Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Friday, March 30, 2012

Proof, Oxymoron and Radiometric Dating

Evolutionists generally assume that evolution is true in the first place, and interpret their evidence based on that presupposition. If the facts do not fit, then there is something wrong. Get another "fact" to support evolution. This extends to creation scientists. "Creation scientist is an oxymoron". Unfortunately for that view, facts are facts; it is not a case of their facts versus our facts. It is the interpretations of the facts that cause the dissent, whether between creationists and evolutionists, or between scientists with similar biases. Many of these people are uninformed about the nature of "proof", as well.

Here is a letter to Answers In Genesis:
I read through your article concerning the existence and life of dinosaurs. Have you ever heard of radiometric dating? Different radioactive isotopes can be used to date material from bone fragments to rocks so in fact, yes there is a great amount of proof that the Earth is billions of years old and that dinosaurs lived millions of year ago. We don't need to be there to know it...science is the window to the past, present, and future. Also, I believe creation scientist is an oxymoron.
You can't take the Bible literally yet conform to the techniques and values of science. If you did, you'd know about radiometric dating and how it is used as irrefutable proof that the Earth by itself is approximately four billion years old.
– Y.M.
Read the response by Dr. Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. in geology and director of research, "Feedback: Radiometric Dating and Proof", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Whiteflies, Equivocation and Evolution

Evolutionists sometimes seem almost hysterical. They will often find some example of "change" and then proclaim it to be evolution in action. The change they see is natural selection within genetic limits, not large-scale change into another creature altogether. Here, let a microbiologist explain.
Photo by Scott Bauer/USDA
The headline read, “Instant Evolution in Whiteflies: Just Add Bacteria.”[1] Any time I see the words instant, speedy, or sudden together with evolution, I’m intrigued. Evolution, as the term is commonly used, denotes an unobservable process that occurred in the past over eons of time resulting in the change of one kind of organism into a completely different kind of organism. According to evolutionary ideas, changes in organisms aren’t supposed to happen rapidly, hence the need to modify the word evolution with an adjective such as “instant” when a change does occur quickly.
The whitefly under investigation was Bemisia tabaci or the sweet potato whitefly. It poses an agricultural threat by essentially sucking nutrients from the leaves of the plant and leaving large amounts of honeydew which can lead to mold growth. The insect, like many, harbors a bacterial symbiont—in this case Rickettsia sp. nr. bellii—which provides reproductive benefits to the whitefly.
You can read the rest of "Instant Evolution" here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Paddlefish, Zooplankton and Electroreceptors

If people were taught critical thinking instead of simply accepting what "science" tells them because it came from "science", there would be less credulity when it comes to evolutionary pronouncements. "It evolved this capability" could be met with, "How?" People do not seem to realize that the abilities that organisms have are complex, and everything must be in place at the same time. Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 all need to be fully functional, and there is no need to evolve Item 1 by itself. The more specialized an organism's abilities, the more startling it becomes to us.
Paddlefish, also known as spoonbill catfish, are cartilaginous fish that inhabit freshwater lakes. They only like to feed on plankton, a category of aquatic food that includes tiny crustaceans like brine shrimp and water fleas. Paddlefish hunt using sensors on their paddle, or nose, that guide them right to their small prey. Biologists from Ohio University recently discovered why this system works so well. 
Special cells called electroreceptors are embedded within tiny pockets distributed along the skin surface of the paddlefish's long nose. These receptors, which detect weak electric currents, would be useless unless they could send their signals to the brain for processing—which they do via other neurons. The researchers determined the range of electric intensity over which the paddlefish's system was most effective.
Swim over and read the rest of "Paddlefish Are Tuned to Eat Only Plankton", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Rapid Evolution is Fishy

Evolutionists chant their mantras, including, "Gradual change over long periods of time". Natural selection is credited with not only having the ability to do the selecting for gradual change, but the power to bring about entirely new creatures. The orthodox evolutionist will often dream up explanations (and terms) that defy rational thought, but still cling to their faith. It would be helpful to everyone if they would just listen to themselves, and also follow where the evidence leads.
How do species change? According to Darwinists, physical differences result from the accumulation of small changes over many generations. But observations—like a recent report of steelhead salmon that changed in one generation—show that dramatic trait changes happen fast. What does that mean for the evolutionary concept of the way species develop?
While observing the migrating salmon population that inhabits Oregon's Hood River, an Oregon-based team of researchers built detailed family trees of multiple fish generations. They used genetic fingerprinting to discover that after just one generation, fish that had been transported to hatchery ponds produced more offspring than their wild counterparts. However, the pond-bred fish didn't fare very well when they were placed back in the wild.
To read the rest of "Researchers See Fish Adapt in One Generation", you can flounder on over here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, March 26, 2012

Lack of Evidence for Evolution is Fishy

NOAA
The faith of the evolutionist is amazing. This faith is based on their uniformitarian materialistic worldview, so it is difficult to show them that their presuppositions and, therefore, their explanations are faulty.
Since many people have blind faith in scientism ("Maybe someday scientists will find an answer for our questions, but they're scientists, so they must be right"), it is difficult to get them to use their God-given thinking parts. They should be asking questions instead. Where is the evidence of this alleged evolution — really?

