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

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Evolution and the Creation of Tyrants


Over and over, atheists and evolutionists claim that most of the greatest mass murderers in history, who happened to be atheists, were not motivated by their atheistic worldviews. This is clearly false. Evolution has been embraced by tyrants; Hitler used eugenics to accelerate the natural process of evolution. Communist leaders were anti-Christian, anti-Jew, anti-religion. Darwinism is a dangerous philosophy.
Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) endorsed a program in Germany to breed a superior race. The scheme was based on a horrific evolutionary theory called “eugenics” that was founded by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. The idea of eugenics was to improve the human race using principles promoted in the theory of evolution.
The idea was simple: partition the human race into two groups, the “fit” and the “unfit.” Eugenics seemed to be a way to make sure the “fit” had children and the “unfit” did not. In Germany, the leaders of the eugenics movement got monstrous laws enacted that allowed sterilization of people regarded as “unfit,” and restriction of immigrants who were supposedly “biologically inferior.” (The United States and other countries enacted similar laws, but the Nazis took it to the extreme when Jews, blacks, and others were ruthlessly murdered to prop up the theory.)

Monday, November 28, 2011

Misrepresentation of Creation by Evolutionists

Answers in Genesis
It happens all the time: Evolutionists hit creationists with complete nonsense about what we believe. I think it is for two reasons: They do not bother to check their facts and actually get information about creationists from the creationists themselves, and also because they are being misled by bad propaganda. Here is a hint to evolutionists: If you want to discuss creationism, do not tell us what we believe. You can ask, and you can learn our side of the story from us, not from evolutionary disinformation tanks that are more interested in appealing to emotion than in the true scientific attitude of learning the truth.

Appealing to public emotions is a tool employed by politicians, media, and anyone trying to win supporters for a specific agenda. Naturally, such efforts can skew or omit facts, as is often the case in mainstream presentations of the ongoing battle between evolution and creation science. A recent Discovery News feature provides a telling example of this particular ploy.
Published online July 11, the feature is titled "Evolution Controversies: A History in Photos" and includes photographs from the Scopes "Monkey" trial of 1925, a cartoon of British naturalist Charles Darwin with the body of an ape, and a photograph of an exhibit in the Institute for Creation Research's former Museum of Creation and Earth History in Santee, California. Of the ten photographs, two portray what the author says are claims used by creationists as "scientific proof of young Earth creationism": the dinosaur footprints in Glen Rose, Texas, and a petroglyph in Utah that resembles a dinosaur.

Friday, November 25, 2011

Noah's Ark Discovery Controversy


Many evolutionists do not do their homework when it comes to creationism and Intelligent Design. I have had several people presuming to tell me what I believe, as well as proclaiming what creation science and Intelligent Design advocates teach. However, they embarrass themselves with their uninformed presuppositions. One of the presuppositions is that "believers" are extremely credulous and unscientific in our views. Here is an example to demonstrate that the opposite is true.

It seems that every few years, someone claims to have discovered Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat. The location is obscure and very difficult to find, and verification has been pretty well nonexistent. Another expedition excitedly claimed that they had found Noah's Ark, and wanted creationist support.
On April 25, 2010, a press conference was held in Hong Kong to announce to the world the potential discovery of the remains of Noah’s Ark on Mt. Ararat in Turkey by a joint Chinese–Turkish team of explorers. Both before and after this press conference, representatives of the discovery team had cautiously been seeking to make contact with sympathetic scientists whose positive support they hoped to enlist.

A Skype Conference Call

Consequently, on April 20, 2010, I participated in a Skype conference call (early morning in northern Kentucky, USA) with several Chinese members of the discovery team (late evening for them in Hong Kong). During that conference call I was shown video footage of the team’s exploration on Mt. Ararat, footage that was subsequently released at the press conference. Photos of a wooden structure purportedly buried on Mt. Ararat, and of the inside of it, were also provided.

As a scientist I am always cautious and somewhat skeptical of bold and spectacular claims, especially when made in defense of the Bible, yet as a Bible-believing Christian the thought of this wooden structure being the remains of the Ark was tantalizing. Friends in Hong Kong who helped arrange this confidential conference call were equally cautious but excited. We were all looking for the unequivocal evidence that would convince us that this was indeed the remains of the long-sought-after Ark. Such a discovery would be another powerful witness to the truth and authority of God’s Word.
Read this scientist's conclusion about the samples of wood, C-14 dating and whether or not he would support the claims of the expedition in "Is the Wood Recently Found on Mt. Ararat from the Ark?", here.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Cut Down the Fake "Tree of Life"

