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

Friday, November 30, 2012

It Looks Like a Killer!


Vultures. Ugly birds that are assigned with the unenviable duty of eating dead things, thereby helping clean up the environment. Right?

Not necessarily.

Just because something has sharp, pointy teeth or its relatives are carnivores does not mean that it, too, is a carnivore. Appearances are not everything. A vegetarian vulture easily fits in with a biblical creationist model.

I'm not saying that this proves anything, it's just something to take into consideration. But it does interrupt the chain of thought that if something looks like a carnivore, it must be a carnivore. Here, take a look:
Images of vultures circling ominously overhead are often used by Hollywood to signal the imminent demise of someone lost or dying out in the wilderness. So, many people would know vultures to be carrion-eaters, picking the flesh off carcasses of animals that succumbed to the scorching midday sun or were killed by predators.
But one species of vulture is very different. Known as the ‘palm nut vulture’, it feeds almost exclusively on the fleshy outer portions (husk) of the fruit of the oil palm (Elaeis guineensis), or, less frequently, Raphia palm (Raphia spp.). It lives almost entirely in those areas of Africa where the oil palm occurs—forests, savannahs, and mangrove swamps.
You can carrion — I mean, carry on — reading the rest of "The ‘bird of prey’ that’s not", here.




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

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Accretion Formation of Solar System Does Not Hold Together


Most of the text in the above "meme" is directly from the linked article, so it is an indication that the article is not a bit of fluff.

This seems interesting. People who pretend that religion and science are at odds and want nothing to do with anything hinting of the supernatural apparently do not realize that the Nebular Hypothesis of the formation of the solar system had its roots with Emanuel Swedenborg [1], who also formulated a crackpot cult that was named after him. [2] Disenchanted members of this cult become some of the most bitter and irrational atheists one could ever have the misfortune of encountering.

So anyway...

The idea that a huge cloud of hot gas coalesced and particles collided, fusing and forming the sun, moon planets and so on has been popular for a long time. It does not make sense even under a cursory examination, but it has been popular for a while now. After all, why let scientific evidence conflict with an anti-Creator worldview?

There have been various laboratory experiments conducted to attempt to justify this hypothesis. They have failed. Some have resorted to some fascinating circular reasoning. Biblical creationist scientists do not have these problems.
For over 200 years there has been the belief that the sun, planets and moons originated from a vast cloud of gas and dust, the primordial nebula or solar nebula (Lat. nebula = cloud). Celestial bodies allegedly formed when gas and dust particles coalesced in a process called accretion, forming protoplanets or planetesimals. Accretion theory is part of the nebular hypothesis of solar system formation. Experiments have not demonstrated that accretion occurs. God created heavenly bodies by His spoken word (Ps. 33:6), not a process—rapid or not—conforming to post-creation scientific laws. Experimental challenges to accretion theory are presented, followed by discussion of the lack of astronomical observations for it.
You can read about the experiments, the results and the excuses at "Solar system formation by accretion has no observational evidence".




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

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Has "Science" Helped Us Advance Morally?


Biological evolution has been taken as a scientific truth in nature and misapplied to society as a whole, with all kinds of evil as a result. Tyrants have based their murderous regimes on evolutionism [1, 2], eugenics and abortion [3], and more are based on evolutionary concepts like "survival of the fittest". Of course, Darwin's Cheerleaders are popularizing evolution with bad science, relentless publicity and rewriting history.
Ideas have consequences. Over the past century evolutionary thought has become dominant in much more than just the historical sciences. Other branches of science as well as education, law, history, public policy and media have increasingly been influenced by the idea that the world arose spontaneously. This tremendous influence of evolutionary thought has consequences that are largely misunderstood. The misconception is that, while there have been some missteps along the way such as in the twentieth century’s eugenics movement, those were both minor and largely behind us now and the greater and lasting consequences of evolution have been positive. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Evolution’s influence


An obvious example of evolution’s influence can be seen in the popular misconceptions held by those in positions of power. After the 2005 Dover trial, Judge John Jones, who ruled that evolution must be taught in our schools, recalled that he “was taken to school” by the evolutionists. It was, Jones recalled, “the equivalent of a degree in this area.” Unfortunately what evolutionists such as Ken Miller “taught” Jones was
a series of scientific misrepresentations.

