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

Friday, December 14, 2018

Evolution and Occult DNA

Adherents of Big Bang-to-banker evolution, whether cosmic or biological, often resort to hidden causes. Since the Big Bang does not work, cosmologists bring in fudge factors and occult cosmology like dark matter, dark energy, and more to make their speculations seem plausible. Other riders for the materialist brand are using related terms to prop up Darwinism.

Both cosmic and biological evolution are increasingly occult, appealing to unseen and unknown things
Background image furnished by Why?Outreach
In biology, these "dark" things are not just made up to make evolution look good. Instead, secularists are speculating about things they do not understand. "Junk" DNA, for example, was something that scientists did not understand, so they arrogantly declared significant parts of DNA to be leftover junk from our alleged evolutionary past. It's a natural fact that their hubris is vexatious. Now they are appealing to other "dark" things in biology, including DNA: dark DNA is the driving force of evolution. Of course, these owlhoots are presenting their occult thinking as "science", then Darwin's disciples get all excited and spread evoporn like this. As I keep saying, they go to a passel of effort to deny the fact that life was created, not evolved.
In the biological world, references to “dark” substances can also be found. Microbial dark matter is a term sometimes given to microbes that are apparently in several different environments, but they have not yet been specifically cultured in a laboratory setting. Instead, their presence is indicated by detection of their DNA or RNA in various samplings.

In the same manner, chromosomal DNA with no known function (aka, junk DNA) has occasionally been referred to as biological dark matter. It is not that this DNA is undetected, but simply its function remains undetermined. Thus, the only thing “dark” about biological dark matter is human understanding.
To read the rest, click on "Is Dark DNA Evolution’s Secret Weapon?"

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

Thursday, December 13, 2018

Slabs in the Face of Deep Time

The dominant principle in old earth geology is uniformitarianism, which essentially means that present processes are the key to the past. Secular geologists shun catastrophic processes for the most part, but it puts burrs under their saddles when they are forced to invoke them on occasion. Of course, the global Genesis Flood is rejected out of hand. Such biases make for erroneous geological studies; some things are unexplainable from deep time conjectures. Take cold slabs and subduction, for example.

Background image adapted by Why?Outreach
You have probably heard of plate tectonics, where plates on the earth's surface move. Secular scientists are unable to determine how plate tectonics began. The most popular model among biblical creationists is catastrophic plate tectonics, which began with the Genesis Flood. Plates do not simply collide. Subduction happens when one plate is forced under another one. There are oceanic slabs of rock that are far too cold to be explained by secular geology, and the more they study these slabs, the worse things get for their worldview.
Since the 1990s, cross-section images of mantle tomography have shown visible slabs of oceanic lithosphere (which includes oceanic crust) descending hundreds of miles beneath ocean trenches into subduction zones. These descending plates have been imaged all the way down to the top of the earth’s outer core and are composed of cold, brittle, dense rock about 62 miles thick.
Researchers from the University of Colorado recently reported finding that some of the subducted slabs stagnate at depths of about 670 km (416 mi) to 1000 km (620 mi) and appear to travel horizontally.
 To read the rest, click on "Cold Slabs Indicate Recent Global Flood".

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

Wednesday, December 12, 2018

Inaccurate Age Results from Zircon Dating

Many of those who believe in an ancient earth like to point to zircons as if they were conclusive proof of their views. Zircon dating is often trotted out by owlhoots who want to play the "Gotcha!" game, not realizing that zircon crystals have their own problems, such as the presence of carbon. Now some secular scientists are raising serious questions.

Zircon dating is frequently used by people who want to give evidence that the earth is very old.
Zircon in Jack Hills, Australia's Narre Gneiss Terrane
Image credit: NASA / GSFC / METI/ERSDAC / JAROS, and U.S. / Japan ASTER Science Team
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Detrital zircons contain traces of uranium and lead. Researches took some from a pile at the base of a slope and the results were surprising. In fact, the researchers are showing that assumptions (which always occur in radiometric dating) may be not only biased, but biases may appear that other scientists are unaware of. Kind of hard to get reliable indications of an old earth when the dating methods are fundamentally flawed.
Zircons are a gold standard for dating. They can yield ages that are statistically significant, but geologically meaningless.

How confident are geologists in the ages of formations they study? The story often told is that radiometric dating produces dates that are super-reliable, because lab rates of radioactive decay don’t lie. The part of the story not told, though, is that many sources of bias can creep in. What constitutes a good sample? How many samples must be collected to converge on a reliable date? How far and wide should samples be collected? What should the geologist do with anomalous samples? Does statistical convergence necessarily translate into geological convergence? Can ‘reliable’ statistical dates be way off?
To read the rest, click on "Detrital Zircons Can Give False Geological Ages".

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

Tuesday, December 11, 2018

Knot What You MIght Think

The other day I stopped at Stormie Waters' cabin, and she wanted me to get a knot out of the chain for her jade pendant. Then I commenced to pondering on knots. Cowboys use them to keep things from falling off a pack mule, sailors know all sorts of knots, neckties have special knots, and so on. I was surprised to learn that people study the things because they have mathematical properties.

Knots do more than just keep necklaces on and tie things down. They are also fascinating to mathematicians, and are found in nature.
Möbius knot image credit: Pixabay / Reimund Bertrams
There are various shapes and twists found in nature. One that fascinates me (mayhaps you as well) is the Möbius strip. You may have made those things as a kid, just cut a long strip of paper, give it half a twist, and attach the ends. It has two sides. No, one side. Wait... From there, we can have the Möbius knot and really go nuts, staring and playing with it. Mathematicians love them.