CreationWiki (modified)
You know that "tree of life" thing that is in all the school textbooks? You know, it shows everything branching out, tracing back to the alleged "common ancestor"? Darwin's tree of life was wrong. Well, some of us knew it all along, but evolutionists are finally admitting it. Oh, but getting the word to the textbook publishers? We'll see. It will probably be misleading information in textbooks for decades yet.
Charles Darwin drew his first "evolutionary tree" in his "B" notebook in 1837, with the words "I think" scrawled above it, to illustrate his idea that all of today's species arose from a single common ancestor. This concept lies at the heart of evolutionary thinking, and the tree-like images that often accompany its instruction have been effective indoctrination tools. 
However, if today's creatures evolved from some other creature millions or billions of years ago, then the Bible's history must be abandoned. This is because Scripture does not leave any room for eons of time. Where and why would one add "millions of years" to an account that consists of tight chronologies that lead back to a creation week in which "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth" (Exodus 20:11)? Second, Scripture consistently refers to living creatures as belonging to basic "kinds" or forms (Genesis 1:21, 24-25), not as having descended from totally different kinds. Either evolutionary history is correct, or biblical history is. There is no middle ground.
Read the rest of "Darwin's Withering Tree of Life" here.

Monday, November 21, 2011

Putting that Miller-Urey Experiment to Rest

The more we learn about the complexities of genetics, amino acids, the cell itself, mutations and so many other things, the more we can see that evolution is an empty, unscientific philosophy that should have been discarded years ago. For example, people still insist that the long-discredited Miller-Urey experiment regarding the "primordial Earth" is proof of chemical evolution. What did they really get from this experiment? First, cheating pays off in "science", because they started with amino acids, broke them down, and then got amino acids again. Second, it shows that intelligence, not chance, made things happen (such as the "cold trap" trick). Third, that a bad experiment (a spark does not equal a lightning bolt, get real) can yield "results" if they fit preconceptions.


Even worse for evolutionists, this faulty experiment manages to argue against abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is the theory that under the proper conditions life can arise spontaneously from non-living molecules. One of the most widely cited studies used to support this conclusion is the famous Miller–Urey experiment. Surveys of textbooks find that the Miller–Urey study is the major (or only) research cited to prove abiogenesis. Although widely heralded for decades by the popular press as ‘proving’ that life originated on the early earth entirely under natural conditions, we now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for the opposite conclusion. It is now recognized that this set of experiments has done more to show that abiogenesis on Earth is not possible than to indicate how it could be possible. This paper reviews some of the many problems with this research, which attempted to demonstrate a feasible method of abiogenesis on the early earth.
You can read the rest of "Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis" here.

Friday, November 18, 2011

Evolutionary Biology: Exercise in Futility

The old "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" mantra is not only worn out, but absurd from the beginning. Using evolution as a prerequisite for understanding biology (and all of science, for that matter) is actually detrimental. Here, I'll let Dr. Sarfati explain in his reply to a letter.
I read with some interest the text and annotation of your debate with Dr Mark Farmer. While I could raise many points, I will confine myself to the passage quoted below:
‘Has the evolutionary paradigm been the great benefit to mankind that is claimed? MF quoted Dobzhansky as saying how important it is to biology. However, Dr Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School states: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” (quoted in the Boston Globe 23 October 2005). For the Philip Skell quote cited by CW, see Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology.’
Here you have lifted a quote (I suspect to engage in a little bit of ‘arguing from authority’)
You can read the rest of the letter and replies here.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Redshifts, Big Bang, Quasar and Evolution

On 8 April 2010, Marcus Chown writes in an article entitled “Time waits for no quasar—even though it should” for New Scientist online “Why do distant galaxies seem to age at the same rate as those closer to us when big bang theory predicts that time should appear to slow down at greater distances from Earth? No one can yet answer this new question [emphasis added] … .”
Background photo by NASA
Quasar
Halton Arp cites many examples of quasars found aligned within ± 20 degrees of the minor axis of the active nucleus of a galaxy. The minor axis is perpendicular to the plane of rotation of the galaxy. They are often seen within a few arcminutes of a parent galaxy, in pairs, on opposite sides as though they were ejected from the active nucleus. Their redshifts are large compared to the parent but they have a higher probability than the background average of being near the putative parent. This suggests physical association and that their redshifts are intrinsic, of an unknown orgin, but not cosmological nor due to Doppler motion.
He says no one can answer this question. But this question has already been answered before it was even asked. To understand this we need some background. Quasars are assumed to be supermassive black holes with the mass of a galaxy that are the early progenitors of the mature galaxies we see around us today. They nearly all have extremely large redshifts and the big bang community believes that these redshifts are nearly entirely due to cosmological expansion. Therefore it follows that these massive objects are extremely bright and are being observed at some stage only several billion years after the big bang. Hence it also follows from Einstein’s general theory that the greater the redshift the greater the effect of the distortion of time on the quasar. That is, local clocks on quasars at the greatest redshifts should run slower than local clocks on quasars closer to us.
Read the rest of "Quasars again defy a big bang explanation" here.

