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

Saturday, June 15, 2019

Atheism, Grief, and Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

While I was studying a podcast by Dr. Albert Mohler on grief without God, a trolling raid millennial atheists began at The Question Evolution Project. They did not have anything of value to say, preferring instead to build up their own egos and rebellion against our Creator with ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and basic affirmations that we are stupid.

This is nothing new, and you will often find professing atheists who claim that they are happy and fulfilled since they ditched God. Some of the "former Christians" betray that falsehood because their comments show that they never were in the faith. I had a cyberstalker who claimed to be a Christian, but he originally belonged to a religion that is distinctly unchristian. Although claiming to be happy and fulfilled, he was angry, hateful, and bitter. How do "happy" atheists deal with tragedy?


When an atheist is faced with severe personal grief, he or she has nowhere to turn. Only biblical Christianity, beginning from the first verse in the Bible, provides a consistent worldview.
Credit: Freeimages / Glenda Otero
In Dr. Mohler's podcast, he discussed a woman who had rejected the Christian faith as she called it (but she was a Jehovah's Witness, which is opposed to biblical Christianity). She lost her child, and had no idea where love came from or how we got here in the first place. There is no message of hope in atheism's effete worldview. One of the cornerstones of atheism is evolution, which is their mythology of origins. Evolution is their basis for the origin of everything, including religion. This, too, is folly because there is no message of hope in evolution.

According to materialism, we are just bundles of chemicals following our impulses. We are supposed to pass along our genes. Why? Everything dies in the end. There is no hope or ultimate justice, after all. A child dies? Make another. That is the logical conclusion of a godless worldview, but biblical Christians know that we are all created in the image of God, and all life is special.

Atheism is incoherent and lacks the necessary preconditions of human experience, which can only be found and consistently applied in biblical Christianity. This includes the authority of the Word of God beginning at the first verse. All else is futility and foolishness. Further, science is impossible without God, and modern science could not have arisen without biblical creation foundations. There are also professing theists who deny the authority of the Word of God, and they are idolators — de facto atheists. Their outlook is also bleak, but they will face Judgment and give an account of how they deceived people and helped shipwreck their faith.

I hope you will listen to the podcast or read the transcript of The Briefing for June 3, 2019. The first segment is the one we are considering: "Grief Without Faith: What the Total Absence of Belief in God Looks Like in the Aftermath of Crushing Grief".



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

Friday, June 14, 2019

The Clam Eyes Have It

Evolution is not supported by the evidence. Clam eyes have it, motion carried. Well, it seemed funny when I wrote it. Or were you unaware that those things on the beach and in the water that have hard shells have eyes? Supposedly simple organisms have simple eyes according to Darwinian mythology. Nope.


Darwin and his later followers considered the eyes of clams and the like to be simple. In reality, they are complex, defying evolution, and affirming special creation.
Credit: RGBStock / K Rayker
The Master Engineer has surprised scientists with the specified complexity of eyes, even with clams, scallops, and such. Their eyes are very different from ours. Although their pupils expand and contract like ours, the light hits them in a different way. The retina is between the lens of the retina. Evolutionists all the way back to the Bearded Buddha thought that their eyes were simple, but they actually support special creation and defy evolution.
Aside for the problems noted above falsifying Darwin’s rationalization, we now know that so-called simple eyes are not at all simple, but in some ways are more complex than the so-called highest, most evolved, eye type. One review of a new article on scallop eyes concluded their eyes “function similar to telescopes, are even more complex than scientists previously knew.” Scallop is the common name of any one of numerous species of saltwater clams or marine bivalve mollusks, also commonly called clams. The scientist added scallops “have up to 200 tiny eyes along the edge of the mantle lining their shells, although scientists still don’t know exactly how they all work together to help the mollusks.” Another researcher added “For over half a century, the multitudinous mirror eyes of the lowly scallop have continuously amazed us with their visual eccentricities. The latest surprise is the mirror itself, which turns out to be an extraordinary optical wonder.”
To read the entire article, click on "Complex Eyes of ‘Simple’ Clams Confound Darwin". Also, you may want to read a startling comparison at "Scallops and Telescopes".



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

Thursday, June 13, 2019

Global Warming and Bird Habitats?

It is indeed unfortunate that logical thinking skills are not taught very much nowadays, as a great deal of bad information and even deceptions could be challenged by the public. Fallacies abound in politics, evolutionary science, atheism — and a passel of deception in global climate change propaganda.