But these were not the only misrepresentations that made their way into American jurisprudence in the Dover trial. For the judge did not enter into his new training as a complete novice. As Jones later
explained, “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind.”

But the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, upon which the play is based, was a show trial used to promote evolution. The entire event was cleverly orchestrated by the ACLU to advance evolutionary thought and disparage skeptics.
You can read the rest of "There is a Big Misconception Right Now About the Impact of Evolution", here.




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

Monday, November 26, 2012

Resource: Evolution is Stupid


This is one of the more interesting things that I have encountered. It is an online book of sorts, written in narrative fashion with a bit of snark. The author refuses to discuss biblical matters and "religion", the topic is strictly about evolution's massive failings.

Click here to see "Evolution is Stupid!".





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

Friday, November 23, 2012

Confuciusornis — It's What's for Supper

Many evolutionists cling to their presuppositions that dinosaurs evolved from birds, even citing experts that make that very declaration with certainty. However, they ignore other evolutionist experts who dispute that concept (cherry-picking). Evidence is mounting that, even in an evolutionary worldview, dinosaurs and birds were contemporaries.

One does not simply become one's own grandfather.



Anyway.


Dinosaurs ate birds.

Of course, proponents of the view that dinosaurs evolved into birds go into frantic damage control, throwing out far-fetched speculations and guesses that cannot be substantiated. It would be productive and scientific to re-examine their conjectures, but they appear to be locked into their belief systems.

You can read all about it at "Dinosaurs Ate Birds". Edit: A newer article on this topic is here.





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

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Abiogenesis — A Secret Evolutionary Dogma


When presented with the observed fact that life only comes from life and never from non-life, proponents of evolution distance themselves by claiming that evolution only deals with the development of life and not the origin of life. This is a disingenuous ploy, similar to when atheists attempt to change the established definition of atheism into "lack of belief in God"; both are transparent attempts at moving the goalposts.



It is interesting that evolutionists will claim that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, but will gleefully accept poor "evidence" that they think accepts abiogenesis, and will also defend the discredited Miller-Urey experiment — usually by ignoring facts and citing outdated and unfounded rhetoric by other evolutionists as "proof".

Despite theories, conjecture, guesses, wishful thinking and loud bullying, the fact remains that life comes from life. Assumptions based on faith will not change that.






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

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Stellar Formation — No Evidence


Circular reasoning in evolution extends to cosmology. Start with current assumption that the universe is 13.75 billion years old, add the constant speed of light, leave out contrary evidence, add a generous helping of conjecture, mix in some genuine observable science (leave out a workable mechanism) and your concoction conveniently "proves" cosmic evolution. Except that the speed of light may very well not be constant, and other observations simply do not support such an old universe. But never mind the details, "science of the gaps" prevails.


The formation of stars has not been observed, and the data indicate that may not be happening at all.

An international team of astronomers recently analyzed a specific frequency of light that hot gas clouds in outer space produce. Very hot stars, like blue stars, are thought to burn near or within these clouds, energizing the gas so that it can emit this characteristic light signature. Secular astronomers are also convinced that stars form inside these distant, turbulent, and gaseous zones.
The team, publishing in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, surveyed the light from a wide range of redshifts. A higher redshift—when a characteristic light pattern appears shifted more toward the red end of the light spectrum—indicates a greater distance between the observer and the light source. So, they examined this light from near and far.
Higher redshifts are also supposed to indicate that more time has elapsed since that light departed from the faraway glowing clouds. However, this assumes that light travels at the same speed in all directions—an assumption called the Einstein synchrony convention. No experiment has verified this assumption. Nobody has yet invented one that could.
You can read the rest of "Study: Star Formation Is Virtually Finished", here.




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

Labels