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

Willingly Deceived by Evolution

Evolutionists and atheists refer to someone who presents evidence contrary to evolutionary dogma as a "liar". That is not an attitude conducive to science! Mockery and accusations of "liar" simply because you disagree with someone's interpretation of the evidence are attempts to stifle speech. (Perhaps they unable to understand the science contained in the articles linked here?) A discussion on the emotional accusation of "liar" and its ramifications can be found here.

I was listening to a podcast by "Evidence4Faith". They summarized something that I've known for years: The "missing links" are hoaxes and mistakes, and "real" missing links are still missing. If you want to hear it, look for the August 15, 2010 podcast. The best stuff begins about halfway in.

People believe in evolution because they want to, not because valid scientific evidence compels acceptance of that conclusion. Funny how evolutionists fawn all over Papa Darwin and claim he was a "great scientist", whose training was in theology. He gave them false scientific validity to "support" their disbelief in God. After all, if there is no God, there are no ultimate rules and we can do whatever we want without penalty (unless we get caught).
"Gosh, Cowboy Bob, are my textbooks wrong?"

Yup. So are many Websites, because the correct information you're about to read shows up in come places as current, accurate and factual. For instance, look at this foolishness.

Take Lucy for example. Please. This critter was touted as one of your evolutionary ancestors. Truth is, knuckle-walking Loocy has been 'splained as being closely related to a bonobo ("pygmy chimp"). And the skeleton is worthless, since it contains a baboon bone. Lucy's status as a transitional form is sketchy at best.

Another interesting item that they brought up is Java Man. This bad boy was manufactured in 1891. Assorted bone fragments were found over a relatively large area, and not at the same time. It is not taken seriously as a transitional form.

Everybody loved Piltdown Man. The missing link  that they were yearning for. It was manufactured in 1912. Fake, but fooled evolutionists for forty years! (It didn't help that the bones were kept from public view, and people could only examine plaster casts.) Why do you think they were fooled? Because they wanted to believe, that's why! Please pay attention, 007. If you believe something hard enough, your wish will magically come true. Trouble is, magic wishes are not science.

Peking Man. Another letdown. He was built in 1927. Later, it was discovered that the cave in which they found this dude also contained the bones of modern men. So, that's disqualified. Doubly so, because the bones mysteriously vanished in 1941.

The subject of so many movies is Neanderthal Man, the stereotypical "cave man". It's fame ran from 1856-1957. Then, it was reclassified as subgroup of humans (even though "science" did not get the word out very well, many still believe that this guy is an ancestor). Since there were several of them in the area that they were found, there is some speculation that it was a small clan of people with rickets and arthritis. Ancient senior citizens' community? Neanderthal was just another human.

Ramapithecus was invented in 1934. How desperately do people want to believe in evolution to be fooled by the bones of an orangutan? Spare me.

Most of the "cavemen" have been reclassified as fully human or fully ape; nothing of a transitional nature.

I'll dispense with some of the other follies of the fake evolutionary parade

Well, I should include Nebraska Man. 
Did he play for the Cornhuskers? Nope. Another serious mistake, because not only was "Nebraska Man" built entirely from a single tooth, the tooth belonged to that of an extinct pig. Evolutionists make excuses about this major blunder, that it was made out of complex circumstances. But shouldn't "science" be above such things? Well, not when promoting something they "know" is right at all costs.

Western Flores image credit: NASA Earth Satellite
Although they didn't find Bagginses, disputed diminutive human remains were discovered on Flores in Indonesia and nicknamed "hobbits". There's a passel of discussion and argument about them, and fundamentalist evolutionists are trying to shove them sideways into the human lineage. Not working. See "Hobbit: New news is good news", "More Hobbit Bones Found", "Hobbits of Flores Were an Archaic Human Variety, Studies Suggest", and the half-hour video, "Hobbit Wars: The evolution of an ape man".

Consider this: Complete skulls and skeletons are rare (which leads to the fiascos listed above). The images that you see in most illustrations, charts, etc. are the product of speculation and imagination, not fact.

Remember, evolution is belief masquerading as science. True science will go where the evidence leads, not try to force or fake evidence to make their beliefs come true. Evolution's devotees regurgitate the propaganda and say that yes, evolution follows the scientific method; it can be tested, falsified, repeated, measured, observed... are you kidding me? People who believe everything came from nothing are afraid to have their evolutionist faith challenged by facts, including those briefly presented in this overview. I challenge you to actually examine evidence presented by creation science. You can start right here on this site!

A nine-minute video on errors and frauds in evolution to help you get started:

And another video to further your education:

Here is a much more technical piece for your perusal. It's from a creationist perspective, so I know that intellectual cowards won't touch it because if they did examine the evidence without an evolutionary presupposition, they just might take away a very different conclusion.

I linked to an excellent series on the frauds of evolution here.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some embryo drawings to fake "Willingly Deceived By Evolution Part 2" is here, with comics, pictures and things.