You can read the rest of "Colourblind squid camouflage inspires Navy research", 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
You can read the rest of "Colourblind squid camouflage inspires Navy research", here.
|Again, erroneously equivocating "evolution" with "science", plus denigrating "creation" as "mythology".|
Amazing. "Reality" is defined as naturalism. This makes atheism convenient for him because of his definition. He is also requiring "reality" to strictly adhere to what he is insisting to be "natural". By defining "reality" his own way, he is effectively creating his own reality to suit his atheistic worldview! That is not the sign of a healthy mind.
You can finish reading by clicking on "Roach Bait Story Highlights Abuse of Word 'Evolution'".
Should medical educators clutter the busy course schedule that medical students must master with additional instruction in evolution? The clamor to do so is not new. While many physicians surely believe in evolutionary claims, most don’t find that those beliefs enhance their day-to-day ability to care for sick people in any practical sort of way. Recently there has been some media attention directed to those who crusade to make medical students learn not only how everything in the human body works but also the evolutionary history of how each human innovation evolved through the ages. Will teaching medical students more evolutionary beliefs, if it ever catches on, produce better physicians?You do not need an appointment to finish reading "Do Medical Schools Need To Teach More Evolution?"
Evolution is not emphasized in most medical schools. Medical educators have a great deal to teach to budding physicians in a short time. (The time spent in actual instruction upon entering medical school is a bit of a shock to many students fresh from their college undergraduate programs.) Therefore, in the packed curricula of medical schools, the most expendable item is evolution.
You can read the rest of "The Evolution of Penguins", here.
|Tibetan Plateau - Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC|
Tall erosional remnants indicate rapid, continent-wide erosion, which is consistent with the Retreating Stage of the Flood. While the floodwaters were retreating and eroding the continents, resistant rocks were transported long distances, as has been documented for the United States. A similar pattern of coarse gravel transport is evident in the mountains of south-central Asia. These areas are south of the Himalayas, north of the Tibetan Plateau, all around the Tian Shan Mountains, southwest of the Zagros Mountains, and east of the Tibetan Plateau on the west edge of the Sichuan basin. The character of the coarse gravel shed from the rising south-central Asian mountains is best interpreted within the Retreating Stage of the Flood, which also implies that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is in the very ‘late Cenozoic’ in this area, assuming the uniformitarian timescale.
During the Retreating Stage of the Flood, continents and mountains rose above the floodwaters while the ocean basins and valleys sank, causing the waters to flow off the continents (Psalm 104:6–9). During the Retreating Stage, the runoff first caused sheet erosion as the continents rose, which transformed progressively, starting at higher altitudes first, into channelized flow. The channels were probably relatively wide at first (c. 75 km wide), and by the end of the Flood they were relatively narrow (c. 2 km wide). There is abundant geomorphological evidence for this runoff event, which occurred between Day 150 and 371 of the Flood, but the evidence is very difficult for uniformitarian scientists to explain.
Mounting evidence is increasingly portraying the Retreating Stage of the Flood as a period of continental erosion, so most of the sedimentary rocks left behind were likely deposited during the early part of the Flood, before Day 150.To finish reading, rock on over to "Retreating Stage formation of gravel sheets in south-central Asia".
|Count the fallacies!|
Also, Twitter "Tweets" are public. They said so.
I fully believe that you would do well to read the rest of "Is Science Secular?"
What's so fascinating about dinosaur tracks? Maybe it's because their many mysteries beg for solutions. For instance, because tracks in mud are so short-lived today, how did dinosaur tracks ever preserve in the first place? Newly described prints bolster biblical creation's explanation of dinosaur footprints.
Researchers working in China's Sichuan Province recently reported their discovery in the Chinese Science Bulletin. Their article documents several different types of dinosaur trackways, including two theropods (bipedal “lizard-hipped”), one sauropod (long-neck), and four ornithopods (duck-billed) all traveling in the same direction at about the same time.You can wade over and finish reading, "Dinosaurs Swimming out of Necessity".
| Gale Crater on Mars|
NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona (slightly modified)
Evidence disputes Mars water, let alone life. It’s looking like a toxic place. Besides, where would the water come from?
The big mound in Gale Crater, site of the Mars Curiosity Rover, looked like a tantalizing place to look for habitability. Mt. Sharp, as it is called, appeared to be a mountain laid down by water. Now, however, it looks more likely it was built by wind. Astrobiology Magazine shared the bad news from Princeton: “If correct, the research could dilute expectations that the mound holds evidence of a large body of water, which would have important implications for understanding Mars’ past habitability.”
