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

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Evolutionists Do Not Understand Evolution

Some people claim to have a thorough knowledge of evolution. Amazingly, there are tinhorns who claim to know more than evolutionary (and non-evolutionary) scientists! Evolution is inconsistent and constantly changing, and needs a great deal of tweaking to keep the pseudoscience in line with scientific observations.

Do evolutionary scientists themselves claim to have full understanding of evolution? Not hardly. Some will actually admit to having a lack of understanding. Yet, they persist in keeping the faith despite the evidence.
Philip Ball’s opinion piece in this week’s Nature, the most popular science magazine in the world, is news not because he stated that we don’t fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, but because he urged his fellow evolutionists to admit it. On this 60th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double helix, Ball reviews a few of the recent findings that have rebuked the evolution narrative that random mutations created the biological world. Unfortunately Ball fails to take his own advice and ends up doing precisely what he advises other evolutionists against—whitewashing the science.
You can learn more by reading the rest of "Evolutionist: Let’s Admit it, We Don’t Fully Understand How Evolution Works". You can read a follow-up to this post, "More On Evolutionists Not Understanding Evolution".

Monday, April 29, 2013

What is the Best Way to Teach Science?

“In science, people argue for their ideas, in terms of the evidence that they have. There should be more opportunities to look at why some ideas are wrong, as well as what the right ideas are.” — Jonathan Osborne
When discussing origins with proponents of evolution, we find that they simply repeat what they have been taught. Unfortunately, they have been taught "facts" that are conjecture, and "evidence" that is based on presuppositions and circular reasoning. Questioning evolution as a fact is effectively forbidden, and fundamentalist evolutionists strive to suppress critical thinking and examination of the evidence.

Jonathan Osborne wants to do things differently. Instead of reciting facts (both real and imagined), he wants students to do something radical: Argue from the available facts instead of starting with a conclusion. Although it's a step in the right direction and interferes with evolutionary indoctrination, it's not quite enough.
A professor of science education has a radical idea: teach science through argumentation, because that’s the way scientists do it.
If you were bored in science class having to learn a bunch of facts, you might have perked up if your teacher taught it the way Jonathan Osborne recommends: argue a position from available evidence.  PhysOrg introduced its article by saying, “Teaching students how to argue based on available evidence engages them in the scientific process and provides a better idea of how science actually works.”
To find out what all is involved and why it isn't quite enough, you can read "Students Need to Argue Science, Not Memorize It".

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Short Attention Spans, Social Media, Darwin's Cheerleaders and Lethargic Creationists

by Robert ("Cowboy Bob") Sorensen

This article is for the creationists, and I implore you to spare ten minutes to read it.

Science is on our side. Most of us are aware of this fact. Also, our numbers are growing and atheism is on the decline [1]. It is an exciting time to be a creationist! There are many organizations that present the science and theology supporting creationism and make material available on the Web [2], as well as books, videos and so forth.

So what are people doing with this wealth of information? Some will learn a bit, but after the entertainment value wears off, they lose interest. Others will become enthusiastic but do not continue to learn, and become intimidated when challenged by scoffers. There will be some who lose sight of the importance of the message because of their other concerns and leave it behind. Then there are the ones who are excited about the message, the science, the relevance and more, so they dig in deeper. These will learn more and work at giving an informed response to others [3].

I believe it is both a blessing and a curse to have social media. People today have shorter attention spans, and social media are helping it become shorter [4, 5]. People are in a hurry, and want things short and simple [6]. Social media cater to that, and it may or may not be fine for business purposes.

Sure, we all like pictures, cartoons, sayings made into graphics, short updates and so on. How does it help with important subjects like the relevance of creation? Those items are spiritual and intellectual junk food; a steady diet will have a negative impact on your growth. Some people cannot remember the last time they sat still and read a book for an hour, or even half an hour. By the way, how is your personal Bible reading going? Do you still have time for that?

