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 18, 2011

Change Has Serious Limitations

Living forms supposedly evolved by adapting to environmental challenges. It is generally assumed that they did this by gradually acquiring the needed genetic mutations until brand new features arose and whole creatures eventually morphed into totally different ones. But does real science support this story?
Experiments with bacteria continue to show that although adaptations do occur, they are bound by hard limits to how much change can take place. And these limits also circumscribe evolution’s potential.
Read the rest of "The Cost of Adaptations Limits Evolution" here.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Blue Star Blues

The Hubble Space Telescope, which had been programmed to search for planets, has found 42 "oddball" blue stars in the Milky Way galaxy. These stars burn so brightly that they consume their fuel much faster than other stars. Though they are found in more abundance in more distant galaxies, the discovery of nearby blue stars presents a particular problem for standard long-age cosmologies. 
Blue stars should not exist in a universe that is 13.7 billion years old, because they should have burned out billions of years ago. University of South Carolina astronomer Danny Faulkner recently noted, "In fact, the hottest blue stars could last only a few million years at best. Both creationists and evolutionists acknowledge this fact." Thus, evolutionists have proposed that these stars have been constantly generated during this long time span. But that means blue stars should be forming even now. "Despite their diligent search, however, [astronomers] have never observed one of these blue stars forming—or any other star, for that matter," Faulkner wrote.

Read the rest of "Young Blue Stars Found in the Milky Way" here.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Evolutionary Quote Mining and Creationist Straw Men

A review of Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters by Donald R. Prothero
Columbia University Press, New York, 2007
reviewed by John Woodmorappe

Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters
This book is so jam-packed with information (and disinformation!) that it would take a separate book to address it. Predictably, Prothero dismisses rejection of evolution as the product of the fear of loss of God, morality, and human uniqueness. This ignores those (myself included) who once reconciled their religion with belief in evolution, but eventually came to realize that the scientific evidence doesn’t require acceptance of evolution. He considers creationism claustrophobic (p. 358). Having found it a fascinating intellectual adventure, I couldn’t disagree more.

We hear the usual mantra about most religious leaders accepting evolution. This ignores the fact that it is much easier to conform to the pressures of modern thinking than to be out of step with them, and that this is especially true in our age of spineless political and religious leaders. Also, his fellow misotheists Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne  have nothing but contempt for such spinelessness.

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.