Piltdown Superman

There was a time when fossils were explained as impressions in rocks of things that died, were gradually covered, then the sediment turned to stone. If the teacher had time, we were told about petrification as well. With modern technology and scientific advances, fossils are a treasure trove of information. The insistence on gradual processes over millions of years has persisted, defying actual thought. A fossil fern has been examined, and it is amazingly detailed. Scientists can even look at spores, chromosomes and cells that were caught in the middle of division! Does this support gradual, long-time fossil making? Is there any sign of evolution between this fossil and modern ferns? Not hardly! While the scientists admit to a rapid burial, they arbitrarily assigned an age to the fossil, and it still manages to disrupt their timeline. The best explanation for this fossil is in terms of the biblical creationist model from the Great Flood of Genesis. Researchers from Lund Univer

A month ago, I posted about the most common form of radiometric dating methods . Some scientists are recognizing that these have some serious problems, and have decided to saddle up a different horse. They are proposing a new model called isochron dating.  The math looks good, but there are still some major difficulties. These include several assumptions (including an old-earth fudge factor), and yielding results that are not only contradictory, but wildly inaccurate for rocks whose ages are actually known. The Bible is quite clear about the origin and timeframe for the creation of Earth and the cosmos. If Scripture is inaccurate in this, then how can it be trusted in anything else? Some evolutionists throw out theistic evolution (God using evolution as His creative process) as a philosophical panacea, with the goal of leading people to conclude that Genesis is a myth. Like Nimrod of ancient times, they know they must provide an alternative (i.e., naturalism, specifically scienti

The zombie mythology has evolved over the years, especially since popular movies of cannibalistic walking dead people became popular. Older stories are that zombies are dead people who were reanimated through witchcraft, slaves to their master, and could only be set free (or killed, depending on the story) by stuffing their mouths with salt. I don't cotton to zombie stories, but from what I gather, the new version varies, and zombification is pretty much the result of a pathogen. Skip the salt, they need to be shot in the head. Whatever the myth, people were taken over and had no will of their own. That's similar to evolutionary theory, now that I study on it. People get indoctrinated in the pathogen of evolutionism, and that helps fuel their rebellion against their Creator. Their father down below, who fell because of pride (Isaiah 14.12-14, Ezekiel 28.11-19), controls their wills and encourages this prideful rebellion. We have evolution zombies walking around, spreading

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Edited November 18, 2014 and April 21, 2021 Someone is interested in giving me a reward. Atheopaths must hate it that they are fulfilling prophesy (Luke 6.22-23). The Question Evolution Project is hated by many people on Facebook. There have been some trolling attacks, often from repeat offenders using multiple fake names. Now this tinhorn is slapping leather with me. He's using the name of the Page as an individual, and sending messages, "Just wanting to let my fans know my page The Question Evolution Project has been hacked. Can you go unlike it, I'll be making another page shortly". Hacked? My account password is so strong, even I don't know it! I keep it in a password safe. The fake profile, which was later taken down. Click for larger. Not only does did he have a fake profile under that name, but also set up at least two fake Question Evolution Project Pages (ours has been there for a few years, has over 3,400 "Lik

Many years of study have been invested in the study of plant communication. Not only with each other, but within themselves. It's like having branch (heh!) offices that communicate on a molecular level. Supplies are low at the fort, so a message is sent to the commander to send more on the next stagecoach. Actually, it resembles a kind of intranet with e-mail (tree mail?), but without spam.  Assembled from components at Clker.com Scientists hacked in and blocked the communication, and found out that yes indeed, the communication is not just idle chatter. Although evolutionists give credit for evolution, that is a catch-all claim that cannot be supported, Instead, this shows the work of the Creator and his provision for even "simple" things like plants. How do roots respond to what the top of the plant experiences? With an elaborate communication system resembling email. The authors of a paper in Science Magazine don’t use the words email or intranet, but th

Some people insist that the geologic column and belief in "deep time" are essential for people in geology-related fields to do real science work. I reckon this to be a uniformitarian version of the evolution mantra, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". Not hardly. Neither assumption is true. Yes, geologists use the geologic column, with its inaccurate assumptions of long ages , as a means of classification and reference. If they used the Great Flood of Genesis as a reference point, they would be more accurate in their work. One of the most basic techniques is to observe the rocks in the field and plot the different kinds of rocks on a map. This would be the easiest, cheapest and most fundamental method of geological exploration. We also use magnetic methods, either on the ground or airborne. Other methods include aerial photography, seismic exploration, drill cores, gravity anomalies, and electrical methods. Plus we sample rocks

Evolutionary scientists are proposing an answer to why we see more trees with leaves than evergreens and so forth. It seems that examination of leaf fossils of the K-T boundary gave them the idea that a meteorite impact 65 or so million years ago was responsible. The resulting climate change caused the extinction of the dinosaurs and also gave the faster-growing seasonal plants an edge in the changing conditions over the slower-growing plants. Also, it was said that survival of the fittest does not apply, and some species had built-in properties that helped them survive. Wait, isn't that what creationists say about adaptation to change? Found this big boy near my parking space. The scientists established a series of conjectures about changes in trees that have me stumped. For one thing, catastrophic processes are invoked by the alleged changes of the meteorite impact, and this does not fit uniformitarianism. But then, some evolutionary geologists back off from their dogma a