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

Saturday, June 11, 2011

More Doubt about the Big Bang

From the way people talk, the so-called "Big Bang" was the start of the universe. Everyone knows this, scientists believe it, you should too. Case closed.

Propaganda and lies, Leroy. When the Big Bang was proposed, scientists (such as Fred Hoyle) resisted the idea. Even today, there are scientists who do not believe that it happened. (Of course, they'll support other ideas about the origin of the universe, and some of those are pretty far-fetched.) It would be better to follow where the evidence leads, and not force-fit the evidence into piles of theories, suppositions and outright guesswork.

By the way, some atheists cannot distinguish between disagreements about evidence and outright lies. That is, if you disbelieve in the Big Bang, evolution or other atheistic presuppositions, you are considered to be lying. Those of us with some sense consider people like that to be irrational.

But enough of my rant.

Few questions hold more intrigue than that of how the universe began. Although the Bible provides a written account of this obviously miraculous event, some reject it and try to explain the origin of the universe without either miracles or miracle Maker. But the evidence is against a naturalistic cause for the cosmos, and a newly unveiled 3-D map of the sky offers yet more signs of its supernatural source.

Thursday, June 2, 2011

How About A Date?

Lake Mungo/PD

In western New South Wales, Australia, part of a semi-arid desert has been set aside as a World Heritage area. This may seem curious for such an inhospitable region. But there is a good reason. Evolutionists believe that the site represents an outstanding example of the major stages in man’s evolutionary history.

Read the rest of "The Dating Game" here.

Monday, May 30, 2011


The problem with "science" and so-called scientists is that they have purposely pigeon-holed their points of view. The absolutely refuse to see outside of their own self-imposed limitations or presuppositions. Another of their intellectually arrogant presuppositions is Uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism believes that everything within physics progresses along at the same rate. If it has been this way in the past more than likely it will remain this way into the future.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Denial of Facts in Science

Let me see if I can put this together: Dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago, yes? And it takes a long, long time for bones and things to turn into fossils, yes? So, in the huge amount of time required to turn bones into rock, other stuff must have rotted or fallen off, yes? Never mind that something soft can be exposed to the proper elements and conditions and become petrified.

Here is another example of how philosophers of science will tap dance around the facts against evolution and still cling to their faith. Seems to me that it's not possible to find a Tyrannosaurus Rex bone with soft tissue still attached. But it happened. It shouldn't have happened. But it did.

This article ignores the facts and scientists still manage to get excited:

"To my knowledge, preservation to this extent—where you still have original flexibility and transparency—has not been noted in dinosaurs before, so we're pretty excited by the find," said Mary H. Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. 
The findings may provide new insights into dinosaur evolution, physiology, and biochemistry. They could also increase our understanding of extinct life and change how scientists think about the fossilization process.
"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]," Schweitzer said.

Ain't that something? They still put an evolutionary "spin" on the discovery. In their world view, it should not have happened. Also, it is not the only time that soft tissues were found in "old" rocks.Those of us who are young-earth Biblical Creationists have no problems with this, because we believe the Earth is not billions of years old or that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. The book of Genesis tells a different story — one that fits the facts far better. Here is a very short audio clip of Ken Ham discussing it.

Friday, April 8, 2011

Peer Reviews, Bias and Fraud

Critics have been quick to call into question either the scientific competence of creationist scientists, or the soundness and quality of their scientific work. The critics do this in order to effectively and pre-emptively dismiss or diminish the arguments creationists put forward in order to support the biblical teaching of a recent creation.

Read the rest of the article here.

Also, an article on peer review is here.

Are Creationists published in the first place? Ummm...yeah! An article on the important practice of "publishing" is here.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Darwinism is HARMFUL to Science

"Despite the lack of evidence, evolutionary propaganda claims that all science would return to the (non-existent) ‘Dark Ages’ without evolution. But real scientists such as Dr K-A say that science would be far better served by scientists working on ‘factual lines rather than theoretical evolutionary concepts.’"
Read the article here.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

The REAL Message of Darwin

Harvard’s renowned Professor Stephen Jay Gould is a vigorous anticreationist (and Marxist — see documentation), and perhaps the most knowledgeable student of the history of evolutionary thought and all things Darwinian.
I’m glad he and I are on the same side about one thing at least—the real meaning of ‘Darwin’s revolution’.