Monday, November 14, 2011

Mutations are Bad News for Evolution

In the same way that species are not static, neither are genomes. They change over time; sometimes randomly, sometimes in preplanned pathways, and sometimes according to instruction from pre-existing algorithms. Irrespective of the source, we tend to call these changes ‘mutations’. Many evolutionists use the existence of mutation as evidence for long-term evolution, but the examples they cite fall far short of the requirements of their theory. Many creationists claim that mutations are not able to produce new information. Confusion about definitions abounds, including arguments about what constitutes a mutation and the definition of ‘biological information’. Evolution requires the existence of a process for the invention of new information from scratch. Yet, in a genome operating in at least four dimensions and packed with meta-information, potential changes are strongly proscribed. Can mutations produce new information? Yes, depending on what you mean by ‘new’ and ‘information’. Can they account for the evolution of all life on Earth? No!
Read the rest of "Can mutations create new information?" here.

Friday, November 11, 2011

In Defense of Science

Science is one of my favorite subjects. I really looked forward to it in school. Technology is something I like as well. It's really great finding out about the intricacies of how things are made, how they function and so on.

I am baffled by some things. One is that evolution is considered "science", as if it is foundational for an astrophysicist, physician, molecular biologist or whatever to be thoroughly indoctrinated in evolutionary "facts" to be able to perform their various disciplines. I thought those were all sciences in and of themselves.

Another item I find baffling is that the "science" of evolution must be protected. I thought that an essential component in science is the quest for knowledge. To attain knowledge, facts and observations must be compared and analyzed. This cannot be done if facts and evidence contrary to evolutionism are ignored, rejected out of hand and even suppressed. Brits are guarding evolutionary indoctrination with such passion that they are attempting to outlaw the teaching of creation and Intelligent Design. These arrogant people are attempting to impose their views in the United States, and helped draft a petition for the White House to do the same thing. Are they still trying to hide their deep, dark secrets? Addendum: Creation evidences are banned from UK religious education classes.

This is not in the spirit of true scientific inquiry. Rather, it is brainwashing.

Evolutionists have many assumptions and bold assertions about the importance of evolution that are motivating to the gullible and to those saturated with presuppositions. To the rest of us, such propaganda is rather startling. And we still wonder why they feel the need to protect evolutionism so vehemently.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

That Flighty Archaeopteryx


When I was giving creation science presentations, I mentioned that Archaeopteryx was not a transitional form, but rather, a true bird. I was surprised that some die-hard types refused to relinquish their claim that Archie is a "transitional form". Now he keep flying back into the news. The latest news: He's still just a bird. A strange one with odd features, but still just a bird.
The fossilized bird known as Archaeopteryx has had quite a history of identity crises. Researchers once classified it as a "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds. It was considered to be an ancient bird, then changed to a dinosaur, and now it's supposed to be a bird again. So, what is it? 
Nature News reported in July that an analysis of fossil traits "suggests that Archaeopteryx is not a bird at all," but instead more closely resembled dinosaurs. ICR News responded at the time that because "it had core features that define birds, such as flight feathers, wings, perching feet, and a wishbone… Archaeopteryx is still just an extinct bird." 
Textbooks and museums still teach that Archaeopteryx is an evolutionary transition from reptiles. But even if its classification waffles again, it is disqualified as an evolutionary ancestor for birds by the fact that scientists found a crow-size bird and extinct four-winged birds in rock layers designated to be below those containing Archaeopteryx.
You can read the rest of "Archaeopteryx Is a Bird. . . Again" here.

Monday, November 7, 2011

Sediments, Bioturbation and Uniformitarianism

Here is another example of uniformitarian presuppositions being proven wrong, this time in the deep blue sea.
The bioturbation of sediments by trace makers is often perceived by naturalists as a process requiring extensive periods of time. Little experimental work has been conducted to either support or refute such a concept. However, recent laboratory analysis indicates that the bioturbation of marine sediments can occur within short periods of time.

Bioturbation experiments

Marine worms, bivalves (clams), arthropods (shrimp and crabs), and echinoderms (sea urchins and brittle stars) are just some of the many animals that live on or in marine sediments (figures 1 and 2). The study of traces created in sediment is identified as ichnology (Gk ichnos = trace). 
Recently, an investigation was conducted to determine the rate that select bivalves, arthropods, and echinoderms could bioturbate marine sediments. The animals were collected from tidal flats and shallow subtidal sediments from the Ogeechee estuary, Georgia (U.S.A). They were placed into glass aquaria filled with alternating layers of sand and heavy minerals with each layer being approximately 5 to 10 mm thick.2 Examination of the rate of bioturbation occurred at 1, 6, 24, 72 and 144 hour intervals by collecting X-ray images of the aquaria sidewalls.2

Experiment results

The results of the study indicate that:
You can read the rest of "Sediment bioturbation experiments and the actual rock record" here.

