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

Monday, April 30, 2012

Biogeography is Not Explained by Evolution

stock.xchng/mrpac-man

The varieties of plants and animals around the world are not explained by evolution. To have surprisingly similar plants and animals on different continents prompts evolutionary scientists to create ad hoc "just so stories". The Biblical explanations are far better, despite ignorant proclamations to the contrary.
In March 2010, internationally renowned atheist Richard Dawkins addressed the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne, Australia. He said, “The pattern of geographical distribution [of plants and animals] is just what you would expect if evolution had happened.” He then went on to say that the distribution is “not what you would expect on certain alternative ideas … like if they had all dispersed from Noah’s Ark.”
However, a closer look at the science of biogeography (the study of the distributions of plants and animals) reveals a very different picture to the one Professor Dawkins painted.

Friday, April 27, 2012

Another Excuse for the Faint Young Sun Paradox

NASA
Evolutionary cosmologists insist that the universe is ancient. Unfortunately, there is evidence that does not support their presuppositions. They have to come up with further theories that attempt to explain problems with facts. One of these is the "Faint Young Sun Paradox", where (in their scheme of things) the sun was too cool to adequately heat the Earth when life was supposed to have evolved.
The notion that the earth and cosmos are billions of years old continues to present serious problems for evolutionary scientists. For instance, billions of years ago, the sun would only have glowed faintly, leaving nearby earth totally frozen. But with no liquid water on earth's surface, how could life have evolved and become fossilized so long ago?
This conundrum has been called the "faint young sun paradox," and after 25 years of research, it remains just as problematic as ever. Scientists have tinkered with models of what they thought were atmospheres that might have kept earth warm. But sunlight would have prevented an ammonia-caused greenhouse earth, and earth's oldest rocks show that the atmosphere was not dominated by the mild greenhouse gas carbon dioxide either.
Read "Can Solar 'Belch' Theory Solve Sun Paradox?", here.
 

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Light Travel: Another Problem for the Big Bang

COBE MBR (NASA)
Some evolutionists think that distant starlight is the "smoking gun" that destroys creationism and the Genesis account. (Some make a desperate, illogical leap of faith that this also disproves the existence of God. That is patently absurd.) However much we have learned, we have not learned everything. Theoretical astrophysics and cosmogony are in a constant state of flux as new information comes to light, and theories need to be (or should be) modified or completely abandoned. The cosmic microwave background radiation was praised as strong evidence for the Big Bang. However, the uniformity of the MBR ("horizon") actually creates more problems than it solves.

The ‘distant starlight problem’ is sometimes used as an argument against biblical creation. People who believe in billions of years often claim that light from the most distant galaxies could not possibly reach earth in only 6,000 years. However, the light-travel–time argument cannot be used to reject the Bible in favour of the big bang, with its billions of years. This is because the big bang model also has a light-travel–time problem.
Read the rest of "Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang", here.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

The Universe is Younger than We're Told

Jupiter, with Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto. NASA.


Evolutionary cosmologists postulate an old universe based on their presuppositions. When facts are learned that contradict their belief system, they need to tap dance around them or modify their theories. (Of course, modifying theories to the point that they must discard an ancient universe viewpoint in favor of a young, created universe is unthinkable to them.)
Sun Dancer Puss/podzad, stock.xchng
Their modified viewpoints often create more questions and problems than they solve, such as the imaginary Oort cloud, abode of comets in waiting; there is no evidence that such a thing exists, but it conveniently explains away the fact that short-term comets should have been exhausted long ago.

Other bafflers for cosmologists include methane in the thick atmosphere of Titan, the hypothetical temperature of the sun 3.8 billion years ago and the heat of Jupiter's moon Io.

Biblical creationists do not need tap dancing lessons for their theories.
Accepted theories of evolutionary science say our Earth and our solar system formed about 4.6 billion years ago. On the other hand, the Bible implies Earth is only several thousand years old. Further, Genesis 1 and other passages such as Exodus 20:11 imply that everything in the physical universe was created in the six-day Creation week. Thus, like Earth, the solar system also is only thousands of years in age. Is there scientific evidence that our solar system is not billions of years old? Yes! And this evidence is posing a mystery for scientists who believe in billions of years.
Evolutionary theories propose that our solar system formed from a large spinning nebula in space. 
The nebula is believed to have flattened to a spinning disk of gas, dust, and ice known as the accretion disk. Over millions of years, gravity caused the planets and other objects to form from this disk, and then excess gas and dust dissipated and cleared away, leaving the solar system as we see it.
You can blast off and read the rest of "Our Young Solar System", here.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Lunar Magnetic Field Should Have Dissipated

