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, June 18, 2019

Canyons, Valleys, and the Genesis Flood

Uniformitarian geologists offer assumptions based on deep time presuppositions regarding many aspects of geomorphology (an expensive word meaning the study of features on the earth's surface). They cannot offer actual evidence. However, there is a rational explanation for what is observed.


Secular geologists have ideas about how canyons and valleys form, but they do not fit the evidence. Instead, observed evidence supports the Genesis Flood.
Credit: Unsplash / Jonathan Auh
During debates about the formation of canyons and valleys back in the 1800s, people wondered which came first, the valley or the water that was often found in it. Catastrophists believe that they are the result of a huge amount of water in a short time, while uniformitarians insisted that they were carved out over millions of years. Obviously, Flood geology was shouted down. After all, Darwin needs lots of time, so secularists want to make sure he has it. However, the evidence fits the global Genesis Flood models instead of secular ideas.
Continental valleys and canyons come in all sizes and shapes. Some are V-shaped valleys, and others U-shaped canyons. Some are shallow and others have tall vertical walls, like the Grand Canyon. We rarely observe valley and canyon formation taking place today and then only in association with a flooding event. Therefore, uniformitarian theories about valley and canyon formation are not built on observational science but instead upon their assumptions about the past.
To read the rest of the article, click on "How valleys and canyons formed during Noah’s Flood".




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

Monday, June 17, 2019

Engineered Adaptability and Design Features

Some critters can put up with a great deal of bad conditions and still survive. Darwin wanted us to believe that they had to evolve in response to their environments, but that is the opposite of the truth — and the opposite of what can be observed. We can make some comparisons with construction.


Using engineering principles as a model, we can see that our Creator has designed living things to adapt to conditions they face. This is the opposite of what Darwin believed.
Earthquake damage in Chile image credit: USGS / Walter Mooney
Usage does no imply endorsement of site contents
We see damage from natural disasters like earthquakes and storms (and even man-made disasters) where some buildings have fallen but others are still standing. I'll allow that there are many factors involved such as where the storm or quake struck, but we can see that the buildings were designed in anticipation of potential damage to remain standing. Evolution cannot happen if an organism cannot survive, obviously. Instead, the Master Engineer set up creatures to adapt.
Engineers are rarely able to redesign external exposures. Conditions like wind, waves, and geology aren’t economically feasible to control. It is the traits and features designed into entities that are controllable. These can be engineered to solve a range of uncontrollable and uncertain challenges. These features, not the conditions, determine both whether a design is successful and if that engineered solution becomes dominant in a trade.
The engineers assess if they have correctly gauged the external challenges the designs were purposefully intended to solve. When failures happen, they focus more on an entity’s traits than its exposures. They search for possible poorly or under-designed traits and correct them—not the challenges.
To read the entire article, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Engineered Features Determine Design Success or Failure". You may also want to see more about a creature that was discussed early in the previously linked article at "Tardigrades too tough for evolution".

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

Saturday, June 15, 2019

Atheism, Grief, and Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

Friday, June 14, 2019

The Clam Eyes Have It

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


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



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

Thursday, June 13, 2019

Global Warming and Bird Habitats?

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


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

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

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

Wednesday, June 12, 2019

Evolution Experiment on Mimicry is in Bad Taste

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


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

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



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

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

Grow Grow Godzilla!

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

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

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

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


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

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



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

Monday, June 10, 2019

Hybridization and the Tree of Life

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


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

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




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

Saturday, June 8, 2019

The Confusing Clownfish

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

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

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

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



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

Friday, June 7, 2019

Amino Acids in Amber?

In their efforts to convince people about universal common ancestor evolution, its proponents continue to use circular reasoning and incomplete research. As see in other posts, amber is a mighty fine for preserving things. Amino acids have been discovered in it.

Amber preserves things exceptionally well, and amino acids were discovered in it. Scientists are using bad logic and inefficient research to force millions of years into it.
Credit: Morguefile / GaborfromHungary
Although amber preserves things exceptionally well, it is not perfect. Especially over millions of Darwin years. Proteins can deteriorate even there. Cosmic rays, temperature variations and other aspects of nature don't help matters.



Using the same bad logic that was applied to dinosaur proteins, a test involving proteins and amber was run and then extrapolated over a huge amount of time. Try as they might to get away from the truth, reason and evidence support recent creation.
If this doesn’t take the cake for soft tissue preservation: intact amino acids in amber said to be 100 million years old!

Even this one evoked a ‘wow’ response from Jon Tennant at the PLoS Paleontology Community blog. On April 23, McCoy et al in Nature Scientific Reports announced “Ancient amino acids from fossil feathers in amber.” Tennant writes,
To read the rest (plus another interesting piece), click on "Amino Acids Found in Cretaceous Amber".

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

Thursday, June 6, 2019

Puzzling Planation Pediments and the Genesis Flood

Secular geologists are unable to explain planation surfaces according to their uniformitarian beliefs. These are found at the tops of mountains and such, and pediments are at ground level. They are caused by erosion, are very flat, and gradually slope down from a mountain toward a valley.

Large flat areas near mountains are pediments. These cannot be explained by secular geology, but fit creation science Flood models.
Lake Mead pediment image credit USGS
Pediments are similar to alluvial fans, and caused some confusion for geologists long ago. Planation surfaces, pediments, and other landforms are not being formed today. Some pediments are in areas that are low in erosion, so they have kept their shapes. If we plug the observed data into creation science Genesis Flood models, ye ha boy howdy, we see that they were formed by massive water runoff.
The uniformitarian ‘slow and gradual’ belief has great difficulty accounting for many of the features on the earth’s surface, called landforms. These can, however, be explained by Flood runoff.