Global warming alarmists are using bad data to claim that bird habitats are threatened. Their views are rooted in atheistic old earth evolutionary ideas.
Credit: US National Park Service (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The global warming hysteria is a political idea that is used to manipulate people through fear and intimidation, but much of the data is fundamentally flawed. In fact, the concept is rooted in atheistic old Earth evolutionary ideas, denying that God is the Creator and he is still God. 
Ask them if we only have twelve (or ten) years to live and nothing can be done about it, why should we pay money to leftists? 

Two examples of how activists used flawed information and even contradicted themselves. They got away with getting what they wanted, and you can see an example of what happens when people "think" with their emotions. The bad guys in these instances are those in the yucky wicked evil nasty petroleum industry.
If you love birds, should you fight petroleum production in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? How you answer depends on whether you believe man-made global warming is threatening Earth’s climate. That crisis scenario is actually based on evolutionary old-earth assumptions,1 and constant media stories feed the fear.
To read the rest about this hot topic, click on "Does Global Warming Threaten Bird Habitats?"

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

Wednesday, June 12, 2019

Evolution Experiment on Mimicry is in Bad Taste

Mimicry is often very useful, such as when someone pretends to be like John Wayne when he is really the unimpressive town character. This is by calculated planning, however. In nature, mimicry happens for the benefit of some critters. Darwin's acolytes cannot explain this because they would need to invoke teleology (purpose). Evolution is supposed to be without plan or design.


Evolutionists cannot explain mimicry. An experiment was performed on the nasty-tasting viceroy butterfly to prove evolution, but it failed miserably.
Viceroy butterfly (with incorrect identification) image credit: Flickr / libbycat89 (CC by 2.0)
The viceroy butterfly can puzzle evolutionists until their puzzlers are sore. Sometimes their predators find them mighty tasty, but when they hang around with monarchs, they are more likely to be left alone. They look like the nasty-flavored monarch, you see. However, when away from monarchs, they also taste dreadful. And give off an odor that puts off predators.

Researchers commenced to doing the usual circular reasoning by assuming evolution to prove evolution. They had a kind of taste test, but it only had limited value because it was fraught with feckless procedures. The conclusions were big and brave but did not have evidence. Our Creator built in the possibilities for variations within kinds and species, Darwin was not present at Creation nor found in the experiment.
The viceroy is a colorful butterfly native to the United States that is known to mimic other species. However, the viceroy is not just a tasty option that looks like the unpalatable models it mimics. It has its own chemical defenses. These traits become especially prominent when the other model species are not present. A recent study attempted to demonstrate mimicry and how it evolved in the viceroy butterfly. However, limited experimental design and faulty assumptions undercut the study.
To read the article, flutter on over to "Bitter Butterfly". 



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

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

Grow Grow Godzilla!

Mayhaps I should set up a game show where scientists and other Darwinoids trot out their speculations, then everyone in the audience can shout, "That. Is. Not. Evolution!" Sure, and we could start with the peppered moth fiasco. Then we could move on to the Elvis of the monsters, Godzilla!

An amazingly bad idea is to call Godzilla a dinosaur and then mix Darwinian evolution with cinematography. That's neither evolution nor science.
Ceratosaurus image credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / Warpaintcobra
"No, that's king of the monsters, Cowboy Bob! Elvis was the king of rock and roll."

Oh, right. I got confused in my enthusiasm and his monster hits. Thank you, thank you very much.

There is speculation that Godzilla was made to be a kind of Ceratosaurus, but that is a mite difficult to justify this this 1954 daikaiju was named "Gojira", merging Japanese words for gorilla and whale. ("Godzilla" is an English transliteration of Gojira that was given by Tohu studios.) It is proper to examine cinematography, culture, and history regarding Godzilla and call it evolution. Unfortunately, some owlhoots are mixing in molecules-to-monster evolution.


