the age and formation of the islands.
Secular scientists claim the Hawaiian Islands are millions of years old based primarily on radioisotope dating. Yet, the landforms and measured erosion rates tell a far different story—a story that better matches the Bible.

The Hawaiian Islands are a chain of islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on the Pacific plate (Figure 1). The conventional explanation is they formed as a result of volcanic activity as the plate passed over a “hot spot” in the mantle at a rate of inches per year (Figure 2). As the islands moved off the hot spot and their volcanoes became inactive, they left a trail of progressively older volcanic islands in the northwesterly direction of plate motion (Figure 1).
To see the illustrations mentioned above and read the rest of the article simply click on "Minuscule Erosion Points to Hawaii's Youth". For another article on how secularists reject data in favor of radiometric dating, click on "Caves and Age — How radioactive dating confuses the situation".


Monday, February 20, 2017

Creation, Evolution, and Knowing the Opposition

Every once in a while, the hands at the Darwin Ranch at Deception Pass get a mite ornery and go looking for someone to slap leather with. Those of us in creation science ministries will, to varying degrees, encounter "debate" challenges from fundamentalist evolutionists. These come from people who are vituperative atheists, bullies, cyberstalkers, and those who simply want to try and make fools of creationists. I have seen many who express purile rage at God and his people, but are woefully uninformed as to what biblical creationists actually believe and teach. Instead, their primary sources are atheopath Websites who present biased disinformation.

Creationists receive "debate" challenges and engage in discussions with people who have not bothered to do any decent research, but want to attack positions they do not understand.
Image credit: Pixabay / janeb13
Although I do not engage in actual debates, I have learned quite a bit about them in recent years. A basic concept that I agree with, whether for a formal debate or an intelligent discussion, is to be respectful toward your opponent. Another concept is that debates and discussions should be approached with the purpose of presenting one's point of view, and the critic should deal with the strongest points of the opposing side. 

It is important to know what the other side actually believes, but too many people cannot be bothered to do any research. I've been told what I believe by people who don't have a clue what they're talking about, and that puts a burr under my saddle.

As for discussions and debates... what we see on the interwebs is typo pouncing, flagrant misrepresentation, copious errors in logic, attempts to play "Gotcha!" to score "points", and so on. This is not worth our time. To see my article on debating, click on "Debate Challenges".

It is often difficult to determine if a fundamentalist evolutionist who claims to be a Christian is a viperine atheist in disguise or a "Christian" who disbelieves the Bible.
In ideological debate, as with many areas of life, it is important to, in the words of Sun Tzu, ‘know thy enemy’, i.e. understand what one’s ideological opponents say. However, many skeptics of biblical creation fail to do this—they often rehearse the same fallacious arguments we have dealt with many times before. Today’s correspondent raises the old canard that abiogenesis and microbes-to-man evolution are separate issues. However, these instances can give us the opportunity to rehearse the strength of our responses, as well as introduce newer readers to the arguments and where to go to get fuller treatments of them. CMI’s Shaun Doyle carries us through these ‘old arguments’.

J.O. from the United States writes:
To see the venomous material from J.O. and Shaun Doyle's excellent response, click on "Know thy enemy". 

Sunday, February 19, 2017

"Is Genesis History?" and an Atheistic Well-Poisoning Effort

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

EDIT: Two encore showings, March 2 and March 7. 

Certain details of this post will be out of date in less than a week. However, the principles contained herein will remain relevant — especially the second part of this article.

Corrected 2-19-2017, I mistakenly wrote that the writer/director/producer was Del Tackett. Those credits belong to Thomas Purifoy, Jr. Dr. Tackett is the host of the movie.

Is Genesis History? is a 2-hour documentary film that is scheduled to appear in American cinemas on Thursday, February 23. That's all the time we have. I hope the DVD release date in April is correct, or perhaps it will be available online. My online search for Is Genesis History? yielded many results, including show times, praise, and enthusiastic reviews from Christians (such as this one from Eric Hovind). The movie is the product of a great deal of work and includes interviews with many experts in their fields, and the primary focus is to equip Christian parents and youth. Click here to find out more, and you may want to get the free e-book as well as examine the other materials on the site. I am unfamiliar with Del Tackett's work (doctorate in Business Management) and The Truth Project as a whole, but this film is highly recommended, and I want to see it.

"Is Genesis History?" creation science documentary

Atheists and evolutionists detest anything that portrays biblical creation science in a positive way. Material that does not easily lend itself to dismantling and ridicule seems to be hated most of all. Here is a furious atheist in the UK who has given me many examples of poor logic in the past, and this post illustrates several fallacies, many of which illustrate the poisoning the well fallacy. I used different colors to emphasize different areas, but I'll elaborate on certain aspects below the annotated screenshot (click for larger). The original post is here.

The title of the thread, "Online and movie attempted YEC indoctrination in America", is a strong indication that the writer is biased. He repeatedly uses the word indoctrination when referencing the fact that Christian parents educate their parents according to the Bible. The secular education systems are the ones who actually use indoctrination, but you'll be hard pressed to find instances of atheists objecting to this.

There are several snide comments that are actually well-poisoning opinions that are irrelevant to the subject. This one, "...director, producer and writer has NO relevant science background" is, in my opinion, a weak attempt to find something negative to say. It was also an ad hominem. If I was having a documentary made, I would want an experienced filmmaker who is would work the way Thomas Purifoy, Jr. and host Dr. Tackett did, including interviewing experts in their fields.

There was also a remark that Tackett's Weblog does not allow comments. Well, neither do Popular Science nor other major sites, so I consider it not only irrelevant, but another attempt to poison the well.

Finally, I'll address this:
As an aside, all 13 scientists or 'scientists' (and a couple of scholars) behind this religious indoctrination are middle aged white males (which I suspect is not deliberate but simply a fact of life). (Two YECs who normally are considered relatively honest in their statements - Wise and Wood - are among them.)
Last thing first, this commenter has a habit of referring to professing Christians who reject biblical creation as "reasonable", "rational", and so forth, so he inserted an opinion as a means of influence. But more than that, the previous section was egregious. I think of when a prosecuting attorney will make a prejudicial comment and the judge says, "The jury will disregard that comment", but they did hear it anyway. Also, when someone makes a hurtful remark and adds, "I'm just saying", as if that somehow makes the remark acceptable, or even truthful.

In like manner, the comment implied racism on the part of the filmmakers (and possibly the experts themselves), but then the weak, "...which I suspect is not deliberate..." section seems to be an attempt at defaming the people, but not coming out and saying something. His "aside" did not need to be written at all, as he backpedaled on it. This is an extremely sneaky, manipulative attempt to poison the well.

The examples of several logical fallacies that work together to poison the well are examples of how extreme emotions, especially hatred and bigotry, will cloud the mind and bypass reasoning abilities. Many biblical creationists seek to encourage logical thinking and examination of evidence, as well as identifying logical fallacies. This not only assists us in avoiding duplicity and manipulation, but helps us keep our own apologetics efforts accurate and glorifying to God.

I hope Is Genesis History? will prove fruitful, and will educate many to stand up for the truth of Genesis and biblical creation science.