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, August 8, 2014

Noah's Flood and Creation Science Applications of Geology in Australia

The idea that scientists are totally impartial and will follow where the evidence leads is simply not true. Instead, scientists have their starting points, biases, opinions, want to see if an idea has merit and so forth. Biblical creationists have the starting point that the Bible is not only reliable in matters of faith, but also correct when it addresses matters of science, history and other things. Secular scientists (and Bible compromisers) begin with atheistic naturalism, long ages, evolution and a rejection of the Bible as a reliable record of historical events.


Dr. Tas Walker discusses geology in Queensland, Australia from a biblical perspective. The evidence fits the Flood model far better than standard uniformitarian models. The principles he describes can be applied to other areas as well.
Kangaroo Point Cliffs / Wikimedia Commons / Figaro
Regarding geology, nobody is observing the past. People attempt to deduce what happened in the past using observations and deduction. Dr. Tas Walker uses a biblical Noachian Flood model in his approach to geological data, and the result is that the biblical model is superior to the secular uniformitarian model in explaining what is seen.

His article discusses parts of Australia, and he tells us that the principles demonstrated can be applied elsewhere, not just this particular area. You are urged to read "The geological history of the Brisbane and Ipswich areas, Australia". It rocks!

 




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

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Secularists Robbing the Scientific Method


Secularists have been stealing the scientific method. Although it had several contributors, it had its best development under the hands of Christians. Naturalistic interpretations of science became popular, and Christians stood by and let them redefine science in naturalistic terms. Now people have the impression that when a scientist makes an utterance, it is a scientific fact. The word "theory" is grossly misused, and speculations are being pawned off as facts, especially in reference to molecules-to-man evolution. Worse, atheistic scientism is being used as the means to interpret scientific evidence. This is ridiculous, as a naturalistic time-chance-mutations universe would make doing science impossible!

Some biblical Christians are making efforts to show the extreme limitations of naturalistic science interpretations. We want the scientific method back so we can save it from further abuse and use it properly again.
Are modern schools teaching the scientific method properly? It appears the general public and even the scientific community itself has a rather fuzzy understanding of what it is. In its purest form, the scientific method can be succinctly defined as “a systematic methodology for studying natural phenomena.” For example, if we look at the simple pendulum at very small-angle oscillations, we might hypothesize that the period (the time for the pendulum to complete one cycle) depends on the mass attached to the end of the pendulum. This is a valid hypothesis since it can be either verified or falsified by direct observation and/or reproducible experimentation. If we run a series of period measurements with different masses attached to the pendulum arm, we will establish that the period remains the same independent of the mass. So our original hypothesis is incorrect. The scientific method now requires us to abandon that hypothesis.
You can learn a great deal by clicking on "Hijacking the Scientific Method".




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

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Dinosaur Bone Jumbles Unexplained by Conventional Geology

Jumbles of dinosaur bones cannot be explained by traditional geological methods. The best explanations can be found in biblical creationist Flood models.

For a long time, the conventional explanation of fossilization was that something died and then was gradually buried. After millions of years, it became a fossil. Some people realize that such a scenario does not work in reality, and that fossilization requires rapid burial; conditions are more essential than time.

Fossil graveyards, such as Dinosaur National Monument, have jumbled fossils. Many are intact, and some are bits and pieces. Secular geologists will invoke a form of catastrophe to explain what has been observed, but they will not defer to the best explanation, which is the Noachian Flood models of biblical creationists.
At Dinosaur National Monument in Utah, a confused tangle of bones juts from a ridge of sandstone, chock-full of dinosaur fossils. The sandstone is part of the Morrison Formation, a body of sedimentary rock extending from New Mexico to Saskatchewan in the north and covering more than 1 million square kilometres (400,000 square miles) of the western US and Canada. Eleven different species of dinosaur have been dug from the quarry at Dinosaur National Monument, including one of the largest and most complete skeletons of a giant Apatosaurus ever found.

