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

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Which Version of the Big Bang?

NASA/WMAP Science Team
Explanations of the Big Bang do not comport with scientific evidence, and fall flat. Worse for evolutionists, they do not seem to realize that cosmogonists are not in lockstep about the Big Bang in the first place. To further complicate matters, the Big Bang story itself keeps changing in a futile effort to fit the facts. Having fatally flawed presuppositions are at the root of the problems.
Some say that Christians should re-interpret what Genesis states about the origin of the universe to match the claims of the Big Bang model.But which Big Bang model are they talking about? Several versions have cropped up since Georges Lemaître suggested the idea in 1931. Although these versions all say the universe expanded and cooled over many billions of years, they differ significantly in the details of events.
In 1979, physicist Alan Guth envisioned a major modification to solve a number of serious difficulties. He posited that shortly after the Big Bang, the universe supposedly underwent an enormous but extremely brief growth spurt called inflation. After this brief inflationary period, the universe continued to expand but at a slower rate. Inflation became an essential part of the Big Bang model.
Theorists eventually concluded that inflation, once started, would never completely stop. Rather, quantum mechanical uncertainties would cause different regions of space to stop inflating at different times. This would have resulted in the formation of pockets of non-inflating space contained within a sea of still-inflating space. These islands of space would become, in effect, their own universes.
You can expand your mind by reading the rest of "The Ever-Changing Big Bang Story".

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Biomimetics and Praise to Evolution

Amazing. Scientists study nature and attempt to replicate things in it for human technology. One name for this is "biomimetics". The obvious designs in nature are only distantly replicated, as the original Designer was far above human intelligence. And yet, evolutionists show their religious devotion to evolutionism by attributing a kind of wisdom and intelligence to it. This is ridiculous, even on the surface.
The researchers employed a genetic algorithm, a search process that mimics the process of natural evolution, explained Wei Chen, Wilson-Cook Professor in Engineering Design and professor of mechanical engineering at McCormick and co-investigator of the research.
Due to the highly nonlinear and irregular behavior of the system, you must use an intelligent approach to find the optimal solution,” Chen said. “Our approach is based on the biologically evolutionary process of survival of the fittest.”
Only the most convoluted logic could link an “intelligent approach” of “engineering design” to “survival of the fittest” in the “biologically evolutionary” sense.  Clearly this was an experiment in artificial selection: having a design goal, using an algorithm, and pinpointing a desired result.
You can read the rest of "Can Evolutionists Steal Biomimetics?", here.

Monday, January 28, 2013

Mutations, Nucleotides and Preconceptions

In the ongoing presentation of evolutionary pseudoscience, circular reasoning and arbitrary assumptions run rampant. The first assumption comes from the core of the worldview of evolutionary scientists, simply that evolution is true. From there, they examine their evidence.

Unfortunately, they examine the evidence incorrectly or incompletely. In the case of how genes allegedly evolved, scientists are finally learning that their presuppositions are getting in the way of true knowledge. They should have put aside their biases and examined the data more completely.
One of the most common tests evolutionists use, when studying how genes are supposed to have evolved, is to compare the non-synonymous and synonymous genetic differences. That is, if a gene that codes for a particular protein is found in several species, then evolutionists interpret differences in the gene, across those species, as the result of mutations in the evolutionary process. And while most mutations cause a change in the resulting protein amino acid sequence, some mutations do not affect the amino acid that is coded for. These two kinds of mutations are referred to as non-synonymous and synonymous, respectively, and their relative proportions are important to evolutionists. They believe that the while the non-synonymous mutations are important, because they change the resulting protein, the synonymous mutations on the other hand are not important. Therefore, if the ratio of the non-synonymous to synonymous mutations is high, then evolutionists think most of the mutations are important and so the gene is undergoing strong selection which is driving significant evolutionary change. But if the ratio of the non-synonymous to synonymous mutations is low, then evolutionists think most of the mutations are not important and so the gene is undergoing purifying selection which rejects most changes because the lower fitness. In that case the synonymous mutations occur merely because they don’t change the protein. As you can see this entire approach is deeply wedded to evolutionary assumptions and its main result is an inference about how genes evolved. If evolution is true then that is useful information, but if not then the entire exercise is a waste.
You can read the rest of "Here is That New Paper on Synonymous Nucleotides".

