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, December 5, 2015

Hoedown at the Darwin Ranch with Skull KNM–ER 1470

Seeing evolution where it ain't and making unfounded declarations can be hard work, especially with the stress of keeping that grant money rolling in. So the hands at the Darwin Ranch have the occasional hoedown featuring a Western square dance. They do it academically, of course, and sometimes they don't even know they're dancing. In the case of Skull KNM-ER 1470, it was more of a freestyle dance. Let's take a look-see down memory lane — and see how the pigs won the prize. Bow to your partner, bow to your corner.


Looking back on the Darwinian hoedown involving evidence and dating of Skull KNM-ER 1470. Fundamentally flawed radiometric dating gives way to: pigs. Circular reasoning is prominent.
Images combined from clip art at Clker.
In 1972, a skull was found in Kenya. As usual, the evolutionists hurried to claim that this was a transitional form between human and ape. Promenade right. But right from the get-go, there were disagreements about dating. One bit of evidence contradicts another bit of evidence. Promenade left. Radiometric dating was conflicted, so using evolutionary and long-age biases, they picked out the dates the preferred.

So, is the skull a variation on humans or a variation on apes? Allemande right.

But soft! What light through yonder window breaks? Them's pigs, pilgrim. Allemande left, change your established skull dates. Then drop the skull from the evolutionary parade. Toss a coin, call it! Heads, you lose — the creationists were right all along, science deniers. Again. There was no atoms-to-anthropologist evolution, God created the world fully functional, and recently.

For more serious information (sans dance), we have two podcasts from Real Science Radio, and a couple of older articles showing that Skull KNM-ER 1470 has always been in trouble. But the way evolutionists have been dancing around, their "science" is actually funny. To hear the podcasts (on site or download, either way is free), click on "RSR Strolls Down Memory Lane with Skull 1470" and "RSR on Memory Lane with Skull Pt. 2". (Bob Enyart pointed out logical fallacies. I guess he learned something from our discussions. Yeah, sure.) And the bit about pigs? That's in the podcasts. Also, you can read "The Pigs Took It All", from 1995. Another interesting article is "The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM–ER 1470", from 1999.



   




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

Friday, December 4, 2015

Willingly Ignorant of Genesis

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Biblical creationists often hear criticisms from atheists and evolutionists who prefer prejudicial conjecture to actual answers (Prov. 18:2 HCSB). I commenced to pondering this while watching Creation in the 21st Century (one of the few biblically sound programs on the Trinity Broadcasting Network), where host David Rives interviewed Mike Snavely. There was a brief clip of a trapdoor spider grabbing lunch (here is a video clip of one in action), and I thought about Adam naming the animals. There probably weren't any trapdoors in Eden yet, so where did that name come from?


Two areas of criticism from atheists and evolutionists are: Adam naming the animals, and Noah's Ark. A bit of reading the Bible in context, and some honest research, can put these matters to rest.
Medieval painting of Adam naming the animals /Agios Nikolaos Anapafsas, Monastery in Thessaly, Greece
Scoffers will say, "There's no way Adam could have named all the animals over the course of years, let alone, one day!" Let's do some homework that certain people are reluctant to do. First, read the text carefully in Genesis 2:19-20. He didn't name fish, insects, and that sort of thing, so there's a heap of time saved right there. Also, God brought them to him, he didn't have to track them down. You can read more about this at "How Could Adam Have Named All the Animals in a Single Day?" and "Naming the animals: all in a day’s work for Adam". So, Adam didn't come up with the name "trapdoor spider". And yes, Adam was a real man, as is affirmed throughout the Bible and in the New Testament (some passages are Luke 3:38 in a lineage of Jesus, Rom. 5:14, 1 Cor. 15:45, Jude 1:14).

A similar topic of derision from hands at the Darwin Ranch is how Noah rounded up and got all those animals on the Ark. They'll give the speculated number of existing species today, and use more prejudicial conjecture to declare that it's impossible to get them on the Ark. Of course, they don't bother to do their homework again. The Ark was huge. Noah didn't have to go chase down the critters because them because God brought them to him (Gen. 6:19-20). Further, we have the "species" issue again: no insects, fish, and so on (Gen. 7:8-9, 7:21-23). This historical event was affirmed in the New Testament Matt. 17:26-27, Heb. 11:7, 2 Peter 2:5). For more information on Noah's Ark, the theology, feasibility, geology, and so on, you can start with these links and then further investigate the sites:
The mocking of Adam naming the animals and of Noah getting animals on the Ark are just two examples of criticisms based on naturalistic evolutionary presuppositions that can be addressed. People just need to do some honest investigation instead of asserting opinions as facts, and they'll see that the Bible withstands scrutiny in these and other areas.
 