Landforms can be divided into two main types, those shaped during the runoff of the sheet flow phase of the Flood, and those shaped during its channelized phase. I have pointed out a number of sheet erosion features in this magazine; this article refers to a channelized-phase landform, the pediment.
To finish reading, go to "Pediments — Rapidly carved by channelized Flood runoff".




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

Wednesday, June 5, 2019

Field Mustard Plants and False Evolution Claims

There is a plant known as Brassica rapa, but it has subspecies that have more familiar names including field mustard. Botanists decided to do some experimenting on the field mustard and pollination, and commenced to not only violating evolutionary dogma, but affirming a creation science biological model.


Botanists did some research on field mustard and claimed to see evolution. Not only is evolution absent, but they affirmed a creation science biological model.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / TeunSpaans (CC by-SA 3.0)
The botanists assumed evolution to prove evolution (circular reasoning), but also made untrue statements. There was no evidence of evolution, just small modifications. Magical mystical "environmental pressures" were assumed as well.


However, the continuous environmental tracking model that you have been reading about here has been demonstrated in research and is more scientific than Darwinian selectionism. More specifically, instead of external influences, our Creator used engineering principles and designed living things to quickly adapt.
A recent study on a plant in the mustard family (Brassica Rapa) provides evidence that plants continuously track environmental changes both in real time and across generations. Brassica Rapa utilize regulated innate mechanisms to produce “rapid” and highly tailored responses to the presence of pollinating bees, leaf-eating caterpillars, and the combined activities of both simultaneously.
To read the entire article, click on "Rapid Changes in Plants Demonstrate Innate Tracking". Also, a related article is available, "Plants Show Engineering Principles".

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

Tuesday, June 4, 2019

Surface Tension and your Lungs

Take a deep breath. Doing that is a voluntary action, but most of our breathing happens involuntarily — which is a good thing, otherwise we would have to focus on that and never sleep. The Master Engineer designed the complex actions of our lungs to keep us going.

While getting water in our lungs is undesirable, some has actually been placed there by the Master Engineer to optimize their functions.
Credit: Pixabay / toubibe
There are many factors in play that could not have come together through evolutionary processes. While water in the lungs causes drowning, we do have water in there by design. It actually helps the complicated breathing and oxygenation process through surface tension. However, sometimes the surface tension is reduced by cells at certain times as needed.
For our lungs to expand and contract during breathing, they must somehow be attached to our chest cavity and diaphragm yet slip effortlessly against these surfaces. This is accomplished by a thin layer of watery liquid called pleural fluid between the lungs’ outer surface and the chest cavity lining. Pleural fluid serves both as a lubricant and as an attachment by means of surface tension. Pleural fluid is over 90% water, which has a high surface tension. It is the surface tension of water that causes wet sheets of glass to stick together and permits water strider insects to walk on water.
To read the entire article or download the audio version, click on "Water in Your Lungs—What a Relief".

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

Monday, June 3, 2019

More Regarding Our Young Solar System

Naturalists are riding the cosmic cougar and are afraid to jump off. Like their late high priest Stephen Hawking, they are committed to the Big Bang and an ancient cosmos even though the evidence supports recent creation. So they keep on a-riding that false paradigm.

Secularists continue desperately seeking rescuing devices and building on deep time beliefs. However, the evidences for a young solar system continue to accumulate.
Europa water vapor plumes
Credits: NASA / ESA / W. Sparks (STScI) / USGS Astrogeology Science Center
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
One jasper is so committed to his deep time mythology that he thinks the space cigar rock ‘Oumuamua destroys all of biblical creation science. Not hardly! Not only is this kind of a sweeping concept completely irrational (also, scientists know very little about ‘Oumuamua), a such a belief also requires ignoring all of the accumulated evidence for a youthful cosmos.


People like that continue to ride that puzzled paradigm puma of evolution, fearful of the truth they must face if they fall off or dismount, so they are desperately seeking rescuing devices. That is indeed unfortunate, because believing the truth of the Creator's work is far more rational. Recent news includes a whole passel of widely scattered evidence that "should not" be there according to secular beliefs, but fit right well with biblical creation. To read about these, click on "Young Solar System Evidence Pops Up Everywhere". You will probably like another that will tell you all about what's shaking: the moon. Yep, moonquakes provide "More Evidence Our Moon Is Young".



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

Saturday, June 1, 2019

Geology and the Young Earth

In discussion about the age of the earth, people generally assume that this here planet of ours is plenty old, somewhere around four to five billion years. How do we know? Because scientists said so. How do they know? Through picking data they like and rejecting those that are incompatible with the deep time that Darwin requires.

Secular geologists tell you that the earth is billions of years old. They ignore the facts supporting recent creation and the Genesis Flood. Here are four of those.
Credit: freestocks.org / Joanna Malinowska
Secular scientists generally adhere to uniformitarianism (slow and gradual processes over a millions or billions of years), and reject evidence for the Genesis Flood. There are many evidences for the young earth that can be seen perusing this site alone, and these link to other sites with a wagon train-load of material on this subject as well as others affirming recent creation. We'll keep it simple today with an overview of four important evidence from geology for the young earth and the global Flood.
Most people believe rock layers require millions of years to form. This assumption has been taught as fact to geology students and the public for generations. In reality, rocks of any type can and do form quickly under the right conditions.
This article reviews four geological evidences that point to a young world. Collectively, this strong evidence also tips the scale in favor of a 6,000-year-old earth. The scientific data demonstrate that our world’s sedimentary rocks cannot be millions of years old.
To read the rest, click on "Four Geological Evidences for a Young Earth".



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

Labels