NASA


Library of Congress
Evolutionary cosmologists insist on accepting only the evidence that, to them, shows the universe to be billions of years old. If contrary evidence does not fit their presuppositions, they attempt to force-fit the data to fit. New models and theories are proposed, which raise more questions for them to dance around with even more theories. Creationists do not have this problem.
The 1969 moon landing was one of the crowning achievements of mankind. And magnetic moon rocks were some of its most mysterious discoveries, showing that they hardened in the presence of a magnetic field.
But if the moon is billions of years old, it should not have had a magnetic field. It is too small to generate its own field. Ever since the moon landing, theorists have been trying to figure out how the moon could have been magnetized.
A recent report published in Nature suggested that perhaps the rotational axis of the moon's core was misaligned with the rotational axis of its mantle. This system, pulled by earth's gravity, could have acted as a "stirrer" and created turbulence inside the moon that might have generated a magnetic field.
You can read the rest of "What Magnetized the Moon?", here.

Monday, April 23, 2012

Problems from Extra-Solar Planets


Extra-Solar planets (or "exoplanets") raise some simple questions for creationists. But the questions they raise for evolutionists are much more complex. For instance, from a cosmic evolutionary presupposition, colorful and interesting suggestions are made that are fanciful indeed. Although the thought of discovering an Earth-like planet somewhere out there is a kind of Holy Grail for evolutionary astronomers, such a discovery would compound the need for rational explanations instead of excuses masquerading as theories.
Many evolutionists have long hoped to find evidence of life in space. They reason that if life evolved on Earth, then it could have evolved elsewhere.
If, as the argument goes, there are countless planets throughout the universe that have formed via natural processes, there must be other Earth-like planets. Many think that finding such a planet outside our solar system would be almost like finding evidence of life in space.
You can read the rest of "Planets Around Other Stars", here.

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Happy Earth Day Birthday, Comrade Lenin



It's no accident that Earth Day is on Lenin's Birthday. It's more than just an observation of caring for the environment, and the biblical view is brushed aside.
USSR souvenier sheet commemorating
Lenin's 100th Birthday
Здра́вствуйте tова́рищ!


Славься, Отечество наше свободное,
Дружбы народов надёжный оплот!
Партия Ленина - сила народная
Нас к торжеству коммунизма ведёт!


Today is the birthday of Ленин — Lenin.

Looks like I went "Russian" into this post. I won't get high "Marx" for it...

More commonly, it is celebrated worldwide as "Earth Day". It is a multifaceted. One one level, it is great to take notice of our environment and make personal choices to keep things clean. It is difficult to image any thinking person who is opposed to such things, and most people seem to be observing it with good intentions.

Earth Day is also observed by pagans [12], and there is other planet-loving wackiness, too [3, 4].

But another level is more insidious. This involves government intrusion, taxation, regulation, political lunacy and more. It is strange that what should be a simple "take care of your planet, please" message is intertwined with extreme leftist politics [5], [6], including the politically-motivated unscientific "global climate change" fraud [7, 8].

Why is that?

People promote Earth Day, and are unaware of its origins. The significance of the date of the first Earth Day (April 22, 1970) is lost on them [9] or simply denied. No, it is not just a coincidence that it is the 100th anniversary of the birth of Lenin. The Communist leaders hated God, Jews and Christians. Karl Marx embraced Darwinism as the natural science version of their political philosophies; evolution gave communism more strength [10].

Those with power and influence who advocate Earth Day should actually be happy to deal with believing Christians and Jews because we have a mandate from the Creator to take care of his creation!  [11]

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Friday, April 20, 2012

Hey, I Thought That Tortoise Was Extinct!

Galapagos Tortoise, stock.xchng/buzzpup
One of the sacred shrines of evolutionism is the Galapagos Islands, where Charles Darwin saw variations and thought that they meant molecules-to-man evolution. What is actually observed, however, are the variations that are not contested; both evolutionists and creationists agree on these. As Ken Ham said about the birds, he saw big finches, little finches, big beaks, little beaks. What do you see today? Big finches, little finches, big beaks, little beaks. Further, the tortoises show expected variations within limits.

