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, May 31, 2012

If Schools Taught Evolution's Flaws

Casey Luskin considers evolution's top three flaws to be:
  •  (1) Tell students that the fossil record often lacks transitional forms and that there are "explosions" of new life forms, a pattern of radiations that challenges Darwinian evolutionary theory.
  • (2) Tell students that many scientists have challenged the ability of random mutation and natural selection to produce complex biological features.
  • (3) Tell students that many lines of evidence for Darwinian evolution and common descent are weak
The article itself is short, so I suggest that you click on the reference links and learn something. You can read "What Are the Top Three Flaws in Darwinian Evolution, as Taught Today in Public Schools?", here.

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

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Evolutionary Icons in Textbooks Still Fail

In late 2001, Creation Ministries International did an article about the 2000 book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? that showed how several of the "proofs" of evolution fail. Even in 2012, we encounter "proofs" of evolution that are outdated, discredited and even fraudulent. Some of these are the Peppered Moths, Haeckel's drawings (someone said to me, "Even though they were faked doesn't mean it's still not true"...agonizing), the Miller experiment and more.

I maintain that some of Darwin's cheerleaders are victims of bad science and indoctrination, but they are also to blame for taking so much by faith and not investigating the flaws in evolution that so many of us are trying to get them to see.

To be blunt, presenting bad information is indoctrination, not education. The educational system appears to be more interested in promoting a worldview and misotheistic biases rather than educating and training students to think critically. These ideas are reinforced when we see that these icons of evolution are still present in textbooks.

“I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny how to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is sixteen tends toward the elimination of religious superstition. The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history.”— P. Blanchard, The Humanist, 1983

What follows is a brief overview of current problems in textbooks, with links to more in-depth analysis.
In his 2000 book Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells reviewed ten then-current biology textbooks for their treatment of what Dr. Wells calls the "icons" of evolution, well-known lines of evidence commonly used to support evolution...Now, in 2011, we present an updated 2011 textbook review that applies Wells's evaluation criteria to 22 recent biology textbooks, all published since 2005... 

This 2011 textbook evaluation also adds two new icons that have grown in popularity over the past decade. A series of fossils purportedly showing the evolution of whales from land mammals is now presented uncritically in many biology textbooks as an alleged "poster child" for macroevolution. Another new icon is "junk" DNA, with some textbooks claiming that noncoding DNA is functionless junk.

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

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Evolutionary Propaganda in Textbooks Pushes Indoctrination

There have been times when I have been astonished at remarks from evolutionists about science. They have used outdated, spurious, discredited, tendentious and even dishonest evidence as "proof" of the "fact" of evolution. (One atheist called Matt Slick of CARM and actually presented discredited Lamarckism, or Lamarckianism, as proof of evolution!) Sometimes, this clinging to an unworkable worldview is simply the result of willful ignorance. But how often is the problem based on faulty textbooks, and they never learned the truth about evolutionism? Perhaps the problem is bad science indoctrination coupled with emotional attachment to a faulty worldview, but never mind about that now. Let's looks more closely at the textbook problem.
Evolutionists are now formulating scientifically archaic teaching standards they want the states to follow “in whole, without alteration.” Our evolution-drenched science education in the U.S. is pathetic, with science literacy scraping the bottom the barrel. And now evolutionists are prescribing more scientific lies mandating evolutionary dogma. For a century evolution has corrupted science and science education alike, teaching a bizarre, upside-down version of the facts and suppressing the true science. Evolutionists have literally filled textbooks with unabashed lies that have left students without a clue about the real biology involved. And now they have just raised the ante, mandating the same old lies for the states to adopt “in whole, without alteration.”
Read the rest of "Evolutionists Now Formulating Teaching Standards That States Should Adopt 'In Whole, Without Alteration'", here.

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

Friday, May 25, 2012

No Transitional Forms in the Fossil Record

I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago … and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.”
— Colin Patterson 
Fundamentalist evolutionists insist that the fossil record proves macroevolution is true. Creationists cite evolutionists who say that there are no transitional forms, then get accused of quote mining. Damage control! Then, the evolutionary faithful will trot out pictures of fossils, say that there are many transitional forms, and paste material from angry anti-creationist sites like talk.origins (they should check out true.origin instead). What do the pictures show? Fossils. Unimpressive ones, at that.

And yet... Why is it that, if they have even a fraction of fossils of the millions of expected transitional forms, do they cling so tightly to discredited things like archaeopteryx and tiktaalik? No, despite the doubtful fossils that the fundamentalists show us, there actually are no indisputable transitional forms.
Many individuals who believe in evolution are convinced that there exists an abundance of transitional forms to support evolution. However, what they regard as "transitional" are simply biological similarities between various species or groups, and are not true or actual transitions in Nature. Creationists believe that the biological similarities between various species are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all of the various forms of life, from the simplest to the most complex. Evolutionists believe that the biological similarities between species are evidence of common ancestry between all forms of life. Neither position can be scientifically proved.
A true transitional form would be something like a fish having part fins…part feet, or a bird having part scales…part feathers, partially one function, partially another with neither being complete or functional. Even the top experts of evolution theory have admitted that there are no indisputable transitional forms in the fossil record to support evolution across biological groups or kinds, although this news is rarely made public in the media or in textbooks.
To read the rest of "Evolutionary Theory Lacks True Transitional Forms", rush over here.