The dinosaur bones are concentrated in an extensive lens-shaped bed of rock and are an outstanding example of a ‘mass burial’ deposit.1,2 Dinosaur National Monument has been called “the greatest dinosaur quarry ever discovered”, and is the most fertile source of dinosaur fossils in North America.3 For decades, visitors to this spectacular site were told that the fossils represent generations of dinosaurs that lived and died within a peaceful swamp environment some 150 million years ago.4 But geologists now realise that the remains did not accumulate that way. So how did the bones get there, and what do they tell us?
You can read the rest of the article by clicking on "Dinosaur disarray — Evidence for the Flood at Dinosaur National Monument, USA".





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

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Evolutionary Ancestors: Not My Circus, Not My Monkeys

An old Polish proverb has been making the rounds lately: "Not my circus, not my monkeys". Some say it simply means, "Not my problem", others say it's useful when someone is trying to draw you into problems that are not yours. In this case, our alleged evolutionary ancestors are not my monkeys. Not yours, either. We were created, we did not evolve.


Evolutionary scientists are making announcements and doing studies that are downright ridiculous. And they get paid for doing it!
More stamps from my collection. Circus tent from Clker.com
"You st00pid dumb Xtian creationist, nobody says humans evolved from monkeys!"

Yeah, we know the story, that humans, apes and monkeys evolved from common ancestors that supposedly looked like apes and monkeys, but were not. Convenient excuse, huh?

Anyway, the alleged evolutionary science that is coming out lately is amazing. Not because it is impressive, but because we can wonder how people take these things seriously. It helps them when they tack on the word "theory" when it is nothing but guesswork, but "theory" sounds more impressive. We can also wonder why they get paid for this. Or even why people accept this stuff as science. Put on a helmet and click "Human Evolution News Redlines Silliness Meter". 
       




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

Monday, August 4, 2014

Evolutionists Deny the Facts on Soft Tissue Fossils

More original-tissue fossils are being found. Secular scientists are trying to explain away the facts, evolution enthusiasts even call creationists "liars", but the truth is not only out there, the evidence supports creation and Noah's Flood, not evolution.
First, a reminder that the word "fossil" does not necessarily mean something that has been permineralized, as explained here. There are evolutionists and atheists who will deny the fact that soft tissues have been found that are allegedly millions of years old; such a thing is not possible. To cling to fundamentalist evolutionary dogma, they have several possibilities: Deny outright that soft fossils exist (I've seen it happen), try to find excuses to explain away the evidence so they can reduce their own cognitive dissonance, or perhaps combining the denial and excuses by calling creationists "liars".

Soft tissues and non-mineralized fossils are actually not something from the last few decades. Actually, such things have been discovered for a much longer time. They are being examined much more thoroughly with modern scientific equipment, and denying the facts becomes much more difficult. Of course, long-agers want to escape this information, because it indicates that the earth is not billions of years old; original-tissue fossils are actually supporting the biblical account of creation and Noah's Flood.
Almost without fail, whenever an ICR scientist discusses original tissue in fossils, we hear well-intended explanations of how we got it all wrong—that the fossils in question are actually made of minerals. But they are not all mineral—that’s the primary point of the technical articles reporting these discoveries. Why do so many have such a hard time accepting these clear observations? Perhaps if more people knew about original-tissue fossil discoveries, they would better understand what fossils really represent.

Evolutionists frequently use the fossil record as “proof” that Earth’s history stretches back millions or even billions of years. The overwhelming majority of fossils are mineralized remains or impressions of once-organic, long-dead creatures. Maybe those mineralized fossils could last that long, but that’s not the issue we’re addressing. A completely different class of fossils holds remnants of animal biochemicals like proteins, pigments, and DNA that minerals never replaced, and lab tests indicate that these organic tissue components could not last a million years—that’s what we’re talking about.

Interestingly, the concept of millions of years of “deep time” grew in popularity even as original-tissue fossils were being discovered and described. Deep time refers to a practically endless series of events that supposedly occurred before the appearance of man in the world. Even locked in rocks, original tissues shouldn’t have lasted from way back then until now.
You can dig up the rest of the truth and read the article in context by clicking on "Original-Tissue Fossils: Creation's Silent Advocates". ADDENDUM 6-09-2015: See "More Dino Blood Found: Evolutionists in Denial".

