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

Question Evolution Day is February 12

YOU can be a part of Question Evolution Day, no sign-up, no charge.
To find out more about this annual event, click here!

Friday, April 12, 2013

Bioluminescence Befuddles Evolution Believers

Bioluminescence, the ability of various organisms to "glow in the dark" because of their unique biology, is extremely puzzling to evolutionary scientists.
How such an ability allegedly evolved is frustrating, and scientists argue in circles in their attempts to explain it. There are two significant problems — neither of which bother creationists in the least.
Evolutionary researchers organize all of these basic forms onto a preconceived “tree of life” that supposedly shows how closely related each form might be to another, assuming all creatures share common ancestry. Evolutionists expect one creature to have evolved bioluminescence and then to have passed that trait along to its descendants. However, the researchers do not find this or any other evolutionary pattern. Instead, bioluminescence is scattered willy-nilly among dozens of totally different life forms.
The study authors, publishing in the Annual Review of Marine Science, wrote, “The distribution of bioluminescence across the major taxonomic [animal] groups does not appear to follow any obvious phylogenetic [evolutionary] or oceanographic constraint.” This mismatch between theory and reality presents the first obstacle evolutionists face.
You can read "The Unpredictable Pattern of Bioluminescence", in its full context, here.

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

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Higgs Hysteria

Lovers of sensationalism have run rampant by claiming, "The Higgs Boson particle has been confirmed! The Big Bang really happened! There is no God!"

Not so fast, Nigel! There is a great deal of incorrect reporting and bad assumptions related to this. (They also show their ignorance of quantum field theory.) How about some education for a reality check?

Scientists announced last week [March 16, 2013] that they likely confirmed the existence of a particle called the Higgs boson. One media outlet said this of the Higgs boson: "It helps solve one of the most fundamental riddles of the universe: how the Big Bang created something out of nothing 13.7 billion years ago." 
But is this really true? 
As noted in one of our online articles, there is a tendency for people to intuitively think of subatomic particles as being like wee-little marbles. However, a branch of physics called quantum field theory views particles as being "ripples" in quantities called fields. Many people may be familiar with the concept of a field from high school or college physics classes. The magnetic field surrounding a bar magnet is a well-known example: the fact that iron filings placed near the magnet align themselves along the magnetic field lines enables one to conceptually visualize the field surrounding the magnet. There is a field associated with the Higgs particle called the Higgs field. This field is somewhat different from more familiar examples of fields and is a particular kind called a scalar field. 
The Standard Model is a theory that describes the relationships among elementary particles and three of the fundamental forces (it does not include gravity). Until this recent discovery, the existence of all the other particles in the Standard Model had been confirmed. Thus the confirmation of the Higgs' existence is a "big deal" in the physics community. 
But why are some claiming that the Higgs boson helps to explain how the Big Bang supposedly created the universe? The reason involves something called inflation theory.
You can finish fielding "Higgs Boson Confirmed: Separating Fact from Hype".

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

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Little Moons Throw a Spanner into the Cosmology Works

Cosmologists and Cosmogonists have their theories on the origins and workings of the solar system and the universe. Secular versions rely on presuppositions that the universe is very old. The theories do not hold up under scrutiny — moons like Io and Enceladas manage to make matters worse.

Enceladas spouts off. Image Credit: NASA/JPL/SSI
Theories and computer models fail to explain the activities and the heat of these moons. They should be cold rocks after all of that alleged time. Instead, they put on shows of their own. None of this is a problem for biblical creationists, by the way.
Planetary origin theories come across as popular and charismatic, till some little moon pops off and says, “Yoo-hoo! Remember me?”
Io, Io; It’s Not So Long Ago
Jupiter’s volcanic moon Io is a pain in the astronomical dating game.  Imagine if similar-sized Earth’s moon were carrying on like that; it would be a fireworks show every night, keeping scientists awake wondering how it stays active.  Planetary modelers have had a hard time figuring out Io’s heat source (and how long it could last) since Voyager revealed the eruptions in 1979; and no, tidal flexing is not sufficient.  Now, some NASA and ESA scientists say the volcanoes are “all wrong” – the volcanoes are in the wrong places from where models say they should be.
A press release from NASA Goddard opens with a dramatic image from the New Horizons flyby in 2007, showing a huge plume at Io’s north pole in action.  If the tidal flexing models worked, the expected volcanic action should be 30 to 60 degrees east of where it actually is.  “We found a systematic eastward offset between observed and predicted volcano locations that can’t be reconciled with any existing solid body tidal heating models,” Christopher Hamilton (U of Maryland) said.
You can rocket over here to finish reading "Bimbo Eruptions in the Solar System".

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

Monday, April 8, 2013

What Does Carbon-14 Tell Us about the Age of the Earth?