What is annoying to evolutionists is when something that is supposed to have been extinct for a long time either shows up again, or discernible traces of the formerly extinct beastie are found.
Observing animals on the Galapagos Islands supposedly helped Charles Darwin come up with his theory of evolution by natural selection. But none of these animals have fulfilled the evolutionary interpretation Darwinists have placed on them, and recent evidence of a supposedly extinct Galapagos tortoise fills the same bill.
Researchers publishing in Current Biology found tell-tale genetic markers among the tortoise population that a purebred saddleback tortoise variety that was long thought extinct is actually alive somewhere on Volcano Wolf Island of the Galapagos Island chain. These creatures had been widely hunted by sailors on passing ships, since "tortoises were handy supplies to keep on board, as they could be stowed in the hull for months—flipped on their backs so they couldn't escape—without receiving food or water." Galapagos tortoises have been protected for many years now.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Sharp Pointy Teeth

Many assumptions are made on the basis of appearance. The critter in the above picture looks like he could rip your hand off and have it for supper.  But this fits into a fruit bat. For that matter, the panda is fond of crunching on bamboo.
Nineteenth-century English poet Alfred Tennyson famously described nature as "red in tooth and claw." But were claws and teeth originally intended to draw blood, or were they used to eat vegetation?
Recently, three U.S. biologists studied the feeding habits of 11 Central and South American leaf-nosed bats and looked for "relationships between diet, tooth structure, feeding performance, and behaviour." Some bats eat insects and small vertebrates, some eat fruit and nectar, others a little bit of everything. Vampire bats, of course, will eat blood.
Read the rest of "Why God Created Large, Sharp Teeth", here.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Dogs and Miracles of Evolution


November 1956, Photo by Jim Rooney
It is fascinating to learn the intricacies of a creature's design. Watching our Basement Cat in stalking, playing or clawing action (clawing me), I remark about the "feline machine". Daniel Schmitt refers to a dog's means of locomotion as "an evolutionary miracle". (Is this an example of "science of the gaps", or a reluctant acknowledgement of a Designer?) It looks like a meaningless phrase is acceptable in evolutionism. But what are some of the special features of the canine clan?
Human feet would quickly freeze if exposed to snow and ice without proper gear, but dogs don't seem to mind the cold. Since the pads of their feet aren't protected by fur like the rest of their bodies, it would seem that they'd be especially susceptible to freezing—but they aren't. Japanese researchers recently discovered why.
Read more about the feet, and a couple of other nuggets about dog engineering features, in "Why Dogs Don't Need Snow Boots", here.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Dogs, Wolves, Foxes and Time


Photo by Jim Thiele / Source: USFDA
Evolution requires huge amounts of time for changes in species to manifest themselves. (This is why young-earth creationism is ridiculed, as is the Genesis flood — they do not allow enough time for goo-to-you evolution to occur.) At least, the story is that given enough time, worthwhile changes happen and new species, even new life forms, will emerge. It is realistic to have faith in such a view. Right?

I have some bad news for you, Sunshine...
From the tiny Chihuahua to the massive mastiff, the over 200 breeds of domesticated dogs come in a wide variety of different body sizes and proportions, hair lengths and textures, and demeanors. Evolution asserts that animals change through a gradual accumulation of mutations. But evidence shows that the wolf-to-dog transition occurred rapidly, according to pre-designed genetic potential and not mutations.
Mark Derr, author of a new book titled How the Dog Became the Dog: From Wolves to Our Best Friends, discussed on National Public Radio's program Fresh Air how human interaction may have domesticated wolves beginning in the Ice Age. Since dogs are smaller than wolves and have more varying proportions, coat colors, and other features, interviewer Dave Davies asked Derr, "So how could this association of wolves with humans lead to these physical changes?"

Monday, April 16, 2012

Not Even the Enzymes

When the average Joe or Jane on the street is presented with evolutionary "truth", they are given the propaganda version: Scientists are all in agreement, it's a proven fact, only religious fanatics disagree with science, lower life forms evolved into more advanced life forms given time, chance and mutations &c. But the evolutionary propagandists leave out the little details such as: Scientists are not all in agreement, mechanisms for "this evolved into that" are guesswork, there are many credentialed experts who do not buy into evolutionism.

No materialistic evolutionist has a clue how life originated.
According to evolutionary theory, chemicals must have somehow organized themselves into cellular life, presumably long ago. And that means that enzymes must have formed themselves, too.
But enzymes are highly engineered miniaturized machines. Even intelligent human scientists armed with the most sophisticated technology cannot reproduce their design and manufacture—so, logically, neither can unintelligent chemicals or the laws that govern them. The title of a recent scientific report asserted that a particular enzyme evolved. The study results, however, clearly demonstrate that this enzyme was purposefully created.
Read the rest of "New Study Shows Enzymes Couldn't Evolve", here.