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

Thursday, December 3, 2015

Stone Pillars Defy Traditional Geology

Taking a ride down Utah way (or maybe seeing panoramic views in Western movies), you might see stone pillars sticking out of the ground that look like they were from a game of mumbly-peg for giants. But that's the opposite of the truth in several ways: no giant hands or game involved, and they came up from under the earth.


Uniformitarian geology does a poor job of explaining oddities like stone pillars. Biblical creation science, using a Genesis Flood model, makes far more sense of the evidence.
Image credit: FreeImages / "Rock in Kodachrome Basin" / Hervé de Brabandère
Uniformitarian geologists have their explanation of how these things were formed, but they don't make a whole lot of sense. (Same thing happens with other formations around the world, for that matter.) They need their millions or billions of years, despite evidence and skillful science, so there can be time for evolution to happen. Or so they mistakenly believe.) Biblical creation geologists plug in the observed data to their Genesis Flood model, and it makes quite a bit more sense.
Secluded in the canyon country of southern Utah is a beautiful but often overlooked state park called Kodachrome Basin. It is often bypassed in favor of its more photogenic sister, Bryce Canyon. In a two-square-mile area is an astonishing collection of 67 sandstone pillars, ranging from a few feet in height to massive monoliths towering 172 feet (52 m) above the basin floor.

Until recently, these structures were ignored as geologic oddities. But the discovery of oil associated with similar structures elsewhere in the world has sparked intense interest in how they formed. Somehow in the past, water-saturated sand layers were deposited deep in the earth, and then they suddenly became fluidized and broke through the layers above them. These “sand injectites” then hardened. Later, the sedimentary layers around them washed away, leaving behind the sand pillars.
To get an injection of real science, click on "Sand Pillars—Breaking Through Millions of Years".





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

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Dinosaur Soft Tissues and Evolutionist Science Deniers

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Edited 12-14-2015

Evidence supporting an old Earth has been iffy for a long time. Uniformitarian geologist Charles Lyell (a lawyer by trade) wanted to free the science of geology from Moses, and famously gave his own estimates of the rate of erosion for Niagara Falls despite evidence to the contrary. Today, there is deceptive reporting in paleontology.


Anti-creationist science deniers use trolling and other tactics to manipulate people away from examining the evidence. Lately, they're on the attack regarding soft tissues and blood in dinosaur bones.
"Dinosaur Fossils" image courtesy of  khunaspix / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Dishonesty is not surprising. After all, atheists and other anti-creationists are opposed to the biblical worldview, and are living up to their own ethical standards. In addition, they don't look too kindly on scientific evidence that refutes long ages, and microbes-to-minerologist evolution requires huge amounts of time. Ain't happening, but they need the time for their Just So Stories. There have been numerous challenges to long ages of late from many places, so evolutionists are circling the wagons to defend their failed paradigms.

One of the biggest challenges to long-age geology is the fact of soft tissues and blood in dinosaurs (see "Fear and Loathing of Dinosaur Research by Evolutionists"). When material supporting a young Earth is published, especially the dinosaur material, anti-creationists go on a jihad. At The Question Evolution Project on Facebook, I made this post with the latest video by Mark Armitage on dinosaur soft tissues, and received the usual fact-free responses from trolls that I removed.

On December 1, 2015, Creation-Evolution Headlines shared a report that was released that same day confirming "80 million year old" hadrosaur blood vessels were really and truly blood vessels. I shared this news, and as expected, various trolls attacked. One was as dense as a singularity. He said,
"Hi there.! Do read this article... you would know that recovery of soft tissues from extremely old dinosaur fossils isn't unexpected, though rare. For instance, partial blood tissues have been recovered from a late cretaceous T-rex. But if you can indeed prove that this is testimony for the fact that the earth is young as opposed to scientifically tested dating methods, by all means submit your research paper up for peer reviews and collect your Nobel Prize".
Why do they keep doing the "Nobel Prize" nonsense? Anyway, he didn't read the article, and wanted to refute it with an old, irrelevant link to secularists' speculations. When he was challenged by another person to check out peer-reviewed creationist material, he blustered, "'peer reviewed' [lack of capitalization in the original] as in reviewed by the scientific community? Go ahead, prove it, and collect your Nobel Prize". There he goes with the "Nobel Prize" stuff again. Aside from making no sense, he seems unwilling to admit that creationists have published peer-reviewed material in secular and creationist circles. This kind of prejudicial conjecture is not impressing people with sensibilities. I predict more empty rhetoric from them all over teh interwebs.