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

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Cuttlefish Fossil Puzzler

A fossil that is allegedly 34 million years old may contain some of the original hard biochemical material. That is no surprise. But the chitin is relatively fragile, and should have broken down long before the supposed millions of years. 

Credit: Freeimages / John Boyer
This is yet another example that the presuppositions of radiometric dating are flawed and should be overhauled to represent a much younger Earth.
Cuttlefish are mollusks that look somewhat like squid. They have an internal, hard, supportive structure with soft organs around and inside it. This resilient "cuttlebone" is made of cleverly woven strands of a biochemical material called chitin and mixed with a hard biomineral called aragonite.
A team of paleontologists found a supposedly 34 million-year-old fossil cuttlebone that still had both the original aragonite and chitin. This is significant, because one might expect the hard aragonite to persist in the fossil record, but not the organic chitin or protein. The chitin, which is made of sugars tightly bonded into molecular chains, would have spontaneously degraded and been long gone after only thousands of years.
You can read the rest of "Fossil Cuttlefish Has Original Tissue", here.

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

Monday, May 21, 2012

Fossils and Backdating

Scientists generally take a straightforward, even common sense, approach to their theories. That is, they will see if evidence and observations fit their theories. If not, they abandon the theory and make a new one. Or adjust the original theory.

How much adjustment is excessive? This is where the sensible approach fails evolutionary scientists. They start with the presuppositions that the world is ancient and that evolution happened. Then the data are interpreted within this worldview — sometimes even resorting to amazing extremes rather than abandon a faulty theory.

When fossils do not fit the time frame, then the time frame is pushed back. This happens much more frequently than evolutionists want to admit.
We are commonly challenged to explain the fossil order worked out by evolutionary scientists. Fossils are, of course, crucial to the evolutionary story; their sequences and placement in the evolutionary time scale are fundamental to the evolutionists’ grand scheme. However, outcrops with fossils are usually widely scattered and further fossil collecting commonly brings surprises, such as the expansion of the ranges of fossils either up or down within the geological column. Since I last reported on fossil range expansions in 2009, many new reports have been published.
You can read the rest of "Further expansion of evolutionary fossil time ranges", here.

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

Friday, May 18, 2012

Carbon-14 Part 3: Data and Assumptions

This is the third in a three-part series on Carbon-14. Part 1 discussed the basics of Carbon-14 dating, and Part 2 pointed out a major dilemma for evolutionists: Carbon-14 is found where is should not be, according to their reckoning. This section points out that creationist models have to deal with date ranges that do not fit their model, either. Also, there are assumptions that are made in all radiometric dating, and some greatly affect Carbon-14 dating. A Biblical creation model fitting the Noahician Flood geology is explored and offered as the best explanation.
Evolutionists aren’t the only ones who run into challenges when trying to reconcile radiocarbon dating with their view of history. How do creationists explain dates of 50,000 years?
Conventional geologists claim that fossils, coals, and diamonds are millions to billions of years old. Yet it has now been firmly established that they still contain measurable amounts of radiocarbon, which has a half-life (decay rate) of only 5,730 years.
This creates a dilemma for conventional geology, as explained in Part 2 of this series.2 Absolutely no radiocarbon should be left in fossils, coals, and diamonds, because after just one million years it should have decayed away.
Yet the radiocarbon in these fossils, coals, and diamonds equates to “ages” of up to 55,000 years. This is much older than the biblical time frame of earth history, which attributes most fossils and coals to the global Flood of Noah’s day, about 4,350 years ago. What should Bible-believing Christians think about this apparent discrepancy?
To finish reading "A Creationist Puzzle: 50,000-Year-Old Fossils", click here.

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

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Carbon-14 Part 2: Found Where It Should Not Be

Blue diamond by Kathy Reed
This is the second of a three-part series on Carbon-14.