The writers took an evolutionary worldview and looked at how the critter grew and changed over the years. This child was silly enough to think it was because of movie technology and audience demands, not the alleged evolution of a maybe Ceratosaurus. Secularists sure are grasping at straws to find excuses to deny the Creator and indoctrinate their mythology in all areas of life. This is amazingly stupid. People get paid for doing this stuff, you know. Let's hope they examine the Darwinian evolution of Gamera the flying turtle!
When evolution is your proverbial hammer, you can go crazy pounding everything that looks like a nail.
No, Godzilla Is Not Evolution; It is Semi-Intelligent Design
A movie monster evolves, fed by fear (Science Magazine). “In this essay, we suggest that Godzilla—which has grown significantly since its debut— is evolving in response to a spike in humanity’s collective anxiety,” say Nathaniel J. Dominy and Ryan Calsbeek in advance of Godzilla’s latest reincarnation in a monster movie. If you think Dominy and Calsbeek are just speaking metaphorically, look at what they say in a press release from Dartmouth University:, where they use human anxiety as the selective pressure on the monster’s evolution:
That's not evolution. That's not even science. Try not to get neck strain by incredulous reactions, but you can read the rest of this plus some bonus Darwin absurdities by clicking on "Godzilla Evolves, and Other Darwin Silliness". With this in mind, I suggest you see "Unusual Fossils Call for Unusual Explanations".

I had to post this, and really like Don "Buck Dharma" Roeser's guitar solo:



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

Monday, June 10, 2019

Hybridization and the Tree of Life

As any well-indoctrinated schoolchild can tell you Charles Darwin envisioned a tree of life where life evolved from the simple to the complex, with many branches. Hybridization is problematic for evolutionists, and the branches would wind up fusing back together.


Hybridization is a problem for evolution, but is fully compatible with biblical creation science.
Otero Tupac working with orchids
Credit: CSIRO / Carl Davies (CC by 3.0) (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Informed creationists do not believe in the "fixity of species". Not only do we accept hybridization and speciation, but they also support biblical creation science. The Master Engineer designed organisms to adapt, and sometimes hybridization is a way they can survive. 

Carl Linnaeus established modern taxonomy and saw that new species could arise through hybridization. William Herbert also saw that the created kinds referred to in Genesis can diversify. Note that the biblical kinds are considered to be above the species level, more closely aligned with the family classification. The biblical worldview explains what is found in biology, and arguments about what constitutes a species is left to the secularists.
In 2016 Science featured an article with the provocative title “Shaking up the Tree of Life”, stating: “Species were once thought to keep to themselves. Now hybrids are turning up everywhere, challenging evolutionary theory.” Despite its sensationalized tone, this article brings up a number of valuable points. To understand their significance, we first need to look at some history behind our understanding of species and observations regarding hybridization.
To read the rest, click on "Hybridization shaking up the evolutionary Tree of Life—what does it mean for creationists?"




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

Saturday, June 8, 2019

The Confusing Clownfish

There was a popular animated movie involving a clownfish a spell back, but movies are not a good source of accurate information about nature. Even so, clownfish are kind of cute. We see the typical image of orange and white, but they are found in a variety of colors. The most baffling thing about them is their companionship with sea anemones.

Clownfish are problematic to evolutionists in a number of ways. Not only the way they have a mutually beneficial relationship with anemones, but numerous traits defy Darwinism.
Credit: Unsplash / Sebastian Pena Lambarri
How can the clownfish get so cozy in the tentacles of the sea anemones? Those things sting their prey, after all, and are related to jellyfish. You might be unpleasantly stung your ownself. Scientists think that the slime coat (mucus) on this fish makes it chemically invisible to the anemone, but there may be other factors involved as well. (Fish need their slime coats, but this dude's is special, I reckon.) They make their homes around anemones. Yes, you can keep both in home aquariums — if you know what you're doing.

To preserve the species, clownfish have the organs of both males and females. The womenfolk are in charge, so he can become she and preserve the species. No gender dysphoria, they just do what the Master Engineer equipped them to do.

There are many fascinating facts about clownfish that show the providential design of our Creator. Also, purveyors of fish-to-fool evolution cannot explain the symbiotic relationship with anemones, nor can the come up with anything plausible about all those other design features. Best they can do is state, "It evolved" and expect you to accept the authority of scientists.
The defining characteristic of the clownfish is the ability to safely nestle into the tentacles of the anemone. Anemones are equipped with stinging structures called nematocysts. Anemones use these nematocysts to capture prey. It has been postulated that anemones use both mechanoreceptors and chemoreceptors to capture prey and that they are capable of deciding when to fire the nematocysts, based on feedback from the chemoreceptors. Yet clownfish are not stung, despite freely swimming in and out of the deadly tentacles. Numerous reasons have been proposed for this immunity.
Don't pay the big words no nevermind, the article is still very interesting. To read the entire thing, click on "Designing Nemo".



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

Labels