 




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

Saturday, August 2, 2014

Archaeopteryx, Feather Evolution and Non-Science


Once again, the Archaeopteryx has evolutionary scientists in a flap. There are eleven good fossils showing that it had feathers, but the rapid burial required to make fossils leads to some distortion. So more fossils would have been nice. Paleontologists and evolutionary ornithologists were hoping to learn about the evolution of feathers, and the purpose for which this critter evolved them on its legs. This led to some amazingly bad speculation presented as science, even using a form of the argument from silence: Since they could not find what they were looking for, they made up further stories that had no substantiation. Bad science could be drastically reduced if scientists did not insist on forcing their evolutionary presuppositions on their interpretations of data. The evidence shows creation, not evolution.

Some of the scientists were actually doing honest speculation about whether or not this bird could fly, based on their examination of the data. When it became assertions about evolution instead of presenting reasons why or why not it could fly, things became ridiculous.
Archaeopteryx, an extinct bird represented by at least eleven distinctly feathered fossils, definitely had mature-appearing flight feathers on its legs. In fact, analysis of the eleventh known specimen of Archaeopteryx reveals that, in addition to its leg feathers, its wings, tail, body, and neck were feathery—like today’s birds. Additionally, analysis of its well-preserved wing feathers supports the oft-questioned position that this feathery bird was able to achieve lift and fly. While there is nothing “transitional” about the feathers on Archaeopteryx, researchers report these “feather trousers”1 have given them insight concerning the evolution of pennaceous (quill-like) feathers.

Eighteen long leg feathers in the fossil are oriented perpendicular to the bird’s hindlimb (tibiotarsus). There is also an additional row of shorter feathers preserved near the ankle and upper part of the foot. Unlike the asymmetrical flight feathers of the wings and tail, these leg feathers are symmetrical. The feathers flying birds use to achieve lift have an asymmetrical shape—a thin stiff leading edge cutting through the air and a longer more flexible trailing edge providing a wide surface for airflow, which is adjusted as the bird tilts the feather-bearing structure.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Archaeopteryx’s Feathery Legs Fuel Flightless Evolutionary Claims".




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

Friday, August 1, 2014

Failure to Find Extraterrestrials

Two obvious things are involved in the search for alien life, and both are based on evolutionary ideas. First, it would make evolutionists who pushed the origin of life problem off our planet feel vindicated because they would assume that life originated by chance "out there". Second, they could validate the huge expenditure of money over the years in their search.

Of course, there are astronomical problems involved in detecting signals from space since they would take a very long time to get here. Then there would be the difficulty of deciphering the signals as well. Some of us think that perhaps it is not such a good idea to make contact with a "more highly evolved" life form. Others believe that there are no aliens because of theological reasons. Of course, that does not stop evolutionists from grossly misrepresenting the positions of some Christians or from using convoluted "reasoning" to defend their dishonesty. EDIT: I did an article on the logical fallacy of arguing from silence, here. One of the characters that provided me with a good example of that was kind enough to do it again regarding this very post.

The discovery of exoplanets has rocket fueled the desire to find space aliens. However, the exoplanets are not cooperating. In fact, their existence is giving further difficulties to the already-failed favorite planet formation concept, and supports the creationist perspective. Even if a planet could be found that may have the necessary conditions to support life, they are not the conditions that can give rise to life in the first place. So, that problem remains. Quite a bit of money is being spent on metaphysical speculations dressed up as science.
With lofty words about humanity’s future, NASA promoters discussed the hope of discovering life on other planets at a recent meeting in NASA headquarters in Washington. Despite billions of dollars spent on the decades-long search and the fact that not one shred of distant life evidence has been found, NASA continues to suggest that life might really be out there and that its discovery is within reach. Does scientific evidence really justify this expensive search for distant life? If not, what’s the driving force behind this program?

The hope of discovering life in outer space dangles at the end of the long and costly stick, and its elusive carrot takes the form of life-friendly planets in distant star systems. The Kepler space telescope has helped astronomers verify over 1,700 “exoplanets” out of an ever-growing pool of more than 5,000 candidates. These findings almost certainly help fuel NASA’s plans to launch the Transiting Exoplanet Surveying Satellite in 2017, the James Webb Space Telescope in 2018, and others later on—all looking for distant signs of life.
To read the rest, click on "NASA's Far-Out Search for Life".






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

Labels