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

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Sea Sponge Microfossil Supports Genesis Flood, Not Evolution

The Cambrian Explosion (where complex fossils suddenly appear) has been a problem for Darwinian evolutionists for a mighty long time. They come up with some strange ways to explain it, but those aren't satisfying. They still cling to their faith despite observed evidence, though. To make the Cambrian Explosion more baffling for evolutionists, the deeper Precambrian area is sparse with fossils, and creationists are excited about research into a seventh megasequence. Using advanced technology, paleontologists are soaking up the excitement about a tiny sea sponge fossil.
Evolutionary paleontologists are soaking up the excitement over a Precambrian sea sponge fossil. Bad news for them, the sequence of events is based on evolutionary presuppositions and circular reasoning. Worse for them, the scenario supports Genesis Flood models of biblical creationists.
Sponges and coral / NOAA
Now the sponge (the sea sponge that is, not my weird neighbor) is back in the running as the oldest human evolutionary ancestor. Yes, they really think that. Their excitement is based on circular reasoning and presuppositions about the age of the rocks and their evolutionary sequence paradigms. The sponge itself? Pretty much the same anatomy as modern sponges. No evolution here, folks.

To make matters worse yet for evolutionists, creationist geologists show how the rock layers and other evidence support the Genesis Flood.
A “nearly pristine” Precambrian sponge fossil—the size of a tiny bead—has been recovered from China’s Doushantuo Formation. About a millimeter across, Eocyathispongia qiania is not just a flattened trace or fragment but is preserved in three dimensions, essentially frozen in time.

The fossil came from the uppermost layer of this Precambrian rock unit, supposedly deposited 600 million years ago during the Ediacaran Period. With its exquisite details preserved by phosphorus-rich sediment, modern imaging technology reveals hundreds of thousands of cells in the fossil and a very modern-looking sponge anatomy.
You can squeeze out the rest of the article by clicking on "'600 Million-Year-Old' Sponge Said To Show When Multicellular Animals Evolved".

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

Friday, May 15, 2015

Dark Matter Doesn't Really

If I was involved in a longhorn cattle drive back in the old days (say about 1870), we'd get 2,000 or more head of cattle to Kansas. Let's go with Abilene. We reach the destination and are offered $4.00 per hundredweight. I don't cotton to that price, so I check around a few more places. Yep, that's what others are offering. What if I decided that the price is the same everywhere? I might be correct about the rate in that part of Abilene, but could be missing out on another dollar per hundredweight elsewhere. Or maybe even much less. You can only apply your observations just so far.

Hubble Finds [alleged] Dark Matter Ring in Galaxy Cluster. Despite claims that dark matter has been "found" in the universe, there is actually no direct observational evidence. In fact, dark matter is a conjecture based entirely on bad logic and naturalistic assumptions.
Supposed dark matter ring in galaxy cluster Cl 0024+17
Source: Hubblesite.org
Evolutionists, whether Darwinian, cosmological, or other, tend to make numerous logical fallacies. This includes extrapolating from a limited amount of observed data and assuming that the observations extend further. "Dark matter" (and it's relative, "dark energy") supposedly make up most of the universe —

"Isn't 'Dark Matter' a 1974 song by Cher?"

Nope. That's "Dark Lady", a song about adultery and fortune telling. Stay far away from both of those, old son (Prov. 6:32, Deut. 18:10).

Where was I? Oh yes. Dark matter is something you can't see it, touch it, or anything else, but it's assumed to be there. The assumption comes from atheistic naturalism: the Big Bang, an ancient universe, no Creator (the universe created itself), and so on. What are claimed to be empirical observations are actually based on assumptions, circular reasoning, and affirming the consequent. (For an excellent article on logic and the Christian, see "Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation".) It's interesting that one of the first to conjure up dark matter was Jan Oort, who also gave us the entirely imaginary "Oort cloud", but I reckon we don't need to go there now, except to say that dark matter and the Oort cloud are both rescuing devices to avoid evidence for a young universe.
Why is dark matter assumed to exist in the cosmos? From reading news headlines you would think it has been clearly identified and that we now know so much about this once elusive stuff. It has been sought in many different laboratory experiments for more than four decades now, but never found. Why then are astronomers so confident it is out there? Let me try to put this into context and I hope it will become clear.

Two types of physics

In my realm of interest there are really only two types of scientists:

  1. Experimental physicists carrying out experiments in laboratories,
  2. Astrophysicists (or cosmologists) who use the universe as their ‘laboratory’.
Both construct mathematical models to describe their observations. Both test their models against those observations.

However the experimentalists (type 1) can interact with their experiments in a way the astrophysicists cannot. For example, they can send in a light signal and measure the response in the system, i.e. see what comes out. But the astrophysicists (type 2) cannot interact with what they are observing in the universe. The universe is just too large to do that.
To read the rest, click on "Why is Dark Matter everywhere in the cosmos? — A product of the Dark Side". For information on serious problems with the Big Bang, including the "supervoid" difficulty, click on "Supervoid Challenges the Big Bang".