Friday, April 13, 2012

DNA and Information

Space radiation hitting cell DNA. Photo Credit: NASA
People misrepresent the creationist and ID positions with straw man arguments, ridicule and outright falsehood. When they want to discredit these positions so desperately that their efforts betray their own lack of knowledge and ability to reason, they humiliate themselves.
     Chris C. from Greece writes:
Hello dear sir. I hope this is the right place to ask a scientific question. I’m aware of the information theory and how it is related to DNA and Creator, I have also read many of your articles upon this. 
But I need some more clarifications upon this. I carry the words of a materialist and I would like to have the answer to these specific claims. 
Thank you. 
Here it is:
To find out what it is, you can finish reading "Is information a ‘false metaphor’ for DNA?", here.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Of Caves and Men



With the help of outdated textbooks, errors and frauds in paleontology, evolutionary propaganda and especially the popular media, we are provided with images of cavemen as brutish sub-humans. For that matter, evolutionary presuppositions tell us how "primitive" humans were in the old, old days. (Some of this takes the form of, "They were too stupid to build the pyramids, so space aliens had to help them".) The truth is radically different. Here is a scientific and Biblical view.
As far as stereotypes go, cavemen make easy targets—especially when transplanted into the twenty-first century. Their brutish way of dealing with contemporary situations earns a laugh on commercials and TV shows. They just don’t understand us modern humans, and their misunderstanding strikes humor gold. But when we cut away the laugh track and the bumbling ways, we’re left with something of an enigmatic figure—a being without a settled place in our understanding of history. Perhaps, in fact, it’s our discomfort with not knowing what to do with cavemen that makes us laugh. So, just who were they?
Read the rest of "Who Were Cavemen?", here

Monday, April 9, 2012

Bacteria Resisting Antibiotics — Evolution?

Evolutionists point to bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics as an example of observable evolution. Not really. Mutations and natural selection are not providing the required new functions, but rather, a loss of functions. Molecular biologist Dr. Georgia Purdom explains.
The extraordinary ability of certain bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics—which are otherwise useful in speeding recovery from some illnesses—has been a hot topic on the minds of doctors, hospital staff, reporters, and the general public for several years. It is also heralded as a textbook example of evolution in action. 
These bacteria are being studied by evolutionary scientists with the hope that they will reveal secrets as to how molecules-to-man evolution could have happened. 
But are bacteria really evolving?
Read the rest of "Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria: An Example of Evolution in Action?", here.

Friday, April 6, 2012

Radioactive Dating Myths, Biases and Pigs

All too often, I encounter uninformed orthodox evolutionists who have mistaken ideas about the concept that they are attempting to defend. These included the woefully mistaken notions that there is only one theory of evolution, one Big Bang theory, plenty of fossil evidence, indisputable transitional forms, the Miller-Urey experiment proves that life happened by chance and other errors.

Another set of mistakes that I encounter is based on radioactive dating. Fundamentalist evolutionists refuse to admit that the dating methods are highly biased and unreliable. The flaws and presuppositions of evolutionists are nowhere more apparent than in the dating fiasco of the East African KBS Tuff strata. Disputes had to be settled by pigs.
A popular myth is that radioactive dating methods confirm the geologic time-scale and the concept of human evolution. The methods appear so impressive that many Christians accept them as evidence that the earth is very old. The best way to expose this myth is to study the dating of the East African KBS Tuff strata and the famous fossil KNM-ER 1470.

Richard Leakey, son of famed palaeoanthropologists Louis and Mary Leakey, visited the fossil deposits east of Lake Rudolf (now Lake Turkana) in northern Kenya in 1967. He immediately organized an expedition to search for hominid fossils.
The most important fossil discovered there is KNM-ER 1470. Skull 1470 is modern in appearance, but was originally estimated by Richard Leakey to be about 2.9 million years old.

One early geologist with Richard Leakey at East Rudolf was Kay Behrensmeyer. Seeking to unravel the geology of the area, she discovered a layer of volcanic ash or tuff that became known as the Kay Behrensmeyer Site (the KBS Tuff).
If the KBS Tuff were anywhere else, no one would give it a second thought. At East Rudolf it is of utmost importance. First, although human fossils and artefacts (tools) cannot usually be dated radiometrically, the KBS Tuff can. It contains radioactive potassium 40, which decays to argon 40. Second, artefacts have been found in association with the KBS Tuff. The assumption is that the tuff gives an estimate of the age of the stone tools. Third, hundreds of Homo and australopithecine fossils have been found above and below the KBS Tuff. The date of the tuff thus becomes a maximum age for fossils found above it and a minimum for fossils below it.
If you're tuff enuf, you can read the rest of "The Pigs Took It All", here.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Confusion and Misrepresentation

