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, December 11, 2012

No Transitional Forms?

There is considerable dispute between creationists and evolutionists about transitional forms and missing links. Creationists say that there are no indisputable transitional forms, and proponents of evolutionism claim that there are many. (Some of Darwin's Juvenile Cheerleaders introduce emotions with cries of "Liar!" in a manipulative attempt to "win" the argument.) Sure, there are plenty of fossils. Some may appear to be "in between". 

Sometimes, the problem may be in the wording, and what is understood by "transitional". Also, it does not help matters for evolutionists that certain things that have been trotted out as transitional forms were presented too hastily, and they were quietly dropped from the show. Unfortunately for proponents, some are presenting outdated "proof" because they did not get the memo.
First, the fact that the links (transitional forms) which the concept of evolution would prima facie cause its adherents to expect are definitely still missing is highlighted in Chapter 3 of Dr Sarfati’s classic book Refuting Evolution

Like so many of these proposed or alleged ‘transitional forms’, the fossil reconstruction [of Pakicetus] … involved a great deal of evolutionary speculation, to put it mildly.
What makes the question complex is that in place of the countless thousands of transitional forms expected (as Darwin logically indicated should be found, and anticipated would be found in future), there exists at any point in time a handful of candidates, i.e. fossils put forward as transitional forms by evolutionary proponents. [Note: By ‘transitional forms’ is meant here fossils showing intermediate stages between major evolutionary transitions, i.e. from one kind of creature to a wholly different kind. For example, stages in the supposed transition of a walking reptile to a flying bird, nothing which creationists could regard as variation/speciation within a kind. Some evolutionists argue that we have countless thousands of transitional fossils, but they empty the term ‘transitional fossil’ of any content really meaningful for the creation-evolution debate. They define a fossil as ‘transitional’ in the same sense that a car is ‘transitional’ between a unicycle and a truck. That is not in view here.] Creationists by definition would argue that there are none, so to evolutionists this is seen as ‘proof’. From a creation perspective, though, consider the following:
You can consider what follows, in context, by reading, "The evolutionary parade of ‘missing links’", here.




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

Monday, December 10, 2012

Blue Stars Indicate a Young Universe

Alnitak, Alnilam, Mintaka 
Credit: Digitized Sky Survey, ESA/ESO/NASA FITS Liberator 
Color Composite: Davide De Martin (Skyfactory)

 Blue stars cause a problem for cosmologists: They should not exist. Since they are bigger and hotter than other stars, and their fuel supply should be exhausted comparatively quickly. Blue stars exist on our own Milky Way galaxy.


In a manner reminiscent of the Oort Cloud excuse for replenishing short-term comets, cosmologists say that certain areas are "stellar nurseries" where new stars are being formed. Except that there is no observational evidence of such a thing, it only exists in theory. Biblical creationists do not need to conjure up excuses like the Oort Cloud or stellar nurseries.
Orion is one of the most well-known and easily recognized constellations of the winter sky. The three bright blue stars in Orion’s belt seem to draw our attention instantly. Such stars are a strong confirmation of the biblical timescale.
Most stars generate energy by the process of nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium in the stellar core. This is a very efficient power source. Theoretically, a star like the sun has enough hydrogen in its core to keep it burning for ten billion years. But that’s not the case with blue stars.
Blue stars are always more massive than the sun. This means they have more hydrogen available as fuel. Yet, blue stars are much brighter than the sun; some are over 200,000 times brighter! They are “burning” their fuel much more quickly than the sun, and therefore cannot last billions of years. Based on their observed luminosity, the most massive blue stars cannot last even one million years before running out of fuel.
You can read the rest of "Blue Stars Confirm Recent Creation", here.      




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

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Parasites in your DNA?

Some scientists, in their rush to show that they know all things and can make ex cathedra proclamations, have said that DNA is flawed because of parasites. Looks like they spoke too soon — again.





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

Friday, December 7, 2012

Amazing Spider Web Strength

MorgueFile / MaryKBaird 
It is easy to think of a spider web as a group of sticky threads in a pattern. It is more than that, however. There are different strands for different purposes, and they even have unique functions. Break a strand? Not a problem for the arachnid in charge.

Imagine a cloth that gets stronger after it is damaged. That is what scientists recently discovered when probing the strength of garden spider webs.
A research team tested the resistance of a spider web's supporting radial threads and compared that with the thinner spiral threads. They found that placing a certain amount of pressure on just one thread caused it to suddenly stiffen and distribute the stress to the rest of the web.
Of course, too much damage eventually weakened the web, but the initial damage had the opposite effect. After investigators applied even more pressure, the additional stress was not transferred to the whole web, but to tiny protein crystals acting as stress points on the targeted strand. Whether the scientists pushed on a spiral or radial thread, only that strand broke, leaving the whole web intact.
You can spin your way over and finish reading "Scientists Decode Key to Spider Web Strength".