Meanwhile, Darwin's Cheerleaders (modern Luddites [8]) are spending time learning their talking points so they can try to intimidate creationists with their interpretations of the evidence. They will often indulge personal attacks, ridicule, arbitrary assertions and copy-and-paste elephant hurling to give the false impression that they are our intellectual superiors [7]. (Wish I had time to discuss atheists pretending to be Christians, or former Christians, who try to manipulate emotions.) Creationists who are not interested in learning about critical thinking [9 10] are often at a loss to be able to give a meaningful response to a scoffer, and may not realize that an assertion about evolution or God is not actual evidence to support their position. For example, how would you respond to the claim that "the only people that don't accept the Theory of Evolution are those who don't understand it"? I will let you work on that yourselves, but I will say that it is not only insulting and condescending, but loaded with fallacies.

Explaining our faith, and giving reasons for our beliefs (both scientific and theological) is not just an intellectual parlor game. It is very serious. No, I am not asking anyone to be an expert in all fields. That would be ridiculous. I am asking people to spend time learning how to think critically and have a good working knowledge of the subjects. People will be more likely to follow a link you supply if you have shown a personal interest in the subject and that you have spent some effort on it. Clicking "Like", giving a "Retweet" and so on will not impress most of those people. Oh, you went to a seminar or a presentation? Great! I think. Was it just entertainment, or are you going to continue?

I need to add that kids are leaving the church but you knew that. One reason is that they are brainwashed (that's right, I said it!) by the secular humanist learning institutions, and doubt the relevance and validity of the faith. People have said later in life, "I couldn't get answers when I was younger".

Part of the problem is that the church is not taking the foundations of the Bible seriously. In addition, parents are shrugging off their responsibilities. This does not need to happen, and resources are available [11, 12]. (Do not be lazy and just throw a link at them. Not only does that lend the impression that you really do not care, but so many people today have short attention spans, as we have seen.) Do your children deserve the effort for you to give them answers and proper instruction?

This is ironic, isn't it?
The ten minutes I asked you for is almost up. Interestingly, most articles on creation science take that long, or less, to read. Social media? Use it, by all means! But do not rely on slogans, pictures, short status updates, article introductions and so forth as your source of education. If you believe that the creation science message is foundational to the gospel and worth presenting (just like the gospel itself must be presented), then we have work to do. And above all, pray.

It's time to get fired up [13, 14]!

Monday, April 22, 2013

Evolution's Luddites

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The term “Luddite” refers to a rebellious movement in the early part of the Industrial Revolution. At that time, some people were destroying machinery that was going to put them out of work because they could be replaced by unskilled, low-paid people who would run the machines [1].

Although most people do not know the real meaning of “Luddite” today and the fear of unemployment and starvation that motivated the movement, many know the disparaging term from definition number two, “One who opposes technical or technological change” [2]. Even that meaning is being lost because the term is being used imprecisely. People who want an emotionally-charged word for their political or religious enemies will call them “Luddites” [3, 4]. I have encountered the term dreadfully misused several time in reference to creationists.

Since someone who believes in Intelligent Design or biblical (Six Day) creation is tagged with this term, it seems fitting to turn this around: Evolutionists are Luddites. That’s right, I said it! Stop and think: They are opposed to change, clinging to their fundamentally flawed science philosophies despite the evidence.

The term "Luddite" originally referred to a group that opposed science and technology. Today, the Luddites are the Darwinists who refuse to let go of their fundamentally flawed anti-science worldview.

This becomes readily apparent when Darwin’s Cheerleaders on Algore's Amazing Internet™ attack creationists with verbal and spurious legislative violence. They are emboldened by atheist and humanist efforts to remove “religion” from public life with banal complaints [5, 6, 7], and by libelous attacks on creationist ministries (and Christians in general) [8, 9, 10]

Not only are they committed to a self-serving materialistic definition of “science” [11], but they are protecting their cash cow. After all, if someone comes up with the Next Big Thing in Evolution®, he or she will be expecting an increase of funding from the government and other supporters [12]. Imagine that…our tax dollars at work to support evolution, which is a foundation for the religions of atheism and secular humanism [13].

