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

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Guessing Again about the Moon's Origin

The origin of Earth's moon is another of those burrs under the saddle of secular scientists. Since it's anathema to even consider that there's a Creator, and since they're constrained to promote cosmic evolution (after all, there's money in it), speculations about the moon's origin keep changing.


Credit: NASA / ISS / Col. Jeff Williams (usage does not imply endorsement of site's contents)
Their guesses keep on changing because the facts don't fit none too good. One conjecture becomes dominant for a while, then another replaces is. Facts interfere again, so yet another is brought forward. Now they have a story that is unfit for 1950s pulp sci-fi, but is considered "science". Why pays these jaspers? Oh, right. We do. Through our tax dollars. They seem unaware that the moon is unique in many ways and specially fitted for life right here.
In my lifetime there has been tremendous evolution in man’s ideas about the moon’s origin. In the 1960s, planetary scientists were convinced that the moon formed one of three ways  . . . 

But by the 1970s, it was clear, both from physical problems with each theory and from lunar composition measured from samples Apollo astronauts brought to earth, that none of the three theories were correct. Hence, by the late 1970s, planetary scientists developed a hybrid model of the moon’s origin, a scenario that hopefully kept the advantages of each of the three basic theories, while avoiding the shortcomings of each . . . 
While this remained the standard theory for more than three decades, apparently there still were problems with the moon’s composition that this model did not explain well.
To read the article in it's entirety, click on "A New Theory for the Moon’s Origin".

Monday, April 24, 2017

Ice Age Forests in Scandinavia

Geologists believing in long ages and uniformitarianism cling to the notion that there were several ice ages in Earth's history, while creationary geologists believe there was only one Ice Age. Seems like most of the time an or the Ice Age is discussed, it is the "last" one. According to secular belief systems, the last ice age was devastating to forests in Scandinavia, and trees didn't get their ownselves planted there again until somewhere about 9,000 Darwin years ago.


Lofoten Norway Ice Age forests geology Genesis Flood
Credit: Pixabay / manolofranco
Fossil evidence is deflating that view. Further, secular geologists are unable to present a plausible model for the cause nor completion of an ice age. Creation science models involving the Genesis Flood are far more plausible. Of course, secularists won't cognate on those because they affirm rather than deny God the Creator, and also indicate a young earth.
Ice ages within the uniformitarian paradigm are very cold, much colder than today. So, according to this paradigm, it is believed that during the last ice age Scandinavia was completely denuded of trees and their range shrank as far south as the Mediterranean region. Trees did not make a comeback in Scandinavia until after the ice melted some 9,000 years ago, within the uniformitarian time scale. However, the fossil evidence suggests otherwise.
To read the rest of this chilling article, click on "Trees in Northwest Scandinavia during the Ice Age".

Saturday, April 22, 2017

Tree Mail in the Wood Wide Web

Many people believe that it is a good thing to talk to plants. (If you hear them answering, that may be a problem.) It's good for you to get outside (watching out for ticks and dangerous critters, of course), but most of us don't realize that there's a passel of communication happening.


Trees have their own communications systems
Image made with assembled graphics from Clker clipart
We looked at an internal tree-mail system a spell back, but the story has grown quite a bit. Trees are sending helpful information to each other and getting cooperation, and sending requests to local fungi to provide them with nutrients. The system is actually quite intricate, and defies evolution because every aspect must be in place and fully operational from the beginning. This tree-mail system is yet another example of the design and provision of our Creator.
Stresses constantly threaten to destroy the forest’s surface harmony, and yet modern scientific research is revealing how marvelously the Creator has equipped His woodlands to respond to these stresses, keeping alive these reminders of harmony that once existed and will be restored someday through Christ.

Researchers are discovering that trees form communities that “talk” to each other, sharing their needs and providing mutual assistance. Yes, you heard me correctly. It’s mindboggling, even for someone like me who has spent his life studying nature’s wonders (forest ecology in particular).
To read the entire article, click on "Talking Trees — Secrets of Plant Communication". Also, for an article on cell biology and the genetics involved, click on "Plant Email System Described".


Friday, April 21, 2017

Deception in the Name of Science

A long-standing question of ethics and morality is the use of deception in the pursuit of science. Deceiving test subjects has occurred many times in psychology and sociology, and it presents a dilemma: if people know in advance they are being deceived, they are likely to react in a different manner than if they believe what they are experiencing is true, but it is dishonesty, so is it right?

Secular psychologists lie to test subjects implement manipulation
Background image courtesy of Why?Outreach
Keep in mind that secular psychologists have their basis in evolutionary thinking, which is in turn based on atheistic materialism. They have no consistent basis for morality, which is often predicated on whatever is expedient at the time, or the end justifies the means. Biblical Christianity (especially with a creationary bent) need not apply for employment here. Research in psychology has jumped the corral fence and is heading off at full gallop into Orwellian territory. Desires to implement mental manipulation techniques are on their minds. In a similar manner, the ability to say, "I'm sorry" is also subject to manipulation. Instead of actually being sorry and repenting of an action, the delivery of the apology is more important than the content.
In order to test human responses, some psychologists intentionally lie to volunteers. Is the “science” of manipulation justifiable?

Three psychologists decided to play Orwell’s 1984 with people. They took 54 people and did this to them, according to their paper in PLoS One:
To learn more about what's happening at the Ministry of Truth, click on "Researchers Lie to Subjects".