Where would the water have come from, anyway? Live Science proclaimed that Mars and the core of Jupiter formed from “large space crashes.” The energy of impacts would seem to obliterate volatile compounds (including water). That’s why cosmogonists try to find other sources for Earth’s oceans, assuming it crashed into existence similarly. The highly speculative theory proposed by U of Chicago scientists, given credence in the article, relies on numerous improbabilities, among them: (1) dust particles sticking together to make planetestimals, (2) sufficient numbers of planetesimals colliding and accreting together instead of breaking up into fine particles, and (3) sufficient time before all the planet-forming ingredients are expelled from the system.You can read the rest of "Trouble for Mars Lifers", here.
"Dr. Duncan, I forbid you from letting any student pass your class if they still believe in their imaginary friends by the end of the semester. If you don’t make every student in there an atheist by the time they graduate, then you, sir, have failed as an educator!"— Dr. Robert Farris, The Deception by Steven J. Wright, p. 68
I know that you are passionate about this, but take some pleasure in knowing that the trash projected by people like Tas Walker does not have any impact on the work or thinking of working scientists, the only people whose opinions matter on issues of science.Look at the loaded terminology and ridicule. This guy is a scientist? They are supposed to use logic, you know. Such fallacies and arrogance! I couldn't let that go:
Thanks for including me in your reply to all. I can use your illogical, myopic and bigoted remarks in a Weblog.To re-use one of my favorite quotes from Mark Levin, "That's right, I said it!" He replied:
Do I care?Take note that I did not ask for this correspondence (he sent it to me and to five other people), and I did tell him that it was going to be put on a Weblog. He persisted.
Obviously not. Just another bigot in action. Noted.He could not let my remark go, and came back with:
Actually, just another scientist with enough knowledge to see that creationism is nonsense and that its proponents are dishonest. But hey, that's just me and the vast majority of scientists around the world.Is this guy for real? He's appealing to his own authority and using sweeping generalizations as well as defaming thousands of people. It's a shame that people like this are "educating" people. I called him on some of it, not having the time or desire to go into an analysis of his logical fallacies:
Might makes right, huh, Skippy? Majority rules? Everyone believed in phlogiston at one time. Your false religion of evolutionism is the modern phlogiston theory. Trot on.(If you want to know about phlogiston, click here.)
Science moves forward on the consensus of the experts in a particular field. Creationists do not operate in that environment. They never take their arguments to the scientific community. Therefore, creationist thinking can never impact science, Skippy.He reminds me of Norman the Paranoid Troll. I named him "Norman". His response was to show his brilliance by calling me "Norman" right back. Now this "scientist" is showing the same lack of imagination by calling me "Skippy" in return.
Ummm...Young Earth creationism has not been "disproved", except in the presuppositions of evolutionists using circular reasoning, as has been demonstrated here many times. And the biblical "notions" have not been disproved, sorry. This guy is full of assertions. I see where Darwin's Cheerleaders get this stuff. He wasn't done:By the way, phogiston theory was disproved by the methods of modern science over 250 years ago, in much the same way that Young Earth Creationism was disproved. So, although you are right that old scientific ideas are sometimes replaced by new ideas on the power of the evidence, science always moves forward. Never backward. So you should not hold out hope of resurrecting your long-ago disproven biblical notions within the scientific arena. Ain’t neva gonna happen, Skippy.
One more thing, Bob. If you ever decide you want to start engaging the evidence honestly and learn some actual science from an actual scientist, I’d be happy to help. Until then, I wish you the best of luck dealing with your cognitive dissonance.Now we're on a first-name basis? Not only does this misotheist impugn thousands of creationist scientists and millions of Christians, he appeals to his own authority (and ego) by offering to edjamakate me, since he is an "actual scientist" by virtue of being an evolutionist.
Being a scientist is a noble profession, but it has its darker side. From fierce competition to plagiarism to outright scientific fraud, scientists are far from immune to the sordid.
A panel of experts discussed the slimy side of science at an event held here on April 30 at the New York Academy of Sciences and moderated by "Scientific American" Editor-in-Chief Mariette DiChristina.