Friday, January 25, 2013

Biomimetics and the Firefly

Sometimes, knowing the truth takes some of the romance out of life. I don't care if it's a beetle and there's no fire, I'm calling the thing a firefly anyway. There's a kind of romance to the molecules-to-man evolution story, with it's struggle for survival, mutations, natural selection and just-so stories, too. And people believe it despite the science, not because of it.

The chemistry behind the glow of fireflies and similar creatures is efficient. (It is also beyond credibility that everything to make it happen occurred by chance, since so many things have to be "in place" at the same time for anything to occur.) Biomimetics, the study of nature so it can be copied and used in technology, is an ancient practice that seems to be getting more serious lately. In this case, scientists are studying the efficient mechanism by which the firefly transfers light and are using the structure for LED lenses.
We have often reported on human designers copying the designs in nature. One promising field is how organisms generate and manipulate light. Bioluminescence, such as in fireflies and octopuses, generates light from chemicals very efficiently. Some butterfly wings reflect light in spectacular iridescent colours with scales acting as diffraction gratings, and have extremely black rims because of scales that trap light. This has inspired pigment designs. And moth eyes have an ingenious anti-reflective surface, with a nano-structure hard to duplicate.
Not only is the biochemistry efficient, but also the light transmission.
You can read the rest of "Firefly Lanterns Inspire LED Lenses", here.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Did Mathematics Evolve?

Numbers. Mathematics and their laws. We use them, and most of us take them for granted. But where do they come from?

Like the laws of logic, numbers are not things, they are not material. They represent material things, but the laws of math and the laws of logic transcend material things; they are concepts. Yet, they exist independently, and are not subject to time, distance and culture.

Again, where did the laws of mathematics come from?
Most people have heard of “evolutionary biology.” But the term “evolution” is often applied in a broader sense (gradual, naturalistic changes over long ages) to other fields of study. Some people study geology or astronomy from an evolutionary perspective. But has anyone ever studied “evolutionary mathematics”? What would an evolutionist mathematician study? Can the existence of numbers and mathematical laws be explained by a time-and-chance naturalistic origin?
To answer these questions, let us first consider some background material and definitions. Mathematics is the study of the relationships and properties of numbers. What, then, are numbers?
That may seem like an obvious question because numbers are so foundational to our thinking. But sometimes these foundational concepts are the most difficult to define. Perhaps this explains why various dictionaries give such a wide range of different definitions of the word “number.” One of the better definitions is “a concept of quantity that is or can be derived from a single unit, the sum of a collection of units, or zero.”
You can add to your knowledge by reading the rest of "Evolutionary Math?"

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Abortion and the Evolutionary Worldview

Abortion has roots in the devaluing of human life. The evolutionary worldview does this very thing, and has been the basis of many kinds of evil in the world. Molecules-to-man evolutionary thinking easily supports abortion.
The "Meme" Police want these things to be funny. Too bad. This one is intended to make a point.
Today is the 40th anniversary of America's legalization of the holocaust against the unborn. We hear about "a woman's right to choose" and other emotion-based "arguments" that are quickly refuted. Ironically, "Jane Roe" (Norma McCorvey) of "Roe v. Wade" fame, is now a Christian and pro-life campaigner.

Abortion has roots in the devaluing of human life. The evolutionary worldview does this very thing, and has been the basis of many kinds of evil in the world. Molecules-to-man evolutionary thinking easily supports abortion.
There are biblical and logical reasons to regard human life commencing at conception. Even many rabid abortionists today concede that the unborn does not suddenly become human when it starts to get its oxygen from air, rather than its previous source. Philosopher and ethicist and animal rights activist, Australian-born Princeton Professor Peter Singer, has conceded as much. He also states that the only reason to forbid infanticide as an absolute would be if we were made in the image of God, as was once believed. Since that is not so, he states, and since we allow in many countries abortion (i.e. killing the baby) right until the time its head appears (and for the sorts of reasons—including inconvenience or personal hardship, or just plain preference—that you mention in your email) it would be rational for a society to seriously consider giving parents of the newborn an arbitrary period following birth (say 3 months) to decide whether that baby should go on living. See this article. Singer also points out that similar things were customary in a number of pagan societies, e.g. ancient Rome. Singer’s writings show that his entire ethic is informed and driven by his understanding of evolution, so a rabbit has more rights than an infant in the womb at a certain stage of its development.
Read the rest of "Is Evolution to Blame?" in context, here.