Thursday, April 20, 2017

Evolution and Nature Worship

We frequently see the fallacy of reification, where something abstract is given traits belonging to a person or entity. This sort of thing is done frequently and often for humorous purposes, like when Basement Cat gives me an evil look. No, she can't do that. Or saying that the beach is calling for me. No, ain't happening, sorry. Science says...no, it doesn't, but maybe some scientists say. See?

Figures of speech using reification abound in stories and casual talk, but when used in an argument or scientific paper, reification is a fallacy. Proponents of scum-to-skeptic evolution are using the fallacy more and more frequently, indicating that evolution chooses, selects, decides, and so on. It's not infrequent to see an evolutionist making evolution into a puny god. 

Pagan evolution lives today
Pantheon of gods in The Triumph of Civilization by Jacques Réattu, 1793
Evolution has always been a religious idea from way back, including Greek and Hindu religions. What we have now is more correctly termed evolutionism, since it is a belief system deceptively presented by its adherents as objective science. Atheists claim to be irreligious, but that is untrue. (To go further, fascism has pagan roots incorporated into politics and policies. See "Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism" for more about this dangerous belief system.) Evolution gets credit for changes seen in nature, the Creator is denied, and rational thought suffers as well. I reckon that's one reason evolutionists detest critical thinking, because people can see that Emperor Darwin has no clothes.
We are justifiably impressed by the great strides being made in science, technology and medicine. However, at the same time, western cultures have succumbed to secular, humanistic influences in education, the arts and the media; those human accomplishments are misused to persuade people that traditional Christianity is irrelevant. The truth-speaker who would stand up for Bible-based absolutes soon discovers the tyranny of society’s so-called ‘tolerant’ academic and political elites. After all, this is the 21st Century; surely we have grown up and left all that religious stuff behind. Or have we?

Paganism revived

Dig just beneath the surface and religion is alive and well. For sure, it is not the worship of the one true Creator God revealed in the Bible. No, modern people have ‘gone back’ to embracing gods of their own imagining. Ironically, many people with a strong secular evolutionary bent are now found embracing paganism. Pagans define their ideology as, “A polytheistic or pantheistic nature-worshipping religion.” It is an ancient form of religion and is found in many guises but there is no doubt that it always makes the veneration of nature central. Some consider nature itself to be divine and worship it accordingly. However, many today are what we might call ‘naturalistic science pagans’; although they may protest themselves to be non-religious, their writings betray a different motive.
To read the rest, click on "Wishful thinking about nature’s abilities — paganism and evolution".


Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Getting the Dirt on Microbes

It's time for a post that's really down to earth. For the most part, we put plants in soil, whether on farms, in gardens, potted plants in the home, and so on. Most folks know that plants need soil so they can grow, but we forget that it's little things in life that matter. Or, little living things. Microbes. There's a great deal of life underfoot.


Credit: Freeimages / Dieter Joel Jagnow
People tend to get all het up about bacteria, thinking that it makes people sick. Fact is, there are many bacteria that are beneficial to us. They live in us, and in the soil as well, which is good for the plants. Bacteria in dirt has its own communities, like so many other living things. They adjust to environmental conditions and often work together. There is a symbiosis with bacteria, other living things, and the environment that defies Darwinism and shows the ingenuity of the Creator.
I remember making mud pies as a child for my mom—she didn’t like them too much.1 Pie making was always the best just after a good rain, but I had no idea that I was covering my hands in germs. Though I now know there was probably other biomaterial present in the soil (e.g., the organic matter called humus), back then the combination always warranted washing my germy hands when I went inside. In terms of our overall health, there is a fine balance between all the germs in the dirt and all the other stuff that it is made of. Dirt is dirty, but not in the ways that we often think.

While earth is typically considered to be only rocks and dirt, life is also abundant in soil. But we cannot observe all the living things in the soil with our eyes—they require a microscope for us to see them.
To dig into the rest of this very informative article by a microbial ecologist, click on "The Dirt Is Alive: God’s Design for Soil Microbiome".


Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Radiocarbon Dating Fails to Produce Deep Time

For molecules-to-misotheist evolution to work, it needs huge amounts of time. Secularists ignore evidence that shows the earth is young, and make excuses for tremendous flaws in radiometric dating (see "Would Evidence for Radiometric Dating Stand Up in a Court of Law?" for more on the subject, including several links). I reckon they must feel that bad science is better than admitting that evidence fails to produce an old earth, so they keep on with radiometric dating.

Radiocarbon dating does not show old earth
Assembled with graphics from Openclipart
More specifically, radiocarbon dating deals with organic matter and the amount of carbon contained therein. Carbon-14 should not be found in certain items after 57,000 Darwin years, so certain things that have been dated at millions of years should not contain any carbon. But they do. Sure, evolutionists circle the wagons to protect their prize pig, making excuses such as "contamination". Such excuses do not withstand scrutiny and change the fact that Earth was created much more recently than is dreamt of in their philosophy.
Recently, I conversed with an educated man who maintained Earth must be millions of years old because radiocarbon dating proved it. Although this argument is common, it’s simply inaccurate. Even evolutionary scientists acknowledge that radiocarbon dating cannot prove ages of millions or billions of years. Why?

Radiocarbon (14C) is an unstable form of carbon that spontaneously decays into nitrogen over time. The best instrument for detecting radiocarbon is an accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS), which can typically detect one radiocarbon atom per quadrillion (1015) carbon atoms. Most AMS devices cannot detect radiocarbon in something older than 57,000 years because the amount of 14C will have decayed to unmeasurable levels.
To read the rest (it won't take too much time), click on "Radiocarbon Dating Can't Prove an Old Earth".


Labels