Previously, the basics of the process were explained. This part brings up an interesting dilemma: Why is it found in rocks that are allegedly millions of years old? Carbon-14 should have vanished after 5,730 years. Excuses are made about bad measurements and contamination, but those do not withstand scrutiny.
If the radioactive element carbon-14 breaks down quickly—within a few thousand years—why do we still find it in fossils and diamonds? It’s a dilemma for evolutionists, who believe the rocks are millions of years old.
Many people think that scientists use radiocarbon to date fossils. After all, we should be able to estimate how long ago a creature lived based on how much radiocarbon is left in its body, right?
To finish reading "Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds, an Evolution Enigma", click here

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

Monday, May 14, 2012

Carbon-14 Part 1: Basic Information

This week, we will have a three-part series on Carbon-14 dating. This first part gives an overview of the basics: How Carbon-14 forms, is absorbed, is depleted as well as the determining the rate of decay. Then the way it is used for dating is discussed.
Many people assume that rocks are dated at “millions of years” based on radiocarbon (carbon-14) dating. But that’s not the case. The reason is simple. Carbon-14 can yield dates of only “thousands of years” before it all breaks down.
The most well-known of all the radiometric dating methods is radiocarbon dating. Although many people think radiocarbon dating is used to date rocks, it is limited to dating things that contain the element carbon and were once alive (like fossils).
This is a good start, but to read the rest of "Carbon-14 Dating — Understanding the Basics", click here. Part 2 is here.

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

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Flooding and a Fossil Graveyard

The tired old story that a critter dies, gradually gets covered up and turns into a fossil after huge amounts of time seems to be falling by the wayside. It was unrealistic and unscientific in the first place. No, fossilization requires rapid burial and the proper conditions. A flood will do the job nicely. Especially if it's a big one.

freeimages.com / rosym / Deep in the Forest
Some people believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds. It is annoying to them when birds and dinosaurs are swept up together in flood waters and end up in the mix at a fossil graveyard.
According to Genesis, all creatures of the earth were created within days of each other—including dinosaurs and humans. A common question in response to this is "If dinosaurs and man lived at the same time, why aren't their fossils found together?"
Bird bones and egg shell fossil fragments from a waterside bird colony are sending clues from the long-ago past to help solve this quandary.
The fossilized colony found in Romania was apparently a victim of a watery disaster. Despite their toothed beaks and small claws, the birds looked very much like modern water fowl. The Cretaceous strata in which they were found also contained herbivorous dinosaurs and other creatures.
You can read the rest of "Bird Fossils Offer Clues to Dinosaur Question", here.

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

Monday, May 7, 2012

Dinosaur Ex-stink-tion


Since evolutionists have no agreement about what went on to cause the extinction of the dinosaurs allegedly 65 million years ago, and none of the theories are satisfactory, they keep coming up with new ones. Some of these stories are pretty wild, but do not cause such a problem for creationists. Here is a theory that is a real blast.
Dinosaurs may have farted themselves to extinction, according to a new study from British scientists.
The researchers calculated that the prehistoric beasts pumped out more than 520 million tons (472 million tonnes) of methane a year -- enough to warm the planet and hasten their own eventual demise.
Until now, an asteroid strike and volcanic activity around 65 million years ago had seemed the most likely cause of their extinction.
Edit: Some clever person commented, "When did scientists get wind of this?" HA! Anyway, read the rest here: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/07/dinosaurs-farted-their-way-to-extinction-british-scientists-say/#ixzz1uESKdHEZ

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

Making Substantial Deposits

The deposition of rock strata is most commonly understood as gradual layers in isolated areas. What some people do not know is that the layers are not so isolated; some are spread out over huge areas even entire continents. These strata contain evidence that they were  
"deposited by large volumes of fast flowing water that covered a very large area". 
At Echo Point west of Sydney, Australia, visitors have a panoramic view of The Three Sisters — spectacular remains of a huge sandstone outcrop, broken and teetering on the edge of a wide valley. In the distance you can see the same sedimentary strata in vertical cliffs that stretch as far as the eye can see. These sedimentary layers also travel out of sight under the earth—much further than many suspect, 100 km (60 miles) east to the Pacific Ocean, 200 km north and 200 km south. They form part of the Sydney basin, a geological structure where layers of sediments accumulated to a depth of 3 km.
You can see the same geological pattern when you stand on the rim of Grand Canyon in western USA. As you peer across the abyss you marvel at the horizontal rock layers that decorate the walls—the same pattern on both sides of the canyon. Some layers form sheer cliffs; others crumble into sloped aprons. With so little vegetation in the area, the layers stand out and can be traced into the distant haze. In fact, these sedimentary formations have been recognized over thousands of kilometres across North America.

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

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Early Earth and Dinosaur Mobility

Kabacchi, wikipedia.org
It should be no secret that dinosaur fossils are found all over the world, including the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Yon beasties sure did get around! This can be a problem for evolutionists, as they attempt to explain the apparent mobility of the dinosaurs. Not much of a problem for creationists who believe in a worldwide flood, however.
A spinosaur fossil found in the southeastern state of Victoria in Australia suggests dinosaurs were much more mobile than previously thought.The single fossil vertebra, unearthed in the 1990s, is identical to that of a spinosaurid called Baryonyx walkeri which was previously thought to only live in the northern European climes. Thus the original paper called it “the first Australian spinosaurid theropod dinosaur.” Most of this sounds like it is good, solid, scientific research. That is until the evolutionary explanation begins.

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