Monday, January 21, 2013

Book Review: The Coming Wrath

A world lost in time and history. The earth as it was before the world wide flood destroyed the face of the planet almost five thousand years ago. In The Coming Wrath, you will confront the problem of evil, and the core of evil that is rooted in your own heart.

You will experience the tsunami nightmare of the beautiful Madrazi, the hammering sounds of ark construction, the slaying of a dinosaur, one-on-one combat, men dying in battle, action on the high seas. Be with Madrazi as she meets the Creator in the depths of her soul.
And now for something completely different.

I am going to review a book that I did not read. But I did listen to it, narrated by Marko Malyj.

No, I am not going to give you a detailed account of the action in The Coming Wrath by geologist Dr. John K. Reed, first book of the "Lost Worlds Trilogy". You can get chapter summaries here, however, and a longer overview here.

The Coming Wrath could be considered a form of historical fiction. The setting is after Noah had been instructed by God to build the Ark. Some of the characters are based on real people from the Bible. Since we do not know anything in detail about them (including the names of the wives of Noah and his sons), Mr. Reed gave us believable characters. The central character is Madrazi, and we come to know her thoughts, feelings, fears, doubts, joys and so on. We are also introduced to other biblical people, and several who are entirely fictitious.

If this was given a rating like American movies, it could be PG-13. And it would be a really smashing movie, I tell you! Would Hollywood make a movie based on a strong story without excessive, graphic violence and gratuitous sex? If they wanted to, here is the book from which to build it.

There is material in this book to appeal to many people. There is action, romance and personal development. But it is not a "preachy" book in which some Christian fiction indulges with long tangents that make the reader long to get back to the topic. We know where the Godly people stand, however.

But there was something more that appealed to me, a biblical creationist. We have been indoctrinated to think that ancient people were one step above grunting brutes who had recently evolved and reluctant to leave their caves. That is an a priori assumption (and something our friends at Greater Ancestors will dispute). Taking a creationist viewpoint (one that is much more in keeping with what we know of the intelligence of ancient people), we see the skill and ingenuity of Noah's family and hired workers as they build the Ark.

Mankind was becoming increasingly wicked. Because of this and the Nephilim, God was going to destroy the world. Who were the Nephelim? There is some dispute about that term, and Reed does not go into detail on their origin. But they exist, and they're not at all nice people.

Dr. Reed uses one thing that is disputed in creationist circles: Rain. Did it happen before the Flood? In this book, no. If the reader disagrees and thinks that yes, it did rain before the Flood, the description of astonishment from the people will not ruin the book for that reader.

Earlier, I said that the book could have a PG-13 rating. I suggest that The Coming Wrath could be read by church groups because there is a great deal of material that would make for some lively and interesting discussions.

So I am giving it a strong recommendation. Unfortunately, it seems to be only available in the Kindle format. I hope additional formats are produced.


Saturday, January 19, 2013

Audio Saturday: Question Evolution Day

Edited 2-28-2016, removed non-functioning audio link and references to it.

When the interview on "Bob Enyart Live" was being set up, I wrote in my notes that I am a nobody. If he had wanted to pursue this, I would have liked to tell him:
  • I'm just a regular guy, not an organization (but we do have several Admins on the Facebook Page), and do not make money on any of this, so I have a full-time job
  • Nobody is paying for things for me to use
  • Videos are made with Windows Video Maker, I don't own high-end software or have a studio of any kind
  • Audio is recorded and mixed on Audacity Open Source software
  • Graphics are done through Paint.Net free software
  • The microphone/headset was purchased at the Big Huge Corporate Retail Store down the road
  • It's the same place I bought my eMachine computer a few years ago (which has been a reliable workhorse)
  • All I am, and all I have, are gifts of God
This whole "Question Evolution Day" is a grassroots movement inspired by CMI's "Question Evolution!" campaign. There are some big organizations spreading the truth about creation science and exposing the fallacies of evolutionism, but they need regular people like you and me to get moving and help share the truth. Many regular people, united, can have a big voice — we can help people realize that evolution is fundamentally flawed.