I put it to you that the real opponents of scientific progress [14], the real Luddites, are the evolutionists — ironically, they are attempting to put the Luddite label on creationists.

Friday, April 19, 2013

An Extremely Hot Time

To journey to the ocean floor, special equipment must be used because the tremendous pressure can crush a submarine like an eggshell. Yet, there are living things there. Even more amazing, they live in  darkness around hydrothermal vents that exude great temperatures and toxic gasses.

The existence of such creatures (and the symbiosis of many) defies evolutionary explanations.
Some locations on earth seem just too extreme to support life. One such extreme environment is vents at the bottom of the ocean that spew out superheated water and toxic chemicals. Yet even here we find an abundance of living things, well designed for life at the extreme.
An ugly gash slices across the earth’s surface, zigzagging 49,700 miles (80,000 km) around the globe. Superheated water gushes out of underwater fissures, spewing clouds of toxic chemicals. Temperatures can reach 700°F (400°C), and pressures can exceed 10,000 pounds per square inch. Surely this should be the most desolate spot on the planet.
Scientists first discovered hydrothermal (“hot water”) vents in the 1950s and 1960s when improved sonar equipment allowed them to map the ocean floor in rich detail. The vents appeared along mid-ocean ridges, wherever the earth’s plates were pulling apart.
When probes reached these murky depths in the 1970s, scientists were surprised to find a bustling community of bizarre creatures, including giant white crabs and odd worm-like creatures called tube worms. In fact, hydrothermal vents may support the most populous habitat on the planet.
You can read the rest of "Deep-Sea Vents—Life’s Toxic Sanctuary", here.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Perturbing Paraconformities

The famous "geologic(al) column" that is presented as evidence for uniformitarianism and evolution has several problems. The first one is that the sequences do not exist except in textbooks and the imaginations of Evolution's True Believers ®. The layers are out of order. A second problem is the circular reasoning used to date the layers by use of index fossils (we know how old a layer is because of the fossils in it, and we know how old a fossil is because of the layer in which it was found). 

Secular geologists claim that the geologic column supports their views, but there are many major flaws that should not be dismissed. Further, what we do see supports the Noachian Flood models of creationists.

A further problem for evolutionary geologists and paleontologists are the missing layers, totally disrupting the expected sequences. These are not minor aberrations in small areas that can be dismissed. Instead, they cover large areas and involve alleged millions of years. The frequent flatness add to the annoyance. To make matters worse for uniformitarianism, these gaps support Noachian Flood models postulated by creationists.
‘Flat gaps’, generally known as paraconformities, are contacts within sedimentary sequences where layers of sediment representing many millions of years are said to be missing. Flat gaps are remarkably flat and the sedimentary layers either side of the gap are parallel and relatively thin compared with their enormous geographical extent. Over the alleged long periods of time indicated by the gap, erosion is expected to remove vast depths of sediment and produce a highly irregular land surface. Such evidence of erosion, however, is not found. Flat gaps are common throughout the geologic column and around the world. They are very difficult to explain within the long-age uniformitarian paradigm and severely challenge the concept of millions of years. On the other hand, flat gaps provide strong evidence for a young earth and are easily explained within the paradigm of the global biblical Flood, authenticating the truthfulness of the Bible.

Not all gaps in the sedimentary layers are flat, but a significant number are, and these widespread flat gaps pose a serious problem for the long geologic ages.
The standard geologic time scale assigns millions to billions of years for the age of various sedimentary rock layers found in the crust of our earth. However, between these layers there are often subtle horizons that are interpreted to represent a break in the sequence of strata where sediments representing millions of years of deposition are absent. These subtle gaps severely conflict with the millions of years proposed by most geologists for the slow deposition of the sedimentary record. Rather, they suggest that the sedimentary layers formed rapidly as would be expected by deposition during the worldwide biblical Flood.
You can rock on over and finish reading "'Flat gaps' in sedimentary rock layers challenge long geologic ages".


Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Evolution and Sexual Harassment

We already know that atheists have a problem with sexual harassment, and the majority of evolutionists are atheists, so it should not be a surprise that anthropologists doing fieldwork experience it as well.

Should we fault them, though? If we have animals in our ancestry, we should be able to act like animals. Right? After all, they believe that evolution is the source of morality, so they are only exhibiting the logical result of their worldview. 
A shocking percentage of male anthropologists sexually abuse their female students, a new report says. 
Science Insider broke the story: “Survey Finds Sexual Harassment in Anthropology.”  Previously afraid to speak up out of fear for their careers, women responded to an anonymous survey that shows sexual abuse, up to and including rape, is rampant by their superiors:
Fieldwork is a rite of passage for anthropologists. It gives the initiate firsthand knowledge of a culture, along with a feeling of camaraderie with colleagues, often in remote and rugged locations. But for women there is also a dark side—a risk of sexual harassment and rape, according to a survey of fieldwork experiences released today. Anthropologist Kathryn Clancy, who authored the study, found a disturbingly high incidence of physical sexual harassment among respondents: More than 20% of female bioanthropologists who took part said that they had experienced ” physical sexual harassment or unwanted sexual contact.” Most of these victims are female, and most of the perpetrators were colleagues of superior professional status, sometimes the victim’s own fieldwork mentor.
You can finish reading "Anthopologists Abuse Students on the Job", here.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Bioluminescence Befuddles Evolution Believers

Bioluminescence, the ability of various organisms to "glow in the dark" because of their unique biology, is extremely puzzling to evolutionary scientists.
How such an ability allegedly evolved is frustrating, and scientists argue in circles in their attempts to explain it. There are two significant problems — neither of which bother creationists in the least.
Evolutionary researchers organize all of these basic forms onto a preconceived “tree of life” that supposedly shows how closely related each form might be to another, assuming all creatures share common ancestry. Evolutionists expect one creature to have evolved bioluminescence and then to have passed that trait along to its descendants. However, the researchers do not find this or any other evolutionary pattern. Instead, bioluminescence is scattered willy-nilly among dozens of totally different life forms.
The study authors, publishing in the Annual Review of Marine Science, wrote, “The distribution of bioluminescence across the major taxonomic [animal] groups does not appear to follow any obvious phylogenetic [evolutionary] or oceanographic constraint.” This mismatch between theory and reality presents the first obstacle evolutionists face.
You can read "The Unpredictable Pattern of Bioluminescence", in its full context, here.

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Higgs Hysteria

Lovers of sensationalism have run rampant by claiming, "The Higgs Boson particle has been confirmed! The Big Bang really happened! There is no God!"

Not so fast, Nigel! There is a great deal of incorrect reporting and bad assumptions related to this. (They also show their ignorance of quantum field theory.) How about some education for a reality check?

Scientists announced last week [March 16, 2013] that they likely confirmed the existence of a particle called the Higgs boson. One media outlet said this of the Higgs boson: "It helps solve one of the most fundamental riddles of the universe: how the Big Bang created something out of nothing 13.7 billion years ago." 
But is this really true? 
As noted in one of our online articles, there is a tendency for people to intuitively think of subatomic particles as being like wee-little marbles. However, a branch of physics called quantum field theory views particles as being "ripples" in quantities called fields. Many people may be familiar with the concept of a field from high school or college physics classes. The magnetic field surrounding a bar magnet is a well-known example: the fact that iron filings placed near the magnet align themselves along the magnetic field lines enables one to conceptually visualize the field surrounding the magnet. There is a field associated with the Higgs particle called the Higgs field. This field is somewhat different from more familiar examples of fields and is a particular kind called a scalar field. 
The Standard Model is a theory that describes the relationships among elementary particles and three of the fundamental forces (it does not include gravity). Until this recent discovery, the existence of all the other particles in the Standard Model had been confirmed. Thus the confirmation of the Higgs' existence is a "big deal" in the physics community. 
But why are some claiming that the Higgs boson helps to explain how the Big Bang supposedly created the universe? The reason involves something called inflation theory.
You can finish fielding "Higgs Boson Confirmed: Separating Fact from Hype".

