Here is a revision of an article that I did as a guest post back in April of 2011.
This article is continued here.
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
Some evolutionists have argued that science isn’t possible without evolution. They teach that science and technology actually require the principles of molecules-to-man evolution in order to work. They claim that those who hold to a biblical creation worldview are in danger of not being able to understand science!
Critical thinkers will realize that these kinds of arguments are quite ironic because evolution is actually contrary to the principles of science. That is, if evolution were true, the concept of science would not make sense. Science actually requires a biblical creation framework in order to be possible. Here’s why:To find out why, read the rest of "Evolution: The Anti-Science" here.
Students have a right to question “evolutionary pseudo-science” and “evolutionary dogma,” according to the “Question Evolution” campaign and should be encouraged to do so, says Louis Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition.
The coalition is offering brochures, caps and t-shirts announcing kids’ opposition to Charles Darwin and the theories of evolution.Read the rest of "Students encouraged to challenge 'evolutionary dogma'" here. Also, see the related video here.
Human/ape common ancestry has been a subject much discussed recently. A friend wrote me asking for links dealing with human/ape common ancestry. While there are numerous good articles that have talked about this issue from an intelligent design (ID) friendly perspective, I tried to provide him with some helpful links and information.If you really believe in scientific inquiry and not your presuppositions, read the rest of "Human-Ape Common Ancestry: Following Where the Evidence Leads" here.
As a preliminary point, it's important to note that human/ape common ancestry is compatible with ID. Nonetheless, ID proponents are interested in taking a scientific approach to these questions, and the evidence suggests that even modest changes requiring two or more mutations before conferring any adaptive benefit could not arise via Darwinian evolution under any reasonable timescale involving human/ape common ancestry. As a result, questions about human/ape common ancestry should be on the table for people who really want to follow the evidence where it leads.
|Forest Sosnowica Poland by Sylwia Mazurek/PD|
Wood has long provided mankind with construction material, fuel, enjoyable scenery, and shade. One of the most abundant biological products in the world, wood consists of the thickened cell wall deposits that provide support for branches and stems in trees and woody plants. Scientists recently described the oldest known example as "a simple type of wood," but just how "simple" is this material?
The study published in Science looked at fossilized wood found in rocks that are supposedly 10 million years older than the prior record-holder. The discovery of this substance in "Early Devonian plants was unexpected," the researchers wrote, presumably because wood is such a complicated biomolecule that it should have evolved later, not earlier.Read the rest of "Earliest Fossil Shows Wood Could Not Evolve", Elroy.
In 28 September 1969, fragments of a meteorite landed 2 kilometres south of the small village of Murchison, Victoria, Australia. Local residents collected about 100 kg of material, and the largest fragment was about 7 kg.
Read the rest of "Nucleic acid bases in Murchison meteorite?" here.The Murchison fragments came from a class of meteorite called carbonaceous chondrites, because they contain small nodules called chondrules. Since this class is rich in carbon and water, right from the beginning the Murchison meteorite has been analysed for organic molecules. Chemical evolutionists, who have faith that life evolved from non-living chemicals, were hoping to find evidence to support their faith. They had hoped that this meteorite would provide evidence that such processes were widespread in the universe, even if some of them were pessimistic that life could arise on earth.
Xanthine (Photo: Wikipedia)
One of the first discoveries was amino acids, the components of proteins. Later, there were dubious claims that some of the amino acids had a slight excess of the ‘handedness’ (chirality) required for life, as we have reported. Still later, there were claims that sugars and sugar-related compounds were discovered, which excited many because the backbones of DNA and RNA contain the sugars deoxyribose and ribose respectively. But see our report on why this offers no support for chemical evolution.
Evolutionary astronomers, who assume the solar system is billions of years old, must propose a ‘source’ that will supply new comets as old ones are destroyed. The Kuiper Belt is one such proposed source for short-period comets (comets that take less than 200 years to orbit the sun). The Kuiper belt is a hypothetical massive flattened disc of billions of icy planetesimals supposedly left over from the formation of the solar system...