Wouldn't it be great if they had me back on to discuss the logical fallacies of Darwin's Cheerleaders? Some think that posting ridicule and contradiction on a forum is a logical refutation. Ridiculous.

Bob Enyart interviewed me and we had an interesting discussion about "Question Evolution Day". You can go to this link to listen or download the audio (see the picture below for the locations of the links). The second part is below this.

Friday, January 18, 2013

Young Earth Evidence 10: DNA in Old Bacteria

We have reached the conclusion of ten layman's-level articles on scientific evidences for a young Earth.

Number ten is annoying to evolutionary biologists. Using their tendentious dating methods, bacteria has been found in salt that is allegedly 250 million years old, and the DNA is intact. And unevolved. 

Ancient DNA has been found to be intact and unevolved. This fits the recent creation model of biblical creationists and flies in the face of evolution.
Image credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures
But that should not happen in their paradigm. Scientists offer explanations that are absurd. Worse for them, the data fit the creationist model of the biblical flood at the time of Noah!
In 2000, scientists claimed to have “resurrected” bacteria, named Lazarus bacteria, discovered in a salt crystal conventionally dated at 250 million years old. They were shocked that the bacteria’s DNA was very similar to modern bacterial DNA. If the modern bacteria were the result of 250 million years of evolution, its DNA should be very different from the Lazarus bacteria (based on known mutation rates).
In addition, the scientists were surprised to find that the DNA was still intact after the supposed 250 million years. DNA normally breaks down quickly, even in ideal conditions. Even evolutionists agree that DNA in bacterial spores (a dormant state) should not last more than a million years. Their quandary is quite substantial.
You can read the rest of the short article, "DNA in 'Ancient' Bacteria", here. For those who want something technical, you can read "Bacterial Life in Ancient Salt".

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Young Earth Evidence 9: Not Enough Salt

One of the oldest and most mocked evidences for a young Earth is lack of sea salt. ("Mocked" because actual scientific refutation has not been done, and only mockery is left.) Yet again, using their own uniformitarian assumptions against old Earth proponents, there simply is not enough salt in the sea. Excuses that evolutionary scientists present are painfully weak.
If the world’s oceans have been around for three billion years as evolutionists believe, they should be filled with vastly more salt than the oceans contain today.

Every year rivers, glaciers, underground seepage, and atmospheric and volcanic dust dump large amounts of salts into the oceans (Figure 1). Consider the influx of the predominant salt, sodium chloride (common table salt). Some 458 million tons of sodium mixes into ocean water each year, but only 122 million tons (27%) is removed by other natural processes.
You can read the rest of this layman's-level article at "Very Little Salt in the Sea". A more detailed explanation from  the Second International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, July 30–August 4, 1990 is available in a PDF download at "The Sea's Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists".

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Young Earth Evidence 8: Short-Term Comets

We've been looking downward at evidence for a young Earth, now we can lift our eyes to the heavens.

Specifically, short-term comets. Most of us learned long ago that comets are wanderers in space that are rock and ice ("dirty snowballs"). When they get close enough to the sun, they begin to burn off some of their material and produce those dramatic tails. After enough loops through the solar system, they eventually burn away. Or crash into planets. Or get tossed out of the solar system entirely.

Using evolutionary cosmologists' uniformitarian assumptions against them, we find that all of the comets should have been used up a long time ago. They have some interesting rescuing devices that do not hold together.
A comet spends most of its time far from the sun in the deep freeze of space. But once each orbit a comet comes very close to the sun, allowing the sun’s heat to evaporate much of the comet’s ice and dislodge dust to form a beautiful tail. Comets have little mass, so each close pass to the sun greatly reduces a comet’s size, and eventually comets fade away. They can’t survive billions of years.
Two other mechanisms can destroy comets—ejections from the solar system and collisions with planets. Ejections happen as comets pass too close to the large planets, particularly Jupiter, and the planets’ gravity kicks them out of the solar system. While ejections have been observed many times, the first observed collision was in 1994, when Comet Shoemaker-Levi IX slammed into Jupiter.
You can finish reading this short, layman's-level article at "Short-Lived Comets". If, however, you want "lengthy" and "technical", you can read "Comets and the Age of the Solar System".

