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, November 16, 2011

Redshifts, Big Bang, Quasar and Evolution

On 8 April 2010, Marcus Chown writes in an article entitled “Time waits for no quasar—even though it should” for New Scientist online “Why do distant galaxies seem to age at the same rate as those closer to us when big bang theory predicts that time should appear to slow down at greater distances from Earth? No one can yet answer this new question [emphasis added] … .”
Background photo by NASA
Quasar
Halton Arp cites many examples of quasars found aligned within ± 20 degrees of the minor axis of the active nucleus of a galaxy. The minor axis is perpendicular to the plane of rotation of the galaxy. They are often seen within a few arcminutes of a parent galaxy, in pairs, on opposite sides as though they were ejected from the active nucleus. Their redshifts are large compared to the parent but they have a higher probability than the background average of being near the putative parent. This suggests physical association and that their redshifts are intrinsic, of an unknown orgin, but not cosmological nor due to Doppler motion.
He says no one can answer this question. But this question has already been answered before it was even asked. To understand this we need some background. Quasars are assumed to be supermassive black holes with the mass of a galaxy that are the early progenitors of the mature galaxies we see around us today. They nearly all have extremely large redshifts and the big bang community believes that these redshifts are nearly entirely due to cosmological expansion. Therefore it follows that these massive objects are extremely bright and are being observed at some stage only several billion years after the big bang. Hence it also follows from Einstein’s general theory that the greater the redshift the greater the effect of the distortion of time on the quasar. That is, local clocks on quasars at the greatest redshifts should run slower than local clocks on quasars closer to us.
Read the rest of "Quasars again defy a big bang explanation" here.




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

Monday, November 14, 2011

Mutations are Bad News for Evolution

In the same way that species are not static, neither are genomes. They change over time; sometimes randomly, sometimes in preplanned pathways, and sometimes according to instruction from pre-existing algorithms. Irrespective of the source, we tend to call these changes ‘mutations’. Many evolutionists use the existence of mutation as evidence for long-term evolution, but the examples they cite fall far short of the requirements of their theory. Many creationists claim that mutations are not able to produce new information. Confusion about definitions abounds, including arguments about what constitutes a mutation and the definition of ‘biological information’. Evolution requires the existence of a process for the invention of new information from scratch. Yet, in a genome operating in at least four dimensions and packed with meta-information, potential changes are strongly proscribed. Can mutations produce new information? Yes, depending on what you mean by ‘new’ and ‘information’. Can they account for the evolution of all life on Earth? No!
Read the rest of "Can mutations create new information?" here.




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

Friday, November 11, 2011

In Defense of Science

Science is one of my favorite subjects. I really looked forward to it in school. Technology is something I like as well. It's really great finding out about the intricacies of how things are made, how they function and so on.

I am baffled by some things. One is that evolution is considered "science", as if it is foundational for an astrophysicist, physician, molecular biologist or whatever to be thoroughly indoctrinated in evolutionary "facts" to be able to perform their various disciplines. I thought those were all sciences in and of themselves.

Another item I find baffling is that the "science" of evolution must be protected. I thought that an essential component in science is the quest for knowledge. To attain knowledge, facts and observations must be compared and analyzed. This cannot be done if facts and evidence contrary to evolutionism are ignored, rejected out of hand and even suppressed. Brits are guarding evolutionary indoctrination with such passion that they are attempting to outlaw the teaching of creation and Intelligent Design. These arrogant people are attempting to impose their views in the United States, and helped draft a petition for the White House to do the same thing. Are they still trying to hide their deep, dark secrets? Addendum: Creation evidences are banned from UK religious education classes.

This is not in the spirit of true scientific inquiry. Rather, it is brainwashing.

Evolutionists have many assumptions and bold assertions about the importance of evolution that are motivating to the gullible and to those saturated with presuppositions. To the rest of us, such propaganda is rather startling. And we still wonder why they feel the need to protect evolutionism so vehemently.




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

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

That Flighty Archaeopteryx


When I was giving creation science presentations, I mentioned that Archaeopteryx was not a transitional form, but rather, a true bird. I was surprised that some die-hard types refused to relinquish their claim that Archie is a "transitional form". Now he keep flying back into the news. The latest news: He's still just a bird. A strange one with odd features, but still just a bird.
The fossilized bird known as Archaeopteryx has had quite a history of identity crises. Researchers once classified it as a "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds. It was considered to be an ancient bird, then changed to a dinosaur, and now it's supposed to be a bird again. So, what is it? 
Nature News reported in July that an analysis of fossil traits "suggests that Archaeopteryx is not a bird at all," but instead more closely resembled dinosaurs. ICR News responded at the time that because "it had core features that define birds, such as flight feathers, wings, perching feet, and a wishbone… Archaeopteryx is still just an extinct bird." 
You can read the rest of "Archaeopteryx Is a Bird. . . Again" here.




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

Monday, November 7, 2011

Sediments, Bioturbation and Uniformitarianism

Here is another example of uniformitarian presuppositions being proven wrong, this time in the deep blue sea.
The bioturbation of sediments by trace makers is often perceived by naturalists as a process requiring extensive periods of time. Little experimental work has been conducted to either support or refute such a concept. However, recent laboratory analysis indicates that the bioturbation of marine sediments can occur within short periods of time.