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Little Moons Throw a Spanner into the Cosmology Works

Cosmologists and Cosmogonists have their theories on the origins and workings of the solar system and the universe. Secular versions rely on presuppositions that the universe is very old. The theories do not hold up under scrutiny — moons like Io and Enceladas manage to make matters worse.

Enceladas spouts off. Image Credit: NASA/JPL/SSI
Theories and computer models fail to explain the activities and the heat of these moons. They should be cold rocks after all of that alleged time. Instead, they put on shows of their own. None of this is a problem for biblical creationists, by the way.
Planetary origin theories come across as popular and charismatic, till some little moon pops off and says, “Yoo-hoo! Remember me?”
Io, Io; It’s Not So Long Ago
Jupiter’s volcanic moon Io is a pain in the astronomical dating game.  Imagine if similar-sized Earth’s moon were carrying on like that; it would be a fireworks show every night, keeping scientists awake wondering how it stays active.  Planetary modelers have had a hard time figuring out Io’s heat source (and how long it could last) since Voyager revealed the eruptions in 1979; and no, tidal flexing is not sufficient.  Now, some NASA and ESA scientists say the volcanoes are “all wrong” – the volcanoes are in the wrong places from where models say they should be.
A press release from NASA Goddard opens with a dramatic image from the New Horizons flyby in 2007, showing a huge plume at Io’s north pole in action.  If the tidal flexing models worked, the expected volcanic action should be 30 to 60 degrees east of where it actually is.  “We found a systematic eastward offset between observed and predicted volcano locations that can’t be reconciled with any existing solid body tidal heating models,” Christopher Hamilton (U of Maryland) said.
You can rocket over here to finish reading "Bimbo Eruptions in the Solar System".

Monday, April 8, 2013

What Does Carbon-14 Tell Us about the Age of the Earth?

Radiometric dating is fraught with difficulties. These include conflicting results, no sign of anything resembling calibration, and especially a number of assumptions. When radioactive elements decay, they turn into a different, stable element (parent-daughter): Rubidium into strontium, potassium into argon and so on. The assumptions are: They know how much of the parent and daughter elements exist, no outside factors affected the quantities, and that the rate of change remained constant.

Results from radiometric dating are varied, and the scientists can choose the results that best suit their preconceptions. But there have been problems with Carbon-14. This is primarily used on organic materials, and there should be no detectable Carbon-14 in materials that are allegedly older than 100,000 years, such as diamonds. But it's there, and they make excuses such as "lab contamination".

Carbon-14 yields results that do not fit with evolutionary time scales. When using the assumptions, the results seem to defy young Earth creationist views. In reality, there is not much of a problem for creationists.
Evolutionists have long used the carbon-14, or radiocarbon, dating technique as a “hammer” to bludgeon Bible-believing Christians. A straightforward reading of the Bible describes a 6,000-year-old universe, and because some carbon-14 (14C) age estimates are multiple tens of thousands of years, many think that the radiocarbon method has soundly refuted the Bible’s historical accuracy.
However, these excessively long ages are easily explained within the biblical worldview, and 14C actually presents a serious problem for believers in an old earth. 14C has been detected in organic specimens (coal, wood, seashells, etc., containing carbon from formerly living organisms) that are supposedly hundreds of millions of years old—but no detectable 14C should be present in specimens that are even a little more than 100,000 years old! Nearly anyone can verify this for themselves using basic multiplication and division.
You can read the rest of "Rethinking Carbon-14 Dating: What Does It Really Tell Us about the Age of the Earth?", here.