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Young Earth Evidence 7: Carbon-14 in the Wrong Places

morgueFile/imelenchon (modified)
Another evidence for a young Earth that uses uniformitarian assumptions against evolutionists is the existence of Carbon-14 in the wrong places. According to presuppositions about an ancient Earth and the fundamentally flawed radiometric dating methods, Carbon-14 should not be found in things that are allegedly millions of years old, like diamonds. This is similar to the problem of the amount of helium in rocks, discussed previously.
Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) is a radioactive form of carbon that scientists use to date fossils. But it decays so quickly—with a half-life of only 5,730 years—that none is expected to remain in fossils after only a few hundred thousand years. Yet carbon-14 has been detected in “ancient” fossils—supposedly up to hundreds of millions of years old—ever since the earliest days of radiocarbon dating.
If radiocarbon lasts only a few hundred thousand years, why is it found in all the earth’s diamonds dated at billions of years old?
Even if every atom in the whole earth were carbon-14, they would decay so quickly that no carbon-14 would be left on earth after only 1 million years. Contrary to expectations, between 1984 and 1998 alone, the scientific literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas, and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record, supposedly spanning more than 500 million years. All contained radiocarbon. Further, analyses of fossilized wood and coal samples, supposedly spanning 32–350 million years in age, yielded ages between 20,000 and 50,000 years using carbon-14 dating. Diamonds supposedly 1–3 billion years old similarly yielded carbon-14 ages of only 55,000 years.
You can read the rest of this layman's-level article at "Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal and Diamonds", here. For the more technically inclined, "Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds". 

Monday, January 14, 2013

Young Earth Evidence 6: Helium in the Rocks

Continuing in our series of evidence for a young Earth is a discussion of helium found in the rocks. When certain elements in the rocks break down from radioactive decay, helium is produced. If the Earth was billions of years old, the helium would have dissipated from the rocks. Instead, helium is found. Abundantly. Evolutionary geologists have to come up with rescuing devices to explain why the observed evidence does not fit into their presuppositions. Creationists have no problem with the evidence. In fact, Noachian Flood hypotheses make better sense of the data.
During the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium contained in rocks, lots of helium is produced. Because helium is the second lightest element and a noble gas—meaning it does not combine with other atoms—it readily diffuses (leaks) out and eventually escapes into the atmosphere. Helium diffuses so rapidly that all the helium should have leaked out in less than 100,000 years. So why are these rocks still full of helium atoms?
While drilling deep Precambrian (pre-Flood) granitic rocks in New Mexico, geologists extracted samples of zircon (zirconium silicate) crystals from different depths. The crystals contained not only uranium but also large amounts of helium. The hotter the rocks, the faster the helium should escape, so researchers were surprised to find that the deepest, and therefore hottest, zircons (at 387°F or 197°C) contained far more helium than expected. Up to 58% of the helium that the uranium could have ever generated was still present in the crystals.
You can read the rest of this layman's level article, "Helium in Radioactive Rocks", here. For those of you who want something far more technical, click here to read "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay".

Saturday, January 12, 2013


February 12 is "Question Evolution Day". Join us in taking a stand for intellectual and academic freedom! Posters can post, bloggers can blog, writers can write, singers can sing, page owners can post. Sure, there's money in evolutionism, and the majority of scientists accept it. But that does not mean it's true. This site links to scientific explanations that refute the evolutionary worldview and show that biblical creation has the correct interpretations of the facts.

There are some videos about "Question Evolution Day" and other things on this page, and graphics for your Web site, blog, profile or whatever are available here. Spread the word!

Friday, January 11, 2013

Young Earth Evidence 5: Magnetic Field

Another huge problem for proponents of an ancient Earth is the magnetic field. Indications are that the Earth's magnetic field is actually quite young, and attempts to explain away the plain evidence are creative. They defy the laws of physics, but they are creative nonetheless. Creationists have proposed a much more realistic model.
The earth is surrounded by a magnetic field that protects living things from solar radiation. Without it, life could not exist. That’s why scientists were surprised to discover that the field is quickly wearing down. At the current rate, the field and thus the earth could be no older than 20,000 years old.