Bioturbation experiments

Marine worms, bivalves (clams), arthropods (shrimp and crabs), and echinoderms (sea urchins and brittle stars) are just some of the many animals that live on or in marine sediments (figures 1 and 2). The study of traces created in sediment is identified as ichnology (Gk ichnos = trace). 
Recently, an investigation was conducted to determine the rate that select bivalves, arthropods, and echinoderms could bioturbate marine sediments. The animals were collected from tidal flats and shallow subtidal sediments from the Ogeechee estuary, Georgia (U.S.A). They were placed into glass aquaria filled with alternating layers of sand and heavy minerals with each layer being approximately 5 to 10 mm thick.2 Examination of the rate of bioturbation occurred at 1, 6, 24, 72 and 144 hour intervals by collecting X-ray images of the aquaria sidewalls.2

Experiment results

The results of the study indicate that:
You can read the rest of "Sediment bioturbation experiments and the actual rock record" here.




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

Friday, November 4, 2011

Evolutionists Persist in Presenting Bad Information

How can anyone justify science "education" when it is based in the presupposition that evolution is a "fact", evidence contrary to evolution is ignored or even suppressed, evolutionary "science" is to be protected, and the textbooks contain outdated and outright wrong material? (Even the terribly outdated and misused Miller-Urey experiment is still being cited!) Bad textbooks are preferred over materials that require critical thinking. Evidence for evolution is cherry-picked. That is not science, Skippy, that is indoctrination.
According to a study released today by the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, bogus embryo drawings, long-debunked claims about tonsils, and outdated information from a 1950s lab experiment highlight the glaring bloopers found in proposed science instructional materials currently being considered by the Texas State Board of Education.
"Retro-science must be in, because the proposed materials are filled with outdated scientific claims," said Casey Luskin, a policy and education analyst with Discovery Institute. "It's truly amazing how much discredited information keeps getting recycled year after year."
In order to satisfy state educational standards set in 2009 (TEKS), the Board of Education asked publishers to submit supplementary instructional materials that would enable students to "analyze and evaluate" core aspects of evolutionary theory, and to "examin[e] all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking." But according to the 70-page Discovery Institute study, only one set of instructional materials out of the 10 evaluated managed to comply with the TEKS as well as avoid glaring scientific errors.
Top science bloopers in the proposed instructional materials include:
Read the rest of "Glaring Bloopers Found in Proposed Texas Science Curricular Materials" here.




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

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Legal Hypocrisy from the Darwinists

Do you ever watch "The People's Court" or similar television programs? (They are popular on American television, airing during business hours on weekdays. People have the small claims court cases settled before television judges who tend to be quirky or even abusive.) Afterward, the parties of the case talk to the interviewer. The winner says, "Yes, I am happy with the decision. The judge is intelligent and justice was served". Well, of course! "Justice was served" because things went your way. Naturally, the loser of the case tends to disagree with the decision.

There is a problem when court cases are settled and then misquoted. One fellow kept badgering me, insisting, "How many more times must the courts rule that ID isn't science before it sinks in?" (His claim was based on a ruling about a school district in Dover.) And yet, when I point out how the high courts have ruled that atheism and secular humanism are religions, I'm either called a liar or told that what the courts say do not matter. Several times I have tried to point out this double standard, of wanting it both ways, to no avail.

Although I may sound like the people that lose their cases, I must say that some truths cannot be settled by a court ruling. Even if a high court did rule that "ID is not science", that would not make it true. Such a ruling would be out of their jurisdiction, so to speak. I would be asking questions if such a ruling were handed down, such as:
  • How were "science" and "religion" defined?
  • What exactly did they rule?
  • What is the context, what are the circumstances?
  • Does anyone else think this is ridiculous?
  • What is the court's reputation for objectivity?

The US Ninth Circus Circuit Court is famous for being astonishingly leftist and for having the most cases overturned by the US Supreme Court. Conservative values, Judeo-Christian values, traditional family values, creationism, Intelligent Design — all suffer when brought before this court. Here is an example of their fair and balanced treatment of Intelligent Design:
The Ninth Circuit's recent refusal to rule on the merits of a case where a student alleged his teacher was disparaging creationist religious beliefs isn't the first time it has denied Darwin-skeptics their day in court. In the past here on ENV, we've written about how the Ninth Circuit dismissed the Caldwell v. Caldwell lawsuit for lack of standing.

In the Caldwell case, Jeanne Caldwell, a parent of public school students in Roseville, California, filed suit against the director of UC Berkeley's Museum of Paleontology, who oversaw the production of a website for teachers called "Understanding Evolution." Caldwell's complaint alleged that the website "advocat[es] that teachers use public school science classrooms to proselytize minor students to adopt the government's preferred religious beliefs and doctrines regarding evolutionary theory."
The Understanding Evolution website was funded with a $500,000+ government-sponsored National Science Foundation grant awarded to UC Berkeley staff, with various National Center for Science Education staff members helping to develop the site. The website states that it is a "misconception" to believe "[e]volution and religion are incompatible" or that "one always has to choose between [evolution] and religion." Clearly preferring religious sects that accept evolution, the site asserts that "[m]ost Christian and Jewish religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution." The Caldwell complaint also lists the example that "the 'Misconceptions' web page includes a cartoon depicting a scientist shaking hands with a religious pastor holding a Bible with a cross on it, intended to convey the message that there is no conflict between religious beliefs and the theory of evolution."




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

Labels