Radiometric dating is fraught with difficulties. These include conflicting results, no sign of anything resembling calibration, and especially a number of assumptions. When radioactive elements decay, they turn into a different, stable element (parent-daughter): Rubidium into strontium, potassium into argon and so on. The assumptions are: They know how much of the parent and daughter elements exist, no outside factors affected the quantities, and that the rate of change remained constant.

Results from radiometric dating are varied, and the scientists can choose the results that best suit their preconceptions. But there have been problems with Carbon-14. This is primarily used on organic materials, and there should be no detectable Carbon-14 in materials that are allegedly older than 100,000 years, such as diamonds. But it's there, and they make excuses such as "lab contamination".

Carbon-14 yields results that do not fit with evolutionary time scales. When using the assumptions, the results seem to defy young Earth creationist views. In reality, there is not much of a problem for creationists.
Evolutionists have long used the carbon-14, or radiocarbon, dating technique as a “hammer” to bludgeon Bible-believing Christians. A straightforward reading of the Bible describes a 6,000-year-old universe, and because some carbon-14 (14C) age estimates are multiple tens of thousands of years, many think that the radiocarbon method has soundly refuted the Bible’s historical accuracy.
However, these excessively long ages are easily explained within the biblical worldview, and 14C actually presents a serious problem for believers in an old earth. 14C has been detected in organic specimens (coal, wood, seashells, etc., containing carbon from formerly living organisms) that are supposedly hundreds of millions of years old—but no detectable 14C should be present in specimens that are even a little more than 100,000 years old! Nearly anyone can verify this for themselves using basic multiplication and division.
You can read the rest of "Rethinking Carbon-14 Dating: What Does It Really Tell Us about the Age of the Earth?", here.

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

Friday, April 5, 2013

Salamander Rocket Mouth

The Chinese Giant Salamander really sucks. No, this is not a disparaging term. It is quite literal. This kind of salamander has incredible suction abilities, as seen in this slow-motion video:

Their suction abilities are almost as powerful as rocket cars, but last only a fraction of a second.

Other creatures use suction-feeding techniques, but the Giant Salamander is constructed differently. As expected, evolutionists spin some fanciful tales to force-fit their philosophies into the observed facts — these "explanations" raise more questions than they purport to answer.

Some rocket cars can accelerate at 5 g-forces. For comparison, respectable acceleration for a sports car amounts to half a "g," and people faint when accelerating at 5g's. But long before the rocket car was invented, fish were accelerating just as forcefully into the mouths of giant salamanders. How did these thin-skinned amphibians acquire rocket-force mouthparts? 
A team of researchers from Austria investigated the biomechanics of suction feeding and measured the maximum acceleration of a fish as it traveled into a Chinese Giant Salamander's mouth. These river monsters, including the species Andrias davidianus, can exceed five feet in length. Their numbers are steadily declining, so we better study them now since future generations might not get the chance. 
The Journal of the Royal Society Interface published the new results. Moving their fast food at 40-50 m/s2, or between 4 and 5g's, these salamander's suckers impress.
You can draw yourself here to finish reading "Giant Salamander Suction Compared to Jet Car".

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

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Eye Design and Evolution

There are some people who claim that the human eye must be the product of evolution because if it was designed, the Designer did a poor job. (Ironically, they imply that evolution itself does a poor job of designing things with such statements.) These people do not know what they are talking about. Many of them are Dawkinsites, parroting his uninformed opinions from The Blind Watchmaker.

eyes, Sorensen, dilation
Dilated by the Ophthalmologist
Dawkins or these other people who think they can suggest better design possibilities for the human eye should check with ophthalmologists. The scientific realities and intricacies are far different than conjectures rooted in ignorance.

Backwardly wired retina?
One of the tired old canards on which antitheists have dined out for years is the claim that our eye is stupidly wired back to front, something no decent designer would use. E.g. the vociferous misotheist and eugenicist Clinton R. Dawkins said in his famous book, The Blind Watchmaker: 
‘Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away, from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wire sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called ‘blind spot’) to join the optic nerve. This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually, probably not much but, still, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer). I don’t know the exact explanation for this strange state of affairs. The relevant period of evolution is so long ago.’
Other anticreationists such as Kenneth Miller parrot the same sort of argument . . .
Theology trumps science after all?
For all the cant about creationists using theology rather than science, notice that Dawkins was really using a theological argument rather than a scientific one. I.e. he was claiming that a designer wouldn’t design something like this, rather than scientifically demonstrating evolution . . . After all, he admitted to ignorance of an evolutionary explanation. 
If I was in your position, I wouldn't bat an eye about reading the rest of "Fibre optics in eye demolish atheistic ‘bad design’ argument", here.

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

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Music Video: Monkeys for Uncles

Let's have some fun today. ApologetiX released the official video of "Monkeys for Nothing" on April 1 (appropriate for evolutionism). It is a parody of "Money for Nothing" by Dire Straits. The song is brilliant, and the video is very close to the original.

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