Dr. Morton Meyers, professor and emeritus chairman of the department of radiology at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Stony Brook, recounted historical conflicts over the Nobel Prize; Harold "Skip" Garner, a professor at Virginia Bioinformatics Institute at Virginia Tech, described wholesale plagiarism in scientific literature; and Dr. Ivan Oransky, executive editor of Reuters Health, delved into the slippery world of retracted studies.You can read the rest of "Dark and Dirty: The Cutthroat Side of Science", here.
|Image credit: NOAA|
An alarming headline on Science News reads, "Ice-Free Arctic May Be in Our Future, International Researchers Say". This report provides a classic example of how researchers’ flawed understanding of earth’s geological history leads them to to seriously wrong conclusions. Their conclusions actually fly in the face of the evidence they report, and in this case it could cause unnecessary panic about a situation that will not happen.You can chill while you finish reading "'Ice-free Arctic' wrong conclusion based on flawed geological history". Edit: Note the comments, where a rabid evolutionists wants to score cheap points by quibbling over a minor wording variance that does not change the validity of the article.
With their ‘boxy’ shape and rigid bony carapace that covers most of their body, boxfish look somewhat awkward compared to most other fish. As Science journal commented recently, ‘One look at the aptly named boxfish, and you might expect it to swim as well as a barn would fly.’
You really should read the rest of this short article, "How Does a Box Swim?"
In reality, boxfish are able to swim extremely smoothly. This is even more remarkable considering where they live—reefs washed by highly turbulent and unpredictable waters. But even when continually buffeted by swirling currents, boxfish make only the slightest of deviations from their straight swimming paths, as they correct for unseen eddies and turbulence.
“To believe in creation, you have to believe in a God. But what evidence is there for God anyway? And if you were to find that evidence, how would you know which God was the correct one? Doesn’t Hinduism have millions of gods? Maybe one of them is the real god, and he or she created everything instead of the Judeo-Christian God. Or what if it is the Christian God? How would you know which of the thousands of denominations is the correct one to follow? I might add that many ancient cultures and religions have similar myths on origins. It goes to show that folklores get passed down and shared from culture to culture, but there is no scientific evidence to support them. That’s why they are called myths.
“Class, I’m not here to debate God. I have my own beliefs, but this is a science class, and we only study the natural things—the things that can be tested and proven with experiments. Let me go over some of the evidences we have of evolution that clearly disprove creationism. The Bible states that the sun, moon, and stars were created after the earth. But the Big Bang Theory shows strong evidence that the sun, moon, and stars were created before the earth. Here is another one: The Bible says birds were created before the reptiles, but our fossil record shows that reptiles came first, and the birds evolved from them. In fact, that is what happened to the dinosaurs: through natural selection and mutations, they evolved into birds. Those little flying critters in your back yard are actually the ancestors of giant dinosaurs that roamed the earth sixty-five million years ago!
“The fossil record we have is clear evidence that life has evolved from simple organisms to more advanced life forms. You can’t argue with the bones!” Some of the students laughed. “This brings me to my next point. Has everyone heard the story of Noah’s Flood?” Many nodded in agreement. “Well, for those who haven’t, it is also recorded in Genesis. Simply put, the story is about a man named Noah. God told Noah He was going to destroy the entire world, and He wanted Noah to build a big boat to put the animals on so they would be saved from a global flood. There are so many problems with that story, but just like the creation myth, Christians believe in it despite the absurdity. For example, where did Noah get the wood for the ark? Didn’t he build it in the Middle East? There aren’t too many trees over there, you know; it’s mostly desert. And how could he fit all the animals on the ark? There are millions of species in existence, and no boat could ever be big enough to hold them all and still survive a flood. The story of Noah’s ark just doesn’t hold water.
“Did you know there are over three-hundred other flood legends from cultures all across the globe? Who is to say the legend recorded in the Bible is the right one? Isn’t that kind of arrogant? What if one of the other flood legends were the real one and the Bible copied from it? Some historians say the Bible copied things from other religions. Back then, it was a common practice to borrow ideas and customs from neighboring cultures. It was a battle of the gods, I guess you could say. Besides, there is no evidence of a worldwide flood anyway. In the Bible, it was just a story about God not liking how people were acting, so He destroyed them.
“Class, when you base your beliefs on some book supposedly written thousands of years ago, you have to sacrifice logic and reason for it to make sense; otherwise the entire basis for your faith is called into question. Why not choose science? It will never contradict itself!”
— Jeff Duncan, in The Deception, pp. 119-121
If evolutionists and reporters stuck to the essence of neo-Darwinism, many of their claims would never reach the press.
Darwin attempted to describe a natural mechanism (natural selection) that would generate the entire tree of life, with all its diversity. Neo-Darwinism identifies the source of variation as mutations. The essence of Darwinian theory is that the process is unguided, with no goals or purposes. Many evolutionists and their press agents seem to forget this.You can read the examples of false attribution and other flaws at "Evolutionists Don't Understand Their Own Theory".