The earth’s magnetic field is wearing down so quickly that it could be no more than 20,000 years old.
Several measurements confirm this decay. Since measuring began in 1845, the total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field has been decaying at a rate of 5% per century. Archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in AD 1000. Recent records of the International Geomagnetic Reference Field, the most accurate ever taken, show a net energy loss of 1.4% in just three decades (1970–2000). This means that the field’s energy has halved every 1,465 years or so.
You can read the rest of this layman's-level article at "Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field", here. A more technical article is available at "The Earth's Magnetic Field is Young".

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Young Earth Evidence 4: Solar Unpowered

One of the most persistent, perplexing puzzlers that is pertinent to proponents of a primordial planet is the sun. Using uniformitarian timetables, if the Earth was billions of years old, the sun would been too cold for life to evolve. This provokes a plethora of perplexing excuses from proponents of evolution. Of course, the biblical creation model does not have this problem.
Evidence now supports astronomers’ belief that the sun’s power comes from the fusion of hydrogen into helium deep in the sun’s core, but there is a huge problem. As the hydrogen fuses, it should change the composition of the sun’s core, gradually increasing the sun’s temperature. If true, this means that the earth was colder in the past. In fact, the earth would have been below freezing 3.5 billion years ago, when life supposedly evolved.
The rate of nuclear fusion depends upon the temperature. As the sun’s core temperatures increase, the sun’s energy output should also increase, causing the sun to brighten over time. Calculations show that the sun would brighten by 25% after 3.5 billion years. This means that an early sun would have been fainter, warming the earth 31°F (17°C) less than it does today. That’s below freezing!
You can patiently ponder the rest of this layman's level post at "Faint Sun Paradox". A more detailed discussion is available in "The Young Faint Sun Paradox and the Age of the Solar System".

morgueFile/lukeok (cropped)

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Young Earth Evidence 3: Dinosaur Soft Tissues

The third part of our layman's-level series on evidences for a young Earth sends evolutionists into a frenzy of denial and distortion of the facts. (Indeed, dinosaur DNA research itself is suspect, seemingly pre-censored.) The facts are simple: If dinosaurs have been extinct for sixty-five million years, finding soft tissue should be impossible. Some deny it, some invent a fanciful "explanation" that there is a previously unknown means of fossilization — but they avoid the plain facts that indicate their biases are erroneous and that the Earth may be far younger than evolutionists want to admit.


Ask the average layperson how he or she knows that the earth is millions or billions of years old, and that person will probably mention the dinosaurs, which nearly everybody “knows” died off 65 million years ago. A recent discovery by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, however, has given reason for all but committed evolutionists to question this assumption.

If dinosaurs lived over 65 million years ago, why do some dinosaur fossils still contain well-preserved soft tissues?
Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.
You are encouraged to finish reading "Soft Tissue in Fossils", here. Further discussion is available in "Those Not So Dry Bones".

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Young Earth Evidence 2: Getting Bent Out of Shape

Bent rock layers are strong evidence for a young Earth.
Second in our layman's-level series on evidence for a young Earth is bent rock layers. Geologists will give superficial explanations of "folding" and so forth, but when examined more closely, their explanations crumble and raise further questions — especially those hardened sedimentary rock layers that extend for miles. One place these layers can be seen is at the Grand Canyon.
In many mountainous areas, rock layers thousands of feet thick have been bent and folded without fracturing. How can that happen if they were laid down separately over hundreds of millions of years and already hardened?
If the earth’s fossil-bearing sedimentary layers were laid down over 460 million years, they could not be bent without breaking.
Hardened rock layers are brittle. Try bending a slab of concrete sometime to see what happens! But if concrete is still wet, it can easily be shaped and molded before the cement sets. The same principle applies to sedimentary rock layers. They can be bent and folded soon after the sediment is deposited, before the natural cements have a chance to bind the particles together into hard, brittle rocks.
The region around Grand Canyon is a great example showing how most of the earth’s fossil-bearing layers were laid down quickly and many were folded while still wet. Exposed in the canyon’s walls are about 4,500 feet (1,370 meters) of fossil-bearing layers, conventionally labelled Cambrian to Permian. They were supposedly deposited over a period lasting from 520 to 250 million years ago. Then, amazingly, this whole sequence of layers rose over a mile, around 60 million years ago. The plateau through which Grand Canyon runs is now 7,000–8,000 feet (2,150–3,450 meters) above sea level.
You can read the rest of "Bent Rock Layers", here. A more technical article is available at "Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured".