Friday, April 5, 2013

Salamander Rocket Mouth

The Chinese Giant Salamander really sucks. No, this is not a disparaging term. It is quite literal. This kind of salamander has incredible suction abilities, as seen in this slow-motion video:

Their suction abilities are almost as powerful as rocket cars, but last only a fraction of a second.

Other creatures use suction-feeding techniques, but the Giant Salamander is constructed differently. As expected, evolutionists spin some fanciful tales to force-fit their philosophies into the observed facts — these "explanations" raise more questions than they purport to answer.

Some rocket cars can accelerate at 5 g-forces. For comparison, respectable acceleration for a sports car amounts to half a "g," and people faint when accelerating at 5g's. But long before the rocket car was invented, fish were accelerating just as forcefully into the mouths of giant salamanders. How did these thin-skinned amphibians acquire rocket-force mouthparts? 
A team of researchers from Austria investigated the biomechanics of suction feeding and measured the maximum acceleration of a fish as it traveled into a Chinese Giant Salamander's mouth. These river monsters, including the species Andrias davidianus, can exceed five feet in length. Their numbers are steadily declining, so we better study them now since future generations might not get the chance. 
The Journal of the Royal Society Interface published the new results. Moving their fast food at 40-50 m/s2, or between 4 and 5g's, these salamander's suckers impress.
You can draw yourself here to finish reading "Giant Salamander Suction Compared to Jet Car".

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Eye Design and Evolution

There are some people who claim that the human eye must be the product of evolution because if it was designed, the Designer did a poor job. (Ironically, they imply that evolution itself does a poor job of designing things with such statements.) These people do not know what they are talking about. Many of them are Dawkinsites, parroting his uninformed opinions from The Blind Watchmaker.

eyes, Sorensen, dilation
Dilated by the Ophthalmologist
Dawkins or these other people who think they can suggest better design possibilities for the human eye should check with ophthalmologists. The scientific realities and intricacies are far different than conjectures rooted in ignorance.

Backwardly wired retina?
One of the tired old canards on which antitheists have dined out for years is the claim that our eye is stupidly wired back to front, something no decent designer would use. E.g. the vociferous misotheist and eugenicist Clinton R. Dawkins said in his famous book, The Blind Watchmaker: 
‘Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away, from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wire sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called ‘blind spot’) to join the optic nerve. This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually, probably not much but, still, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer). I don’t know the exact explanation for this strange state of affairs. The relevant period of evolution is so long ago.’
Other anticreationists such as Kenneth Miller parrot the same sort of argument . . .
Theology trumps science after all?
For all the cant about creationists using theology rather than science, notice that Dawkins was really using a theological argument rather than a scientific one. I.e. he was claiming that a designer wouldn’t design something like this, rather than scientifically demonstrating evolution . . . After all, he admitted to ignorance of an evolutionary explanation. 
If I was in your position, I wouldn't bat an eye about reading the rest of "Fibre optics in eye demolish atheistic ‘bad design’ argument", here.

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Music Video: Monkeys for Uncles

Let's have some fun today. ApologetiX released the official video of "Monkeys for Nothing" on April 1 (appropriate for evolutionism). It is a parody of "Money for Nothing" by Dire Straits. The song is brilliant, and the video is very close to the original.

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Evolution, Invertebrates and Missing Links

Evolutionists will tell you that the fossil record is loaded with transitional forms. This is not correct. Some things with superficial resemblances are inaccurately foisted upon the public as "proof" and "transitional forms", but such things are missing. Especially among the invertebrates.