These planetesimals are assumed to exist in (roughly) circular orbits in the outer regions of the solar system—beyond Neptune (extending from 30 AU out to around 100 AU). It is thought that these objects are occasionally disturbed by gravitational interactions and are sent hurtling into the inner solar system to become short-period comets. In this fashion, new comets supposedly are injected into the inner solar system as old ones are depleted.You can click here to read "Kuiper Belt Objects: Solution to Short-Period Comets?" in its entirety, Evelyn.
|Kohoutek 1974 (NASA)|
The existence of comets has long been used as an argument for a recent creation (probably the best treatment so far is that of Slusher). The case is usually made as follows. The standard model of a comet is one in which all of the material observed is released by an icy nucleus only a few kilometres across. This model strongly suggests that comets are very fragile, losing much of their material during each close pass to the Sun. Most comets follow orbits that take them vast distances from the Sun. If a comet’s orbit takes it too far from the Sun, then the comet could easily be captured by the gravitational attraction of other stars and thus would be lost to the Solar System. This places a maximum distance from the Sun that a comet may orbit. If this maximum distance can be estimated, Kepler's third law of planetary motion can be used to deduce the greatest possible orbital period that a comet may possess (about 11 million years). When combined with an estimate of how many trips around the Sun that a comet can survive, we can estimate the maximum age of comets. This figure is far less than the adopted 4.6 Ga age of the Solar System. Because no source of creation for comets has been identified, comets are assumed to be primordial. If this is true, then the age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.Read the rest of "Comets and the Age of the Solar System" here, Howie.
Animal and plant cell DNA is so complicated that all the cellular machines that process, regulate, and manipulate it are constantly in need of cellular fuel. In fact, each animal and plant cell uses so much fuel that specialized fuel-production facilities called mitochondria are required.
A new evolutionary study attempted to provide evidence supporting a bacterial origin for mitochondria, but all it really did was beg the question.Read the rest of "Origin of Cells Study Uses Bad Science" here.
Evolutionary scenarios for mitochondrial origins are faced with a problem: The cell must utilize its DNA in order to live. But this in turn requires an energy factory. Without either the energy or DNA factories, the cell would die. Thus, both factories, in full form, are required for plant and animal life.
I've heard it so many times before. Maybe you've heard it, too. When talking with an evolutionist, they will often bring up the objection that evolution is a "scientific fact," but creation is a "religion." I disagree; they are both religions. As Joe White and Nicholas Comninellis stated in their book Darwin's Demise, “the difference between a ‘philosophy’ like humanism and naturalism, and a ‘religion’ is not definable. Both describe a particular way of viewing the world, history, human nature, and morality. A ‘religion’ may or may not include reference to a supernatural being. Beyond this trait, however, ‘philosophy’ and a ‘religion’ are largely indistinguishable.”
Apologist Ron Rhodes agrees: "Too often the creation-evolution debate has been portrayed as a faith-based system (creation) in opposition to a fact-based system (evolution). But both systems are, in reality, faith-based," he says in his book The 10 Things You Should Know About the Creation Vs. Evolution Debate.
In fact, Dr. Wolfgang Smith once stated, "A growing number of respectable scientist are defecting from the evolutionist camp… moreover, for the most part these ‘experts’ have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully" (emphasis mine).Read the rest of "Is Evolution a Scientific Fact?" here.
Radioactive isotopes are commonly portrayed as providing rock-solid evidence that the earth is billions of years old. Since such isotopes are thought to decay at consistent rates over time, the assumption is that simple measurements can lead to reliable ages. But new discoveries of rate fluctuations continue to challenge the reliability of radioisotope decay rates in general—and thus, the reliability of vast ages seemingly derived from radioisotope dating.
In 2009, New Scientist summarized a discovery at Brookhaven National Laboratories that revealed a statistical correlation between the distance to the sun and fluctuations in the decay rate of a radioactive silicon isotope. The data showed that silicon-32 decayed more slowly in the winter, and then sped up during the summer. A 2010 Stanford University report reflected similar fluctuations in the decay rate of other elements. To see whether or not nearness to the sun somehow affected these radioisotope decay rates, researchers laid a solar proximity plot atop the silicon decay plot, and they showed a close match.