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

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Doubting the Big Science Machine

The public has a disconnect about Big Science. Some love it and think it's the ultimate source of truth, but educated people are also skeptical because they've been misled.
The public seems to have a cognitive dissonance when it comes to science and the scientists that make science and technology happen. Many will blindly accept what scientists say (or what the science press claims what scientists say). Some go as far as to make man-made science philosophies the ultimate source of truth and knowledge.

Then the disconnect. People are skeptical of what scientists say, while being enamored of science. Despite the claims of evolutionists, atheists, agnostics, and those tinhorns who go haywire alternating between atheism and agnosticism, it's not st00pid unedjamakated dumb Xtians who have doubts. Instead, there are people who think and are informed about science matters who have doubts.

Can you blame anyone for having doubts? Scientists say things that are not exactly true, and the science press has the grace, dignity, and accuracy of a cattle stampede, making grandiose claims about "discoveries" that the scientists themselves do not recognize. We were giving proof the the Big Bang — nope, another proof fell through. Then we're given proof of anthropogenic global warming — sorry, that didn't work. Proof that vaccines cause autism — wrong, there's plenty of evidence against that. But they have peer review! Big deal, there are many bad papers getting accepted, and also getting recalled — secular peer review is not a guarantee of good science. How about "Lucy", and other proofs of evolution? Those are refuted as well. All this bad science going on, and they still want our tax money.

Add to this the demand to believe in consensus science, with owlhoots that ridicule of those who present evidence that doesn't fit the consensus, and their suppression of nay-sayers. Consensus science is downright bad, see "Why consensus science is anti-science" for more on that topic.

Intelligent people are having serious doubts about what's going on in the Big Science Industrial Machine. Many false leads, many failures, but a lot of money. This attitude is rooted in a faulty worldview based on materialistic presuppositions instead of the Word of God (Prov. 1:7). The true spirit of scientific inquiry means welcoming challenge and examining contrary evidence instead of protecting the consensus and focusing on funding.
Many people skeptical of scientific consensus are not uninformed or scientifically illiterate, study shows.

Secular scientists and reporters are wagging their heads over public intransigence about evolution and climate change, but a new study shows the skeptics are not the dodo-heads some pro-consensus folk make them out to be. The divide is prompting some science leaders to encourage their ranks to listen to the vox populi.
If you want to learn more, read the rest by clicking on "Big Science Faces Credibility Gap". For additional information, see "Big Science in Crisis of Trust".

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

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Supervoid Challenges the Big Bang

Proponents of the Big Bang keep getting new difficulties in their quest to deny the Creator. This time, it's cold spots in the "supervoid".

It seems that every time cosmologists find a safe trail to ride in tracking the Big Bang, another rattlesnake pops out and spooks their horses.

Cosmic microwave background radiation was supposed to be a smoking gun proof of the Big Bang, but it raised more problems than it solved. More recently, the revamped Big Bang hypothesis has had problems, including quantum fluctuations, primordial lithium, the recent "gravity waves" fiasco, and speculations that there was no Big Bang after all. They keep drawing cards and ending up with a losing hand.

Another problem for Big Bang proponents is a cold spot in the sky. A big one. Attempted explanations are failing, and fouling up the whole shootin' match. Reason indicates a Creator, not a cosmic accident.
In a new paper, scientists have announced the discovery of an enormous region of lower-than-average galaxy density about three billion light-years from Earth. This "supervoid," the largest single structure ever discovered at 1.8 billion light-years across, is newsworthy in its own right. However, it also has implications for the Big Bang model of the universe's origin.

This supervoid may partially explain the existence of an anomalous "cold spot" in the sky whose existence has long been problematic for the Big Bang model. However, at best it only replaces one Big Bang problem with another. In order to understand why, let's review some Big Bang basics.
To learn more, click on "A Cosmic 'Supervoid' vs. the Big Bang".

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

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Rodinia, Pangaea, and the Genesis Flood

When you see the green trees, red roses, blue skies with white clouds, a rainbow in the sky, stars at night, the Grand Canyon, the Great Barrier Reef, Highlands of Scotland, Moraine Lake, Blyde River Canyon, the people you meet, birdies chirping in the trees, you may be thinking to yourself that it's a wonderful world. That it is, old son, that it is. But it's also a wrecked world.

That's right, all the splendor around us is a remnant after the judgement of the Genesis Flood. I reckon that we can't imagine the splendor of the original creation, but God's people will see the new creation (Rev. 21:1-5, Rev. 22:1-5). We can try to imagine that, but we know we're not even close.

We hear about the supercontinent called Pangaea, which broke up into the land masses that we see today. There was supposedly another one before that called Rodinia. No, it doesn't mean land of rodents. Rodinia also broke up. The hypothesis is that Rodinia broke up, continents crashed together and formed Pangaea, and that drifted into what we see on our world maps now.

