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

Monday, January 7, 2013

Young Earth Evidence 1: Scant Sediment

Presenting evidence that some people don't want you to hear, I am situated behind my unregistered assault keyboard — I may or may not be somewhere around Kingston, New York. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom from evolutionary dogma. Remember, "Question Evolution Day" is coming!

This is the first of ten articles giving evidence for a young Earth. Evolutionists and old-Earth creation compromisers scramble to find excuses to negate this material, preferring to rely on biased and assumption-riddled radiometric dating. One reason for this is that an old Earth (and old universe) implies the fundamentally flawed concept that, given enough time, evolution is possible.

Another reason that they fight for an ancient Earth is to bolster their circular reasoning based on old-Earth assumptions. When each article is published, expect people to run to the pooling of ignorance and propaganda sites for facile reassurance that none of this is true, and they do not have to actually examine the evidence.

First, we have the stone-in-the-sandal irritant that there is not enough sediment on the ocean floor to cover billions of years of erosion. The evidence fits nicely with a recent creation and a global flood at the time of Noah, however. The article is neither lengthy nor technical. It serves as an introduction and, hopefully, will encourage intellectually honest people to investigate further.
If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.
Every year water and wind erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock debris from the continents and deposit them on the seafloor. Most of this material accumulates as loose sediments near the continents. Yet the average thickness of all these sediments globally over the whole seafloor is not even 1,300 feet (400 m).
Some sediments appear to be removed as tectonic plates slide slowly (an inch or two per year) beneath continents. An estimated 1 billion tons of sediments are removed this way each year. The net gain is thus 19 billion tons per year. At this rate, 1,300 feet of sediment would accumulate in less than 12 million years, not billions of years.
You can read the rest of "Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor", here. For those who want a greater challenge, a more technical discussion is available here, at "The Sands of Time: A Biblical Model of Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation".

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

Sunday, January 6, 2013

TQEP Updated on CreationWiki

The entry on CreationWiki for "The Question Evolution Project" has been updated, complete with new logo. The entry is not long, and if you wanted to get some background information and links, this would be a good spot. Also, you may want to click around CreationWiki itself. The updated entry is here. Remember, the countdown is continuing for "Question Evolution Day"!

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

Saturday, January 5, 2013

Audio Saturday: Overview of Evidence for a Young Earth

There is evidence to support the idea that the Earth is young, not ancient. In fact, the evidence is better than the assumption-riddled, presupposition-based and even deceptive results yielded from radiometric dating. We are planning to spend the next two weeks with articles giving evidence for a young Earth.

As a kind of introduction, here is a recording of Dr. Georgia Purdom being interviewed on "Crosstalk", a Christian program. Click here to read more and find the "MP3" download link.

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

Friday, January 4, 2013

Evolution, Moa or Less

Moa and Kiwi 1901 Korensky/PD

Moas roamed New Zealand. Unfortunately, these huge flightless birds became extinct six hundred years ago. Enough of their remains have been found so that DNA analysis is possible. It turns out that there was a problem in declaring different species of moa. And this problem raises questions about "primitive" humans and human evolution.

The article also has an interesting creationist hypothesis about how moas reached New Zealand in the first place.
Giant flightless birds up to three metres (10 ft) high that once roamed New Zealand have been frustrating evolutionary scientists trying to make sense of their DNA. They could analyse the DNA because moas became extinct only some 600 years or so ago, and thus scientists have access to the remains of many specimens, as Professor Alan Cooper, a New Zealander at the University of Adelaide, Australia, explains:

“The moa … I’ve been working on them my entire career. I think they’re fantastic things. They’re like an emu but XXL. Actually we’ve just reconstructed what they’d look like using feathers from caves all over New Zealand.”
From analyzing the DNA from these feathers, Cooper said that he and his colleagues were able to identify “which species each feather came from”—and here’s where it got interesting.
You can finish reading "Of Moas and Men", here.

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

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Legislate and Demonize

No science today, just some observations and a short rant.