It seem to me that common sense should be an enemy of evolutionism. When we are told that something evolved an amazingly unique capability, we should not have to suspend our disbelief so we can accept "what scientists say".

Here is an example:

An international team of biologists recently reported on the supposed evolution of sound production in perch-like fishes. Researchers know that some fish cause their swimbladders to vibrate by using unique superfast muscles that produce, for example, courtship calls. How did these special muscles originate?
In a study appearing in the November 29, 2011, issue of the journal Frontiers in Zoology, researchers from Virginia Commonwealth University, the National Sun Yat-sen University in Taiwan, and the Université de Liège in Belgium compared supposed minor structural changes in the fish to the unobserved (but assumed) macroevolution—one kind changing into another kind—of whales from terrestrial animals and birds from reptiles.
To finish reading "Fish Sound-Making Muscles Show No Evolution", click here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, March 23, 2012

K-T Boundary and Dinosaur Extinction?

Here is a creationist discussion about dinosaur extinction. Did the K-T Boundary spell the end of the dinosaurs? What about that meteorite impact that some scientists believe caused their extinction? Perhaps it had something to do with the Global Flood.
Reuters has reported that a panel of 41 scientists, presumably in lab coats and hailing from Europe, the United States, Mexico, Canada and Japan, have finally identified the smoking gun behind the extinction of the dinosaurs. Sorting through 20 years worth of research, the panel decreed that a giant asteroid 9 miles wide pounding into the Earth at  Chicxulubi is the only – I repeat – “only plausible explanation” for the extinction of the dinosaurs. Glad that’s settled.
Well, pretty much. And only if you ignore the other theories that have been proposed over the years: that the dinosaurs died because it was too dry, too cold, too hot, too wet. That flowering plants didn’t provide adequate nutrition for the dinosaurs or just didn’t set too well with them. Or pesky poisonous bugs [insects or germs, your pick] got them. Or somebody [or something] poisoned the water hole. Or the meat-eaters ate all of the plant eaters. And then presumably each other. And on and on and on. A change in the Earth’s magnetic field [gravity OFF! oops] or axial tilt. Cosmic rays from a “nearby” supernova. A variant on the red tide phenomenon. Parasites, genetic disorders and mammals eating all of the dino eggs [greedy little varmints!]. The list is endless!
You can finish reading "New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction: Killed by a Meteor & It’s Officially Official [This Time]", here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Possible Marking for the Global Flood — Part 2

Continuing Dr. Oard's investigation of the Global Flood explanation of the K-T Boundary.
Three further evidences commonly presented for the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary being the location of the Flood/post-Flood boundary are: (1) the Tertiary cooling trend, (2) Tertiary mammals of the western United States, and (3) Tertiary bird and mammal tracks and the Devils corkscrews. However, a close analysis of these suggests that they raise more questions than they answer, supporting the idea that the end of the Flood corresponds to the Late Cenozoic.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, March 19, 2012

Possible Marking for the Global Flood — Part 1

From "Ark Encounter"
The K-T boundary is a thin layer in the geologic column marking the transition from the Cretaceous system of rocks to the Paleogene system. The Cretaceous was the last  period of the Mesozoic era, and is traditionally abbreviated as "K". The Paleogene is the first period of the Cenozoic era, and the deprecated term tertiary ("T") refers to the the combination of the Paleogene and Neogene periods. The popular view is that this boundary was caused by the impact of a large asteroid 65.5 ± 0.3 million years ago, which also led to the extinction of the dinosaurs, although a number of mainstream geologists have questioned both points. [1]
Biblical creation scientists do what other scientists do: Propose ideas and models, then see if the evidence supports them. One proposal is to determine if the "K/T boundary" could have been deposited during the Global Flood of Noah's time.
Like many other forensic uncertainties, the location of the Flood/post-Flood boundary should be subject to the principle of multiple working hypotheses. There is no doubt that it is an important question and stratigraphic locations abound. One of the most popular locations is the K/T boundary. Evidence has been presented to support that choice, one of which is a change from worldwide/continental to local/regional sedimentation. However, a close analysis of this evidence suggests that it raises more questions than it answers, supporting the idea that the end of the Flood corresponds to the Late Cenozoic.
Read the rest of "Is the K/T the Post-Flood boundary? — part 1: introduction and the scale of sedimentary rocks", here.