Our wonderful world is actually wrecked. The pre-Flood world must be beyond imagining. But creationist geologists are investigating the Genesis Flood, ancient supercontinents, and how the Flood changed our geography.
Possible reconstruction of Rodinia / Graphic by John Goodge / United States Antarctic Program
Geologists with a creation science perspective are considering that Rodinia was the land mass where Noah lived before the Flood, but they reject the "deep time" conjectures of uniformitarian geologists. Instead, the great cataclysm of the Flood is what broke up the continents and destroyed the world that existed then — and it didn't happen billions of years ago, either.
The world that we see today is not the one that existed in Noah’s day (2 Peter 3:6). That land was destroyed. In fact, it appears that the original continent was broken up and the pieces separated by thousands of miles.

If true, Noah never walked along the Santa Cruz Mountains and looked out over the scenic San Francisco Bay. He never hiked along the Apennines and gazed down upon the panoramic Mediterranean Sea. There were no Alps, Rockies, or snow-covered Himalayas; no Mississippi River rolling down into the Gulf of Mexico; no Amazon spilling into the Atlantic. The geography of the pre-Flood world was completely changed.

We get a glimpse into this different world in Genesis 1:9–10. On Day Three of the Creation Week, God gathered the waters together into “one place,” separate from the dry land. Somewhere on this land was a lovely place called Eden, out of which four great rivers flowed (Genesis 2:8–10). Nothing like that exists today.
To read the rest of the article, click on "Noah's Lost World".

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

Monday, May 11, 2015

Pin the Tail on the Darwinist

As a child, did you ever play "Pin the Tail on the Donkey"? You blindfold the participants (one at a time), spin them a bit, then have them put a tail thing on a picture of a donkey that is attached to a wall or something. I wasn't too fond of that game.

Darwinists often try to pin the tail on the human by claiming that sometimes people are born with "tails". (Sometimes they confuse "tail" with the tailbone, or coccyx, which is a part of normal human embryonic structure.) These people claim that these "tails" are leftover from our alleged evolutionary history.

Now, wait a minute, old son. When someone says that we "evolved from monkeys", they risk the wrath of evolutionists who say that we didn't evolve from monkeys or apes, but that they diverged from a common ancestor way back yonder. But they want to claim we had tails, the "throwbacks" prove it. Lemurs have tails, and they're on the evolutionary tree, what of them? Another "but" is that the great apes, including our "closest relatives", the chimpanzees and bonobos, do not have tails. What a mess.

Some proponents of Darwinian evolution claim that humans are born with tails, a result of our alleged ancestry. This is false, science and theology indicate otherwise.
Lemurs / Pixabay / Eelffica
These so-called human tails are not called "tails" through scientific knowledge, and there are Darwinoids that are downright dishonest about their nature, function, and existence. Yes, sometimes people are born with something resembling a tail, but it is occasionally a fatty tumor called a lipoma. Other times, they are a birth defect in conjunction with related problems. No, we were not the product of evolution, we are the product of God's creation — Adam did not have a tail, nor did his ancestors because there were no ancestors of Adam.
A persistent argument for evolution is the idea of supposed atavistic organs. These are thought to be ‘throwbacks’ to a believed evolutionary ancestral state. This is allegedly caused by genetic information within the DNA for that ancestral trait which is somehow (e.g. by mutation) ‘uncovered’ or able to express itself. Whereas it had previously been ‘covered’ or repressed (‘switched off’), now it is ‘switched on’.

This is related to (but not the same as) the issue of so-called ‘vestigial’ organs, which are supposed to be useless or degenerate organs that are a ‘leftover’ from our evolutionary past. A prime example of this in humans used to be the appendix, now known to have definite function.
To read the rest, click on "Human tails? — ‘Atavistic tails’ and evolution".

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

Saturday, May 9, 2015

Puzzling Platypus Dinosaur

Paleontologists found a dinosaur that is reminiscent of the platypus because it resembles several dinosaurs at once. Evolutionary fact-free fanciful fables ensue.

Those paleontologists who think they have things all figured out concerning dinosaurs have been getting frequent lessons in humility. Many species never existed, sometimes because were merely varieties of the same one (younger, older, male, female, and so on). There's there's the Brontosaurs that never existed, oh wait, yes the Brontosaurus exists after all business.

Now there's Chilesaurus. Yep, he hails from Chile. Looks like a jigsaw puzzle gone bad, since he resembles several things at once. It's reminiscent of the platypus in some ways. And apparently it was a vegetarian. This find helps illustrate that there is still a great deal to learn about dinosaurs (just like we have a lot to learn about living things in the here and now). Of course, evolutionists had to resort to some fact-free fanciful fables about things they have no way of knowing.
A new dinosaur from Chile is as unbelievable as the first reported platypus was to English zoologists: a crazy mix of animals.

Meet Chilesaurus: a theropod from Chile that looks like a combination of other dinosaurs: a small vegetarian T. rex with a long neck and two-fingered arms. Martin Ezcurra, one of the paleontologists who announced the find in Nature, explains in The Conversation how they identified this “weird and wonderful” dinosaur as a new species:
Hold on there, Henrietta. To read the rest, you need to click on "Platypus Dinosaur: A Vegetarian T. Rex".

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