I am on record for saying that some favorite tactics of evolutionists and atheopaths are:
  • Misrepresent. Try to make creationists and ID proponents defend positions that they do not hold. In addition, spread untruths to people about our science and beliefs.
  • Demonize. Since Darwin's Stormtroopers cannot defeat creation science in the realm of science and ideas, they settle for vituperative attacks on us. This does not impress anyone but their gullible supporters.
  • Legislate. Since we have misinformed, biased judges in positions of power, they make rulings that would be laughable if they were not tragic [1], [2], [3]. One aspect of leftist thought police in action is when a student's personal journal had a poem about how she "understood" the Connecticut killer. A snoop found it, and she was suspended from school [4]. I heard some of the poem being read, and thought it was leftist nonsense, but I believe her civil and Constitutional rights to free speech and privacy were flagrantly violated.
Despite the attempts to negate us or even remove our rights to free speech, we're still here. I'm still dangerous with my unregistered assault keyboard, and I am going to continue to use it until they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

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

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Like Love, Change Takes Time — Right?

Love Takes Time by Orleans on Grooveshark

The common mantra states that evolution is a gradual process that takes a great deal of time to occur. (That is one reason they go on a Darwin jihad against people who dare to show scientific evidence for a young Earth.) Evolution is so slow, you can't see it. (Unless you think along the lines of Stephen Jay Gould, who rejected traditional evolutionary thinking and preferred "punctuated equilibrium"; evolution happened so fast, you missed it.) Actually, neither position has evidential support.

someecards.com - Slow evolution — Many changes take much time. These are far too fast!

Much to the dismay of evolutionists, species are known to modify and adapt much too rapidly to fit into the standard evolutionary philosophy. Of course, this is not a problem for Noachian Flood proponents.
In all of these instances, the speedy changes have nothing to do with the production of any new genes by mutation (the imagined mechanism of molecules-to-man evolution), but result mostly from selection of genes that already exist. Here we have real, observed evidence that (downhill) adaptive formation of new forms and species from the one created kind can take place rapidly. It doesn’t need millions of years.
Shouldn’t evolutionists rejoice, and creationists despair, at all this observed change? Hardly. Informed creationists have long stressed that natural selection can easily cause major variation in short time periods, by acting on the created genetic information already present. But this does not support the idea of evolution in the molecules-to-man sense, because no new information has been added.
You can read the rest of this in context, along with the comments about fish, finches, lizards, mice and other critters at "Speedy Species Surprise". And you might like the short video, below.

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

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Evolutionists Hate These Facts...

On this first calendar day of 2013, it is fitting to take a look at the origins of science. The bad news for evolutionists is that evolution has done nothing to advance scientific progress. Science was doing well before Darwin, and attempts to add evolution have actually been harmful to science!

Anti-creationists are famous for misrepresenting what biblical creationists actually believe and teach. They are also famous for deceiving and bullying people with their logical fallacies.

There is the occasional misrepresentation (which I believe is often deliberate) that creationists are simple-minded Biblicists who know nothing about science. Such a pejorative has nothing to do with reality.

Chance and random processes are antithetical to science; if evolution and atheism were true, there would be no uniformity of nature in which to do science stuff. In fact, the uniformity of nature presupposes the Creator. Bible-believing scientists of the past knew this.
“How can you reject the same science that put man on the moon?”
You get that response sometimes when you admit that you’re a Creationist. The irony is that it was a Creationist rocket scientist, Wernher Von Braun, who got us to the moon.
He did it without need of evolution.
Consider the following comments from von Braun himself:
“For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose. . . . While the admission of a design for the universe ultimately raises the question of a Designer (a subject outside of science), the scientific method does not allow us to exclude data which lead to the conclusion that the universe, life and man are based on design. . . .
To be forced to believe only one conclusion—that everything in the universe happened by chance—would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye? Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer. . . . But they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers, the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the creation of the fundamental laws of nature without divine intent. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must one really light a candle to see the sun?”
Observable, testable, repeatable science has given us many benefits and innovations. Many notable inventions, discoveries and developments are attributed to Bible-believing scientists. Inventions like the telegraph [Morse], mine safety lamp [Davy], electric motor [Ford], galvanometer [Henry], barometer [Pascal] and the reflecting telescope [Newton]. The discovery of scientific of gravity [Newton] and biogenesis [Pasteur]. Louis Pasteur alone gave us pasteurization, immunization and fermentation control.
In fact, the Scientific Method itself is attributed to a Bible-believing scientist, Sir Francis Bacon. And no wonder, for the Scientific Method is based on the idea that we have an orderly universe that may be rationally understood because both it and our minds were designed by an Intelligent Creator. Furthermore, we have biblical permission to study the world [Genesis 1:28].
You can read the rest of "Why Creation Is Foundational To Science – Not Evolution", here.

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