Monday, January 7, 2013

Young Earth Evidence 1: Scant Sediment

Presenting evidence that some people don't want you to hear, I am situated behind my unregistered assault keyboard — I may or may not be somewhere around Kingston, New York. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom from evolutionary dogma. Remember, "Question Evolution Day" is coming!

This is the first of ten articles giving evidence for a young Earth. Evolutionists and old-Earth creation compromisers scramble to find excuses to negate this material, preferring to rely on biased and assumption-riddled radiometric dating. One reason for this is that an old Earth (and old universe) implies the fundamentally flawed concept that, given enough time, evolution is possible.

Another reason that they fight for an ancient Earth is to bolster their circular reasoning based on old-Earth assumptions. When each article is published, expect people to run to the pooling of ignorance and propaganda sites for facile reassurance that none of this is true, and they do not have to actually examine the evidence.

First, we have the stone-in-the-sandal irritant that there is not enough sediment on the ocean floor to cover billions of years of erosion. The evidence fits nicely with a recent creation and a global flood at the time of Noah, however. The article is neither lengthy nor technical. It serves as an introduction and, hopefully, will encourage intellectually honest people to investigate further.
If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.
Every year water and wind erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock debris from the continents and deposit them on the seafloor. Most of this material accumulates as loose sediments near the continents. Yet the average thickness of all these sediments globally over the whole seafloor is not even 1,300 feet (400 m).
Some sediments appear to be removed as tectonic plates slide slowly (an inch or two per year) beneath continents. An estimated 1 billion tons of sediments are removed this way each year. The net gain is thus 19 billion tons per year. At this rate, 1,300 feet of sediment would accumulate in less than 12 million years, not billions of years.
You can read the rest of "Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor", here. For those who want a greater challenge, a more technical discussion is available here, at "The Sands of Time: A Biblical Model of Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation".

Sunday, January 6, 2013

TQEP Updated on CreationWiki

The entry on CreationWiki for "The Question Evolution Project" has been updated, complete with new logo. The entry is not long, and if you wanted to get some background information and links, this would be a good spot. Also, you may want to click around CreationWiki itself. The updated entry is here. Remember, the countdown is continuing for "Question Evolution Day"!

Saturday, January 5, 2013

Audio Saturday: Overview of Evidence for a Young Earth

There is evidence to support the idea that the Earth is young, not ancient. In fact, the evidence is better than the assumption-riddled, presupposition-based and even deceptive results yielded from radiometric dating. We are planning to spend the next two weeks with articles giving evidence for a young Earth.

As a kind of introduction, here is a recording of Dr. Georgia Purdom being interviewed on "Crosstalk", a Christian program. Click here to read more and find the "MP3" download link.

Friday, January 4, 2013

Evolution, Moa or Less

Moa and Kiwi 1901 Korensky/PD

Moas roamed New Zealand. Unfortunately, these huge flightless birds became extinct six hundred years ago. Enough of their remains have been found so that DNA analysis is possible. It turns out that there was a problem in declaring different species of moa. And this problem raises questions about "primitive" humans and human evolution.

The article also has an interesting creationist hypothesis about how moas reached New Zealand in the first place.
Giant flightless birds up to three metres (10 ft) high that once roamed New Zealand have been frustrating evolutionary scientists trying to make sense of their DNA. They could analyse the DNA because moas became extinct only some 600 years or so ago, and thus scientists have access to the remains of many specimens, as Professor Alan Cooper, a New Zealander at the University of Adelaide, Australia, explains:

“The moa … I’ve been working on them my entire career. I think they’re fantastic things. They’re like an emu but XXL. Actually we’ve just reconstructed what they’d look like using feathers from caves all over New Zealand.”
From analyzing the DNA from these feathers, Cooper said that he and his colleagues were able to identify “which species each feather came from”—and here’s where it got interesting.
You can finish reading "Of Moas and Men", here.

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Legislate and Demonize

No science today, just some observations and a short rant.