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, March 16, 2012

The Darwinian Basis for Communism

“This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.”
— Karl Marx, in a letter to Friedrich Engels about Darwin's book
Although evolutionists attempt to deny history, evolutionary views have been essential for all sorts of evils when applied to people. Since evolution gives a pseudo-intellectual rationale for a materialistic disbelief in the Creator, atheist communist power-lovers applied Darwinism to communism.
Although evolutionists attempt to deny history, evolutionary views ("survival of the fittest", "nature red in tooth and claw", "natural selection") have been essential for all sorts of evils when applied to people. After all, using "science" seen in nature, it is natural to apply it to humans, yes? Darwinism has been at the root of "Social Darwinism", the Nazi legal system, eugenics, abortion and other horrors.

Since evolution gives a pseudo-intellectual rationale for a materialistic disbelief in the Creator, atheist communist power-lovers applied Darwinism to communism.

Summary: A review of the writings of the founders of communism shows that the theory of evolution, especially as taught by Darwin, was critically important in the development of modern communism. Many of the central architects of communism, including Stalin, Lenin, Marx and Engels, accepted the worldview portrayed in the book of Genesis until they were introduced to Darwin and other contemporary thinkers, which ultimately resulted in their abandoning that worldview. Furthermore, Darwinism was critically important in their conversion to communism and to a worldview that led them to a philosophy based on atheism. In addition, the communist core idea that violent revolution, in which the strong overthrow the weak, was a natural, inevitable part of the unfolding of history from Darwinistic concepts and conclusions.
Discover the hard truth about "The Darwinian foundation of communism" here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Eugenie Scott, Liar for Darwin

Documentation has been presented here on bad science, misconduct, silly mistakes that should not happen if care had been exercised, untruthful textbooks, fraud — and outright lies. It appears that "science" (that is, the evolutionary belief system about the past being equivocated with empirical science) needs to be protected. In that case, evolutionism does need to be defended, because it is not true science. You can listen to her humiliate herself here. Are they afraid that the truth will come out? (Just earlier this evening, I had an atheist evolutionist lie to me, ridicule both me and creation science, adhere to his fundamentalist orthodox evolutionary religion and use horrible logic to protect evolutionism.) Dr. Eugenie Scott has been on a relentless crusade to keep Intelligent Design and creation science out of education. It appears that her ethics are severely lacking.
In listening to this podcast, it really struck me how proponents of evolution must lie in order to defend their religion – the religion of naturalism. You would think that the refutation of naturalism by the Big Bang cosmology would cause these naturalists to abandon the religion of naturalism, and be open to the reality of non-material intelligent causation. But it’s not the case.

Naturalists must necessarily oppose the progress of science. They oppose the Big Bang cosmology. They oppose the cosmic fine-tuning. They oppose origin of life research. They oppose the fossils found in the Cambrian explosion. They oppose findings showing the high requirements for habitable galaxies, solar systems and planets. 
Hear the podcast, see the video, read all of "Is Eugenie Scott right? Are there no peer-reviewed papers supporting ID?" here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, March 12, 2012

More Monkey Business in Science

Somehow, the public has an image of scientists that are clever, dispassionate about facts, realistic about evidence and are above reproach. In last week's articles, we saw that they are indeed human, being prone to having ulterior motives and making mistakes [12]. Here is some more information on scientific misconduct.
Several recent articles by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) focused on the problem of unpublished clinical research trial data. University of Oxford's Richard Lehman and journal editor Elizabeth Loder wrote of "a current culture of haphazard publication and incomplete data disclosure [that] make the proper analysis of the harms and benefits of common interventions almost impossible for systematic reviewers." 
Here's a sampling of recent issues that illustrate the problem:
You can see the sampling and read "Is Scientific Misconduct on the Rise?" in its context, here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, March 9, 2012

Evolutionist Propaganda Increases

Once again, I feel compelled to say this: If creation science and/or Intelligent Design did not have viable interpretations of the facts, then evolutionary theories would be able to put the competition away forever. But instead, "science" must be protected (such as banning the teaching of creation in British schools). Perhaps evolutionists know that their system is intellectually and morally bankrupt, and have to keep the competition away?