Knots and other fascinating, complex shapes are found in nature. Various creatures knot themselves and then undo the knots as they see fit, and even DNA can be found to have Möbius patterns. Even the knots in nature give silent testimony to the wisdom of the Master Engineer. Knots do more than just keep necklaces on and tie things down.
A stressed-out person may be described as “tied in knots,” unable to relax or make good decisions. Mathematicians, in contrast, find knots fascinating, and some of them devote their lives to the math of knots, including computer modeling to understand all their twists and turns. It may sound like an armchair interest with no practical value, but read on.
You can read the rest of this short but very interesting article (and consider the "experiment" afterward) by clicking on "When a Knot Is Not a Knot".

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

Monday, December 10, 2018

Two Brief Testimonies for a Young Universe

Folks that believe the universe is billions of years old should have been abused of that notion because of observed data. Unfortunately, the atoms-to-astronomer narrative drives the interpretation of information. Dust rings around a distant star? Must be a planet forming, right? Not at all. When a galaxy does not fit the cosmic evolutionary worldview, it's time for "substantial revision", and they race around like snakes fleeing a brush fire. Other examples of a young solar system? Make excuses or just ignore them. Here are two more items for secularist owlhoots to ignore.

There is a great deal of evidence for a young universe, but secularists prefer their mythology over reality.
Credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / STScI
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Blue stars are nice and hot. They are also fuel hogs, so they should not be in galaxies according to the standard mythology. Using deep time reckoning against secularists, spiral galaxies with blue stars cannot be quite so old. Also, we have neutron stars in globular clusters. They should have gotten out of Dodge a long time ago, but there they are. The evidence is abundant: the universe was created recently.

To read the short article about these two problems with stars, click on "‘Star witnesses’ to a young creation".

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

Saturday, December 8, 2018

Inselbergs and the Genesis Flood

In previous posts, we have looked at several instances of geomorphology, such as planation surfaces and the like. Today we are going to focus on inselbergs. No, Inselberg was not a musician in a German rock band (that I know of), but it the word came from German and means island mountain. We have a passel of them in the USA (such as Stone Mountain), but there are many of them around the world, and they puzzle deep time geologists.

Those island mountains that are all around the world cannot be explained by deep time geology.
Eningen unter Achalm, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Vux (CC BY-SA 3.0 DE) (enhanced)
You could be eyeballing a plot of land and suddenly see a huge bump or series of bumps. According to uniformitarian geology, everything happens over long periods of time. Geologists cannot adequately explain how they appeared. To make matters worse, inselbergs are showing signs of erosion that do not fit deep time speculations. The global Genesis Flood provides the most logical explanation for what we observe — which means that Earth is far younger than secularists and stalkers want to believe.
As the world’s continents were uplifted from the waters of the global Flood, they were greatly eroded. During this massive erosion, the rocks that weren’t pulverized were transported hundreds of kilometres toward the oceans. The enormous power of the receding water, relentlessly shaving off the surfaces it flowed over, left behind large flat areas known as planation surfaces, along with coastal Great Escarpments, large natural bridges, and freestanding arches. Scientists studying conventional geomorphology find all these features puzzling because they ignore the Flood and rely only on slow erosion over millions of years, which does not work.
To read the rest, click on "Inselbergs — Evidence for rapid Flood runoff". I think Inselberg would be a good name for a rock band.

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

Friday, December 7, 2018

Evolutionism and Word Games

Creationists seldom object to the word creationISM, evolutionists react to the word evolutionISM. Both are valid words, and evolutionists themselves use evolutionism.
In discussions and debates, people can present their arguments with terminology that is designed to draw emotional responses from people who are listening or reading. Some manipulative debaters attempt to provoke their opponents into making mistakes with ad hominem remarks and loaded words.

There are times that loaded wording in debates, discussions, or various presentations can be painfully obvious. In other cases, the wording can be subtle and not necessarily manipulative; it may simply be a reflection of the speaker  or writer's feelings. We tend to frame our views in the best light and cast a shadow on a contrary viewpoint. People do that.

A subtle but manipulative tactic in using loaded words is using something that ends in -ism. Atheists and evolutionists have been known to contrast science with creationism, which may imply a feeling that creationists are members of an aberrant cult that has no science supporting it.

Proponents of universal common ancestor evolution tend to get on the prod when they encounter someone using the word evolutionism. They may even accuse biblical creationists of using a nonexistent word to denigrate evolution. Darwinism? That's okay, because it's a philosophy or worldview, but evolution is science in their view. Unfortunately for their position, evolution is an -ism, it is more than just a study of biology — it is indeed a worldview.


Interestingly, although some dictionaries tend to downplay the word evolutionism or ignore it entirely, but evolutionists themselves use it. Also, creationists don't pay no nevermind to the word creationism for the most part, and we use it ourselves. Also, Darwin's social media warriors claim to believe in evolution because it's "settled science", but they show ignorance of the science they claim to support. (I reckon that they're actually being dishonest as well as ignorant.) The "facts" of evolution keep changing (as links in the posts on this site will show you), and some folks just don't want you to know that we were indeed created. God is the Creator, and he makes the rules. Better find out what he has to say, whether you like it or not, and while there's still time. Eternity is a long time to be proud, arrogant, and wrong, old son.
Why is it we often encounter the comparison of creationism vs. evolution but rarely creationism vs. evolutionism? Is there no such thing as the word evolutionism? Surprisingly, many English language dictionaries, including even some large unabridged dictionaries, fail to define the word evolutionism and some don’t even list it as a word. For example, the unabridged edition of the Random House Dictionary of the English Language I have in my library weighs ten pounds and has nearly 2,000 pages of definitions yet fails to include the word evolutionism. Those dictionaries that do include the word generally leave it undefined and merely list it as a noun related to the main entry “evolution.”
To read the rest, click on "Evolutionism—Is There Such a Word?"

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