Here are two examples of people asking questions based on their misunderstanding of creationist positions. (I keep saying, "Do your homework", but they don't listen.) These letters to CMI show how not only are the creationist positions strong, but evolutionists should not be getting their opinions and bad information from sources that are nothing more than pooling of angry ignorance.
A skeptic wrote to a friend of CMI,
“The latest that I hear from AIG and CMI is that they are now invoking total and absolute sci-fi hocus-pocus like White Holes in a downright vain attempt to force creationist cosmology to make some kind of, any kind of sense. To force it to fit into a model of the 6000 year old, 6-day created cosmos.

“The scientific community is laughing at them because they couldn’t even get a basic fact like that even if white holes did exist (and there is nil evidence for them to date) then so time in the universe outside of one would dramatically slow down instead of speed up like the creation scientists are arguing in order to make sense of the fact that we are looking at 13 billion year old galaxies”
CMI’s Dr Don Batten replies:
Followed by another letter to CMI:
I have a skeptic facebook friend who I recommended the creation.com site to, but has a problem with the moon receding article.
He says “As an example, the article about the recession of the moon makes one very basic but fundamental mistake. The moon is accelerating away from the earth, not slowing in its motion away from the earth. This single mistake invalidated the whole article, and doesn’t give me much confidence in the rest of their ‘science’.”
He goes on to say
“Creation.com’s calculations are wrong. They’re based on the idea that the moon was moving away from the earth faster in the past, an idea which geological evidence does not support.”
I’m not sure what to say other than the secular science is based evolutionary timescales, and they are assuming it was slower and only now accelerating to fit billions of years of evolution.
what does creation.com think?
Justin
CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:
Read the responses to these two letters here.

Monday, April 2, 2012

Argon, Helium and a Young Earth


There are several method used in attempting to obtain the age of the Earth. The best know is the  radiometric dating of meteorites. Radiometric dating uses a "parent" element that decays into a "daughter" element. When calculating the age of a rock using, say, the Potassium-Argon method (K-Ar), a number of assumptions must be made: The rate of decay has remained constant, the amount of both parent and daughter elements, nothing was added or removed and so on.

When an age of the Earth is produced that do not meet uniformitarian presuppositions, the results of the test are discarded. Instead of "Follow where the evidence leads", this means, "Make the evidence say what you want". Most of the evidence favors a young Earth, and radiometric dating also yields young ages.

Unlike some scientists, creation researchers are willing to examine the evidence and work with serious questions about their results.
In the final report of ICR’s Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) project, Dr. Russell Humphreys reported that helium diffusion from zircons in borehole GT-2 at Fenton Hill, New Mexico, gave an age for the earth of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This young age agrees with a literal reading of Scripture, but is at variance with the billions of years conventionally held. Gary Loechelt has been a frequent critic of Humphreys’ procedures for calculating the young age by helium diffusion. Humphreys has responded to Loechelt and other critics, demonstrating that their concerns were invalid and successfully defending his findings. 
However, due to Loechelt’s persistent criticisms, Humphreys recently took a deeper look at one of the key papers on which his helium diffusion research was based, and he found some rather odd assumptions about local heating near the borehole. He concluded that some of the assumptions about the heating history of the borehole were made to avoid problems the authors of the paper (Harrison et al) would otherwise have had with the diffusion of argon from the sample. 
Humphreys decided to develop a second, independent method for estimating the age of the earth based on the diffusion of argon from feldspar in the same Fenton Hill borehole. The result was a slightly younger age for the earth than his earlier helium diffusion method.
You can learn more about the calculations of Dr. Humpreys by reading the rest of "Both Argon and Helium Diffusion Rates Indicate a Young Earth", here.      

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Video: Creationist Abandons Creationism, Embraces Evolutionism

Do You Have What It Takes?

So often, when presenting creationist and ID theories and models, we are "refuted" by evolutionists with the following perspicacious gems:
  • Not true
  • Irrelevant
  • Disproved by atheists in a forum
  • Creationists and ID people do not have real scientists
  • Assorted foolish logical fallacies, including, "You're an idiot"
That last one is very special to me because it generally stems from the objective, dispassionate approach of, "The evidence compels me to reach conclusions that do not fit my preconceptions. Besides, I just don't like it".

When I am confronted by someone who does not want to even consider the possibility that what we are presenting is the truth, my feeling is this:



Do you have what it takes to honestly examine evidence that is contrary to evolution?


Labels