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

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Everything In Place

morgueFile / ronnieb (modified)

The previous article was about what the author called "Genetic Relativity". It turns out that he has a follow-up article. For chance and mutations to have an effect, they cannot be occasional or random. Many parts must be in place at the same time, or nothing makes sense — or functions. A door hinge unhinges Darwin.
There is a huge emphasis in the naturalism (including evolution) vs. creationism debate, over whether "new information" could arise via undirected processes...

But it is my thought that an exponentially greater problem for Darwinian evolution exists; one that involves what kind of new information mindless processes would have to create, if molecules to man evolution were true.

I'll start out with an example to illustrate the point:

In order for the human jaw to work, such that we're able to chew, talk, and so forth, multiple biological parts must function in harmony together - starting with the maxilla, and mandible, which are the upper and lower jaw bones, respectively.
You can finish chewing on "Genetic Relativity - Part ll: The Door Hinge That Disproves Darwin", here.







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

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Evolution, Creation Science and the Basics


So often, critics of Intelligent Design and creation science have notions that are fundamentally flawed. Some of the problem is that schools do not teach critical thinking skills, but prefer to condition students to accept evolutionism as "science" and ignore the bad (and fraudulent) "evidence" that is offered to support evolution.

In addition, people will gather ideas about creationism from people and sites that are just as ignorant and biased as the inquirers; they do not bother do do their homework. When they start spouting opinions and prejudicial conjecture, they humiliate themselves in front of creationists who do know how to reason.

A third problem is that many of them have a basic misunderstanding of science, and then spread it as truth (such as Bill Nye).

How about getting some basics settled?
Recently, I ran across a few comments about this image on a site called atheistthinktank.net. I really don’t expect fans on these sites, but I was surprised to see that their basic objections reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the debate.
For example, take this comment by someone who sadly identifies themself as nogodsforme:
"What the eff? I guess that guy doesn’t get that evolution is a result of the same scientific method that brought him his cell phone, car, clean water, flu shot, fridge and effing computer. Without science, he would live like people in the 1300′s.
Evolution is only one part of science–a big part, but still only one part. And people who reject evolution still accept all the goodies that the scientific method gives them.  We have to listen to religious stuff all the time, from nearly everyone we know (care to comment on last Thursday, anyone?) and we are the people with the facts on our side.
As I have said quite frequently, if religious explanations worked, we wouldn't need science."
Please note: Nearly every objection he makes is addressed within the first twenty slides [sometimes the first ten] of any decent creation presentation. Nor is this the meat of said presentation; I’m talking about the part where we lay the basic groundwork.
You can basically read the rest of "Objections to Young Earth Creationism Often Reveal A Basic Misunderstanding of Science", here.




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

Monday, December 3, 2012

On the Imitation of Nature

MorgueFile/AcrylicArtist

A common challenge from atheists is to say, "Prove to me that God exists. It must be something scientific". (Usually, that kind of remark comes from someone who has already suppressed the truth of God's existence, and there is no "evidence" that will convince him or her.) They are often assuming that this is an intellectual approach, but consider: The Creator is a spirit, and outside of time and space. To demand proof of God's existence in this manner is irrational, and a category mistake. So far, nobody has chosen what kind of litmus paper they would use to test for him, anyway.

However, his presence is known, and inferred.

Many inventions and innovations have come about from studying nature. Humans imitate what is observed in nature, and have had some success. (Ironically, they are looking at something that is designed, and not appealing to the failed concepts of time, chance, random mutations and so forth of evolution during the course of making their inventions.) The accomplishments are clumsy in comparison to what has been designed from the beginning.
Humans are not the originators of the physical world, but often imperfectly copy it. In the fields of “engineering, chemistry, ballistics, aerodynamics—in fact in almost every area of human endeavor—nature has been there first” and the natural world God made is “infinitely more economical of resources and generally superior in performance” (Paturi 1976, p. 1). A few examples of this will eloquently illustrate the validity of this observation. The fact that “nature” invented many innovations first has long been recognized by scientists (Martin 1933, p. 14). This paper reviews only a few of the great numbers of examples to illustrate this fact.
You can read the rest of "Affirmations of God’s Existence from Design in Nature" in context, here.





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

Labels