I am on record for saying that some favorite tactics of evolutionists and atheopaths are:
  • Misrepresent. Try to make creationists and ID proponents defend positions that they do not hold. In addition, spread untruths to people about our science and beliefs.
  • Demonize. Since Darwin's Stormtroopers cannot defeat creation science in the realm of science and ideas, they settle for vituperative attacks on us. This does not impress anyone but their gullible supporters.
  • Legislate. Since we have misinformed, biased judges in positions of power, they make rulings that would be laughable if they were not tragic [1], [2], [3]. One aspect of leftist thought police in action is when a student's personal journal had a poem about how she "understood" the Connecticut killer. A snoop found it, and she was suspended from school [4]. I heard some of the poem being read, and thought it was leftist nonsense, but I believe her civil and Constitutional rights to free speech and privacy were flagrantly violated.
Despite the attempts to negate us or even remove our rights to free speech, we're still here. I'm still dangerous with my unregistered assault keyboard, and I am going to continue to use it until they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Like Love, Change Takes Time — Right?

Love Takes Time by Orleans on Grooveshark

The common mantra states that evolution is a gradual process that takes a great deal of time to occur. (That is one reason they go on a Darwin jihad against people who dare to show scientific evidence for a young Earth.) Evolution is so slow, you can't see it. (Unless you think along the lines of Stephen Jay Gould, who rejected traditional evolutionary thinking and preferred "punctuated equilibrium"; evolution happened so fast, you missed it.) Actually, neither position has evidential support.

someecards.com - Slow evolution — Many changes take much time. These are far too fast!

Much to the dismay of evolutionists, species are known to modify and adapt much too rapidly to fit into the standard evolutionary philosophy. Of course, this is not a problem for Noachian Flood proponents.
In all of these instances, the speedy changes have nothing to do with the production of any new genes by mutation (the imagined mechanism of molecules-to-man evolution), but result mostly from selection of genes that already exist. Here we have real, observed evidence that (downhill) adaptive formation of new forms and species from the one created kind can take place rapidly. It doesn’t need millions of years.
Shouldn’t evolutionists rejoice, and creationists despair, at all this observed change? Hardly. Informed creationists have long stressed that natural selection can easily cause major variation in short time periods, by acting on the created genetic information already present. But this does not support the idea of evolution in the molecules-to-man sense, because no new information has been added.
You can read the rest of this in context, along with the comments about fish, finches, lizards, mice and other critters at "Speedy Species Surprise". And you might like the short video, below.

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Evolutionists Hate These Facts...

On this first calendar day of 2013, it is fitting to take a look at the origins of science. The bad news for evolutionists is that evolution has done nothing to advance scientific progress. Science was doing well before Darwin, and attempts to add evolution have actually been harmful to science!

Anti-creationists are famous for misrepresenting what biblical creationists actually believe and teach. They are also famous for deceiving and bullying people with their logical fallacies.

There is the occasional misrepresentation (which I believe is often deliberate) that creationists are simple-minded Biblicists who know nothing about science. Such a pejorative has nothing to do with reality.

Chance and random processes are antithetical to science; if evolution and atheism were true, there would be no uniformity of nature in which to do science stuff. In fact, the uniformity of nature presupposes the Creator. Bible-believing scientists of the past knew this.
“How can you reject the same science that put man on the moon?”
You get that response sometimes when you admit that you’re a Creationist. The irony is that it was a Creationist rocket scientist, Wernher Von Braun, who got us to the moon.
He did it without need of evolution.
Consider the following comments from von Braun himself:
“For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose. . . . While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. . . .
To be forced to believe only one conclusion—that everything in the universe happened by chance—would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye? Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer. . . . But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers, the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the creation of the fundamental laws of nature without divine intent. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must one really light a candle to see the sun?”
Observable, testable, repeatable science has given us many benefits and innovations. Many notable inventions, discoveries and developments are attributed to Bible-believing scientists. Inventions like the telegraph [Morse], mine safety lamp [Davy], electric motor [Ford], galvanometer [Henry], barometer [Pascal] and the reflecting telescope [Newton]. The discovery of scientific of gravity [Newton] and biogenesis [Pasteur]. Louis Pasteur alone gave us pasteurization, immunization and fermentation control.
In fact, the Scientific Method itself is attributed to a Bible-believing scientist, Sir Francis Bacon. And no wonder, for the Scientific Method is based on the idea that we have an orderly universe that may be rationally understood because both it and our minds were designed by an Intelligent Creator. Furthermore, we have biblical permission to study the world [Genesis 1:28].
You can read the rest of "Why Creation Is Foundational To Science – Not Evolution", here.