Friday, November 4, 2011

Evolutionists Persist in Presenting Bad Information

How can anyone justify science "education" when it is based in the presupposition that evolution is a "fact", evidence contrary to evolution is ignored or even suppressed, evolutionary "science" is to be protected, and the textbooks contain outdated and outright wrong material? (Even the terribly outdated and misused Miller-Urey experiment is still being cited!) Bad textbooks are preferred over materials that require critical thinking. Evidence for evolution is cherry-picked. That is not science, Skippy, that is indoctrination.
According to a study released today by the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, bogus embryo drawings, long-debunked claims about tonsils, and outdated information from a 1950s lab experiment highlight the glaring bloopers found in proposed science instructional materials currently being considered by the Texas State Board of Education.
"Retro-science must be in, because the proposed materials are filled with outdated scientific claims," said Casey Luskin, a policy and education analyst with Discovery Institute. "It's truly amazing how much discredited information keeps getting recycled year after year."
In order to satisfy state educational standards set in 2009 (TEKS), the Board of Education asked publishers to submit supplementary instructional materials that would enable students to "analyze and evaluate" core aspects of evolutionary theory, and to "examin[e] all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking." But according to the 70-page Discovery Institute study, only one set of instructional materials out of the 10 evaluated managed to comply with the TEKS as well as avoid glaring scientific errors.
Top science bloopers in the proposed instructional materials include:
Read the rest of "Glaring Bloopers Found in Proposed Texas Science Curricular Materials" here.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Legal Hypocrisy from the Darwinists

Do you ever watch "The People's Court" or similar television programs? (They are popular on American television, airing during business hours on weekdays. People have the small claims court cases settled before television judges who tend to be quirky or even abusive.) Afterward, the parties of the case talk to the interviewer. The winner says, "Yes, I am happy with the decision. The judge is intelligent and justice was served". Well, of course! "Justice was served" because things went your way. Naturally, the loser of the case tends to disagree with the decision.

There is a problem when court cases are settled and then misquoted. One fellow kept badgering me, insisting, "How many more times must the courts rule that ID isn't science before it sinks in?" (His claim was based on a ruling about a school district in Dover.) And yet, when I point out how the high courts have ruled that atheism and secular humanism are religions, I'm either called a liar or told that what the courts say do not matter. Several times I have tried to point out this double standard, of wanting it both ways, to no avail.

Although I may sound like the people that lose their cases, I must say that some truths cannot be settled by a court ruling. Even if a high court did rule that "ID is not science", that would not make it true. Such a ruling would be out of their jurisdiction, so to speak. I would be asking questions if such a ruling were handed down, such as:
  • How were "science" and "religion" defined?
  • What exactly did they rule?
  • What is the context, what are the circumstances?
  • Does anyone else think this is ridiculous?
  • What is the court's reputation for objectivity?

The US Ninth Circus Circuit Court is famous for being astonishingly leftist and for having the most cases overturned by the US Supreme Court. Conservative values, Judeo-Christian values, traditional family values, creationism, Intelligent Design — all suffer when brought before this court. Here is an example of their fair and balanced treatment of Intelligent Design:
The Ninth Circuit's recent refusal to rule on the merits of a case where a student alleged his teacher was disparaging creationist religious beliefs isn't the first time it has denied Darwin-skeptics their day in court. In the past here on ENV, we've written about how the Ninth Circuit dismissed the Caldwell v. Caldwell lawsuit for lack of standing.

In the Caldwell case, Jeanne Caldwell, a parent of public school students in Roseville, California, filed suit against the director of UC Berkeley's Museum of Paleontology, who oversaw the production of a website for teachers called "Understanding Evolution." Caldwell's complaint alleged that the website "advocat[es] that teachers use public school science classrooms to proselytize minor students to adopt the government's preferred religious beliefs and doctrines regarding evolutionary theory."
The Understanding Evolution website was funded with a $500,000+ government-sponsored National Science Foundation grant awarded to UC Berkeley staff, with various National Center for Science Education staff members helping to develop the site. The website states that it is a "misconception" to believe "[e]volution and religion are incompatible" or that "one always has to choose between [evolution] and religion." Clearly preferring religious sects that accept evolution, the site asserts that "[m]ost Christian and Jewish religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution." The Caldwell complaint also lists the example that "the 'Misconceptions' web page includes a cartoon depicting a scientist shaking hands with a religious pastor holding a Bible with a cross on it, intended to convey the message that there is no conflict between religious beliefs and the theory of evolution."

Labels