More than that, there should be millions (or more) true, undisputed transitional forms showing the relationships between animal phyla are not to be found, and scientists are in disagreement about their relationships to one another.

Creatures that we think of as "simple" have some very complex features. Not only is there considerable disagreement about their relationship to each other, but there is nothing in the fossil record showing how these complex traits supposedly evolved. In fact, fossilized ancestors of many invertebrates show little if any appreciable differences from their modern counterparts.

In their 2010 zoology text, evolutionists Stephen Miller and John Harley present a clear summary of the current state of animal classification. They maintain, “There is little disagreement among zoologists about the taxonomic classification of animals”. Creation biologists agree. We’re hardly opposed to “the taxonomic classification of animals” and find such grouping and ordering extremely helpful as we study God’s creation. We would hasten to add that the modern era of taxonomy was introduced by Swedish botanist and creationist Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778), who gave us the Linnaean system of naming plant and animal species.
Miller and Harley go on to say exactly what creationists have been pointing out ever since Darwin: “Great disagreement exists, however, about how the animal phyla are related to one another.” The reason for this ongoing “great disagreement” is that the animal phyla are not related to one another in any Darwinian sense! In other words, what we see in the fossil record is great discontinuity among plant and animal groups—as predicted by the creation model—rather than the continuity evolution assumes.
Not only is there a healthy disparity among the proposed evolutionary interrelationships of animal groups, but common ancestors, the missing links, are still unknown over 150 years after the publication of Darwin’s infamous book.
Occasionally, evolutionists protest that it would be extremely rare to find any soft-bodied creatures that would link groups together. But in recent years, more soft tissues in fossils are being unearthed. Impressions of soft tissues in sedimentary rock continue to be discovered and indicate that 1) soft tissue can be fossilized, 2) the process of fossilization must be quite rapid (as in a flood!), and 3) these creatures have always been the same throughout supposed “geologic history” (with the possibility of extinction).
This article will address some of the more popular invertebrates (animals without backbones). Sometimes beautiful, sometimes deadly, they are creatures designed with exceeding complexity. They appear in sedimentary rocks complete and fully formed, and there is no sign that they have evolved from ancient ancestors.
You probably have enough backbone to continue reading "God's Amazing Invertebrates: The Missing Links Are Still Missing", here.

Monday, April 1, 2013

False Attribution and Fallacious Assertions in Evolutionary Materials

Evolutionists often play deceptive word games to get people to accept their fundamentally flawed worldview. Biblical creationists want to teach you *how* to think, now *what* to think like Darwinoids want.

One thing that gets people flustered that need to learn more about creation science and critical thinking skills is the way that Darwin's Cheerleaders play "bait and switch" games with their words. For example, these bullies equivocate "science" into "evolution", and say things like, "If you deny evolution, then you hate science". Another bit of fast and loose wordplay is when they "prove" evolution by simply saying that something is proof, and use circular reasoning by assuming that it is true, therefore, the evidence proves evolution. Wrong.
Many scientific findings get labeled with “evolution” even though neo-Darwinism has nothing to do with them.
Reversible evolution:  A study on dust mites reported by Science Daily claims evolution can run backwards to previous states – a violation of an evolutionary principle called Dollo’s Law.  For one, the supposed phylogenetic analysis began and ended with dust mites, not with one kind of creature turning into another.  For another, a violation of Dollo’s Law (“evolution is unidirectional and irreversible”) amounts to a falsification of neo-Darwinism, not a confirmation of it.
Predictable evolution:  An article on PhysOrg and another on Science Daily claim long-term evolution is “surprisingly predictable,” contrary to a key tenet of neo-Darwinism that evolution is aimless and purposeless.  The first study involved just a computer model of a particular protein connection, irrelevant to evolution anyway.  The second began and ended with E. coli (one species), of doubtful relevance to the issue of Darwinian “origin of species.”
You can read more about giving credit where it is not due in "Evolution is Not Just Change or Similarity", here.