And then Dawkins gloats about educational censorship.
Richard Dawkins and the British Humanist Association (BHA) are celebrating this week. Following the launch of their ‘Teach Evolution, not Creationism‘ campaign in September last year, the UK’s Department of Education has revised the regulations relating to teaching about origins in government funded schools. Those ‘free schools’ that teach creation or intelligent design (ID) in science lessons will, from now on, have their financial support withdrawn.
Despite the media furore, however, this comes as no surprise (see Timeline below). Shortly before becoming the UK’s Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove made the following statement on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show:
“Well, to my mind, you cannot have a school which teaches creationism. And one thing that we will make absolutely clear is that you cannot have schools which are set up which teach people things which are clearly at variance with what we know to be scientific fact.”
What is particularly sad about these kinds of statements is that what is understood to be ‘scientific fact’ is, in fact, nothing more than thinly disguised philosophical naturalism (aka atheism).
You can read the rest of "Dawkins gloats over boost to evolutionary dogma in schools" here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Retractions in Science

To continue with our bad science education focus, today's article will discuss how the number of retractions has escalated dramatically. As I said before, people want the grants and prestige with being the one to discover or make up a new theory, so they rush their work to market. This results in some retractions. But even so, bad "science" is still in the textbooks.
The number of retracted scientific papers has skyrocketed in the last decade. In 2010, two science editors started Retraction Watch, a blog dedicated to tracking science paper retractions. So far, the site has tracked about 200 papers.
Retractions can occur for different reasons. About 73 percent of retracted papers in 2010 had errors, either in the research methods used or in the writing, and about 27 percent contained fraud, according to a recent presentation on the blog.
But just because a retraction occurs doesn't mean that the flawed report goes away. Nature reported that 235 papers retracted between 1966 and 1996 were cited in 2,000 later studies, and only 8 percent of those acknowledged the retractions.
To read the rest of "More Transparency Needed in Science Textbooks, Museums", click here.


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, March 5, 2012

And I Trust Evolutionists Because...?

It seems that from the beginning of popular evolutionary theory, there has been a great desire to be the "next big thing". Darwin hurried to get his book published after he learned that Alfred Russell Wallace had a very similar idea. "Science" has subjected the public to Nebraska Man (built from the tooth of an extinct pig), Piltdown Man (a fake that fooled the scientific establishment for decades) and many other spurious, suspicious, fraudulent "finds" in a relentless quest for self-promotion to be the next "discoverer" of nonexistent evolutionary proof.

Since evolution is not observational science, but rather, a theory about past events using scientific methods ("historical science"); it is not testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable, verifiable and so on. But evolution is well funded, and people want that government grant money. (What happened to the alleged separation of church and state? Evolution is based on faith more than on science.) People also want to be heroes, and to spread what they consider the "truth" of evolution — sometimes at all costs.

Hasty conclusions based on insufficient evidence, as well as dishonesty. Do "science" and "truth" need so much help?
"To err is human," according to the 18th-century English poet Alexander Pope.
Human error is not uncommon, even in the area of scientific investigations. But the number of scientific papers that are published and later retracted has increased exponentially within just the past decade.
A retraction, according to a recent news feature in the journal Nature, is "science's ultimate post-publication punishment…the official declaration that a paper is so flawed that it must be withdrawn from the literature."
"In the early 2000s, only about 30 retraction notices appeared annually. This year, the Web of Science is on track to index more than 400…even though the total number of papers published has risen by only 44% over the past decade," according to the report.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, March 2, 2012

Textbook Propaganda



Any skilled revolutionary knows that one of the best ways to maintain power is to control the propaganda. For long-term power, control the education of children. "Scientific atheism", anti-religious propaganda and so on were standard operating procedure in the Soviet Union. Whether the old USSR or modern scientism, evolutionary propaganda is so blatant, it is downright arrogant. Misinformation, outdated material, bad science, cherry-picked "facts" — and any evidence contrary to evolutionism is strongly resisted. What chance does a student have to be able to think rationally and weigh the evidence if only pro-evolutionary propaganda is presented?
A friend recently showed me a copy of his teenage son’s new science text book. He’s studying in a government high school in Queensland, Australia, and there’s a whole unit on evolution
It made my blood boil.
Kids have great text books these days—colourful, attractive, well laid out, and interesting. But the treatment of evolution by this text was ill-informed, erroneous, one-sided, bigoted and doctrinaire. 

But they are just following the state syllabus. The book is called Science Focus 4 and was written for the science syllabus, stages 4 and 5 in the adjoining state of New South Wales. 

The evolution unit tells the students in plain and simple language that they have evolved ‘From bacteria to humans’. It reinforces its message with images that powerfully influence even those kids who don’t read. The pictures also bypass the critical faculties of those who do read.
Do read the rest of "They are teaching lies to our kids" here.

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels