Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman

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

Thursday, January 17, 2019

Fuzzy Pterosaur Flusters Evolutionists

Mayhaps it is just my imagination, but it seems that there has been a passel of news about dinosaur feathers in the news lately. Darwinists cannot give evidence for dinosaur-to-bird evolution, nor can they give a plausible hypothesis for the alleged evolution of the feather itself. Now there is a new problem with pterosaur fuzz.


If feathered pterosaurs were found, it would cause several problems for evolutionists.
Credit: Pixabay / Efraimstochter
Since the narrative drives the interpretation of the evidence, and Darwinoids see what they want to see, fuzzy areas in fossils are taken to be "feathers", but that claim is not supported. Naturally, the secular science industry press is all atwitter about these alleged feathers. Several problems arise, including how feathers on pterosaurs would mean that feathers were contemporaneous with dinosaurs and predated birds. What next, will they extrapolate to feathered crocodiles?



Of course, secularists cannot allow themselves to discard their self-refuting notions and cowboy up to the fact that the world is young, or that dinosaurs, pterosaurs, birds, and everything else were produced by the Creator.
Fuzz has been found on a pterosaur. That’s not news. But split ends on some fibers are electrifying the evolutionary imagination.

The media are in a flap about “feathers” on a pterosaur. Here are some of the breathless headlines, built on the assumption “Whatever exists, it evolved.”
To read the rest, fly on over to "Darwinists Imagine Feathered Crocodiles".

QED


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

Wednesday, January 16, 2019

Plankton Puzzles for Evolutionists

Plankton are tiny aquatic things that float along in the oceans, and are the chuck wagon for other creatures to chow down on. Sometimes the microscopic plants called phytoplankton pile up in one area, causing what is called a "bloom", which is a concern because they may take up too much oxygen that other creatures need. (Zooplankton are tiny animals.) There are some things about plankton that defy evolution and affirm creation.


Plankton are far more complex than previously realized, and they have some surprises that affirm creation and defy evolution.
NASA photo by Jesse Allen of bloom in Hood Canal, Washington
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
There is no such thing as a "simple cell" anymore. The more cells are investigated, they are discovered to be amazingly complex. Plankton produce a sulfur compound that adds to the global sulfur cycle. Certain plankta do that complicated food thing called photosynthesis, which is remarkable in itself. Then there are sensors on the cell surfaces so they can move into areas with different salt levels. Here, I'll let you read about these things in this short article: "Not-So-Simple Plankton". The short video below has some interesting information, and they threw in the obligatory unscientific "millions of years" and evolutionary assertion, but that is minimal.


QED


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

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

Spider Dummies and Evolutionary Storytelling

Spiders are actually more intelligent that many people believe, and studies are showing this. If you study on the notion, you can see from the complexities of webs that orb-weaver spiders make, plus the specified complexity of their design to make the webs quickly and accurately. How about spiders that build dummies or decoys?

Two species of spiders on opposite sides of the world build large dummies in their webs.
Credit: Freeimages / Odan Jaeger
Not only do studies of spiders' intelligence and the web-making activities point to the work of their Creator, but two in the genus Cyclosa (in the Araneidae family) on opposite parts of Earth make decoys out of things that happen to be conveniently laying around. ("New species", meaning, "we haven't seen them critters afore now".) Sometimes they make very large decoys, other times the spiders add stuff to the web so they can hide in them. Working web threads to shake the dummies to bother predators is also utilized, probably so trespassers will light a shuck out of there.

Evolutionists have no cogent explanations for decoy-building spiders, creationists have plausible speculations.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Lee Saborio via Angela Saborio (FAL 1.3)
At the time I am writing this post, the pictures on the article linked below are not appearing, but you can see some at this link.

Proponents of scum-to-spider evolution cannot provide an adequate explanation for the intelligence of spiders, their design, and their activities. Two species building dummies? Probably the secular miracle of "convergent evolution", or the equally vacuous non-answer, "It evolved". Creationists have some puzzle pieces to assemble, but their speculations are much more reasonable.
Camouflage is a design feature used by many creatures to protect themselves in this sin-cursed world. Typically, camouflage is used to imitate an environment in order to blend in and hide.

A related form of ‘deception for safety’ is called mimicry, in which a creature impersonates another species. For instance, to lower its chance of being eaten, it might imitate (in appearance, behaviour or both) a very unpalatable or poisonous species that a predator knows to avoid. Some creatures even mimic specific predators that frighten other predators away.

Recently, two independent studies have revealed a creature that mimics itself! And one could say it does so in a ‘big’ way.
To read the rest and get the analysis of evolutionary guesswork, click on "These spiders aren’t dummies (or are they?)"


QED


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

Monday, January 14, 2019

Fossils and — Lip Reading?

The article that is featured below was written with an interesting analogy, that being if fossils could talk, scientists might try to read their lips. What happens is some amazingly bad science where fossils are made to "say" things that are nothing more than deep time and evolutionary assumptions, not science.


If paleontologists could do lip reading on fossils, they would have them "say" things that are the opposite of the truth.
Credit: Pixabay / oTschOo
Have you ever tried to read lips? It can be difficult to get right (such as when my wife tries to silently tell me something and I have to be told outright later). Sometimes even expert lip readers can get it wrong. Other times, people can "translate" with completely wrong information, such as what secular scientists do with fossil propaganda. The world's oldest flower exists, therefore, it evolved. Millipede trackways overturn evolutionary beliefs, but new words can be added to reduce the damage. Starfish ancestor is too far evolved, which should overturn evolution, but instead forces a "rethink". Amazing how far secularists will travel to advance their worldview and deny the Creator.

Read about these fossil lip stories and others by clicking on "Bad Lip Reading with Fossils".


QED


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

Saturday, January 12, 2019

Climate Change and Evolution: Similarities in Bad Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Because the secular science industry is becoming increasingly involved in political and religious matters, Christians and biblical creationists need to address issues that affect all of us. Unfortunately, people involved in secular science are accelerating their opposition toward biblical truth, and are also showing a distinct political bias toward the left. Indeed, sometimes their commitment to their worldview seems downright nutty while they hijack science for their own agendas.


There are striking similarities between global warming hysteria and evolution. Both use fake science, appeals to ridicule, circular reasoning, and more

A spell back, someone shared a link with me that had Mark Levin interviewing Dr. Patrick Michaels, an expert on environmental science who works at the Green Hornet Institute —

"You mean the Director of the Center for Study of Science at the Cato Institute, Cowboy Bob!"

Right, that's the place. During the interview, I was surprised at the number of things that climate science has in common with evolutionary and deep time science speculations:
True believers on both evolution and climate change are often fanatical about their beliefs, rejecting contrary information that interferes with the narrative. For example, misrepresentation is a favorite tactic as well as personal attacks (such as calling me a "bigot" because I reject the biased hysteria from leftists).


Ignoring, twisting, and suppressing relevant scientific data but presenting their views anyway is not science, it is indoctrination, old son.

I'd be much obliged if you would watch the video or read the transcript and see the similarities in alarmist climate change and evolutionism for yourself. Note that the video is only the first part of the interview, and the rest discusses how secular science has become politicized, using global climate change as a fulcrum. To read and watch, click on "Dr. Patrick Michaels on the truth about global warming". Sorry, the video starts immediately.

QED


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

Friday, January 11, 2019

Still More Signs of Saturn's Youth

It is becoming increasingly difficult for secular astronomers and cosmologists to cling to their deep time belief systems. The more scientists search, the more they find that shows that the solar system is far younger than they want to believe, which indicates recent creation. For one thing, scientists are surprised at the existence of water in the inner solar system. Out yonder, things are also unpleasant for their views.

Saturn and other solar system objects persist in frustrating secular astronomers and cosmologists. They show signs of youth (recent creation), not deep time.
Four-moon transit of Saturn. Source: Hubblesite.org
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Not only is the orbit and tilt of Saturn important for Earth, the planet's rings and moons defy old age belief systems. Like biological evolution, cosmic things are "younger than expected". Those nice rings? They cannot be explained, and they cannot be so very old. The many geysers on the moon Enceladus do not fit the old-age paradigm. Then there are those strange stripes on the moon Dione. Space is fascinating, and wonderful for biblical creationists.
More discoveries of youthful phenomena contradict Gustav Holst’s musical tribute to “Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age.”

Recent analyses of Cassini data continue the theme of Saturn’s music, which is more like Peter Pan than Holst. As you interpret the following news stories, keep in mind that the moyboy ages are upper limits. They could be much lower. What surprises planetary scientists is that these phenomena exist at a time when humans can observe them. If they were billions of years old, how could that be?
To read the rest, click on "Saturn, the Bringer of Youth". For a related short article on those clean rings, see "Pristine Saturn problem".


QED


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

Thursday, January 10, 2019

The Strange, Sociable Capybara

Down yonder in South America you can find a very large friendly rodent. Well, not like the Giant Rat of Sumatra or something, because rodent is a large category. The capybara is a rodent related to the guinea pig (which is not from Guinea and not a pig), and it has a bit of a resemblance to pigs.


Capybaras are big and friendly, and have several interesting traits. In addition, they do not show any evolutionary history.
Credit: Unsplash / Karen Lau
Some people use their hides for clothing and even eat them (others are none to fond of serving them up for chow, and I think they're too cute for that). Capybaras are sometimes kept as pets (where legal), but have distinct needs.They are excellent swimmers and are fast on land as well. In an interesting bit of symbiosis, birds ride on capybaras and, in a manner slightly similar to wrasse cleaning, get themselves cleaned by the birds and other critters. There is no evidence of capybara evolution, but are represented by the created kinds of Genesis.
It’s an animal to which many other creatures (and not just its predators) are attracted. Whether it’s in the water, or out of it eating grass—or even just lazing around—they want to be on its back, at its side, or close by it.

What is it? It’s the world’s biggest rodent, the capybara, which can weigh up to 66 kg (145 pounds).

Europeans first described it as a water hog — because it swam and looked like a pig — hence the scientific name Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris. The common name capybara derives from ka’api√Ľara (‘grass eater’) in the once widely spoken South American Tupi language.
You can read the rest of this short article at "Capybara".



QED


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

Labels