In addition to being science deniers, anti-creationists are known for lying. They also use logical fallacies to distract and manipulate people into avoiding the evidence that creationists present. If you study on it for a spell, you might agree with me that both lying and manipulation take away choices, which may be why we detest being on the receiving end of such practices. Manipulation contains an emotional element, too. Either way, you can't make an informed decision if you're prevented from knowing the whole story.

Anti-creationists hate having their religion of evolution challenged, so they lash out instead of examining the evidence. It wouldn't do for them to admit that the evidence shows that there is a Creator, geologic evidence supports the global Noachian Flood instead of uniformitarianism, astronomy refutes secular cosmology...they don't want that. But the truth remains despite their persistent machinations. Yippie ky yay, secularists!





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

The Confusing Kiwi

That critter rustling through the brush over yonder in New Zealand isn't a mammal. Fact is, it's a bird. The kiwi. (New Zealanders are called kiwis, but I ask myself, "Why, man?" Well, better than being called a banded dotterel, I suppose. Maybe they call kiwifruit by the other name, Chinese gooseberry.) This bird doesn't look or act like other birds.
The kiwi bird of New Zealand is uniquely suited to its habitat, but is unlike many other birds. Perhaps the Creator was showing his sense of humor again?
Kiwi bird with kiwifruit / Image from Clker
When you study on it, you'll find that this bird has bones that are unlike other birds, the wings are almost nonexistent, flight muscles are not there, and it has strong legs for running and kicking. It eats worms like many other birds, though. This critter is suited for living in New Zealand. Evolutionists have three main theories as to how it got there, but they don't hold up too well. Creationists have some ideas that make more sense in light of biblical creation and post-Flood circumstances. I reckon that God made this unique kind of bird to exhibit his skill, baffle evolutionists, and maybe show some of his sense of humor.
Kiwi lack typical bird characteristics such as flight feathers. They rely on smell and touch rather than sight, making them more akin to nocturnal forest-floor-dwelling mammals than nocturnal birds. The kiwi was probably created as a distinct bird ‘kind’ designed for ground-dwelling habitats.

The kiwi (the unofficial national emblem of New Zealand and its people), although a nocturnal, flightless bird has so many unbirdlike features it has often been called an ‘honorary mammal’.
To read the rest of this interesting article, click on "The Kiwi", written by New Zealander Christine McDonald.





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

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Recalibrating Molecular Clocks

Various biological "clocks" have been used to support goo-to-geneticist evolution. There is a similarity in the flawed logic used to that of radiometric dating: assuming evolution and long ages, circular reasoning, and ignoring other pertinent data, for starters.


Molecular clocks fail evolution
Image assembled from clip art at Clker
All y'all should know that any timepiece needs to be calibrated; doesn't make a lick of sense to have your pocket watch showing high noon when it's really quarter past ten. Also, if your clock is running too fast or too slow (or changes its rate), it's not going to give you good results in the long run. There are several biological clocks on the molecular level that are calibrated using deep time assumptions, have varying rates, and other important data are ignored. When evolutionary assumptions are left by the wayside and a direct empirical approach is used, the human race shows an age much closer to what biblical creationists say, and not supporting evolutionary time.
The idea of an evolutionary genetic clock in which DNA sequences steadily change, like a clock ticking off time, has played a major role in the ideas shaping modern biology. As employed by evolutionists, this time-measuring technique compares DNA sequences between different species to estimate supposed rates of evolution based on the amount of changes in individual DNA letters (A, T, C, or G) in the DNA. When two totally different types of creatures are compared (e.g., horses and chickens), their differences are made to match up with evolutionary time through a procedure that calibrates the data with deep-time estimates taken from paleontology. While scientists that work in the field know this, the general public is completely unaware of this little trick. Despite the fact that the genetic clock data are clearly manipulated to conform to vast amounts of evolutionary time, the results rarely support the overall evolutionary story. In fact, the following problems are often encountered.
To see the problems and the startling results from good science, click on "Genetic Clocks Verify Recent Creation" and watch what happens.





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

Monday, November 30, 2015

Earth Just Keeps Looking Better

Although nobody has seen them, astronomers are pretty sure that planets orbit other stars. We have some nice photos, but those are artists' conceptions. High-powered telescopes like the space-based Kepler give some data to work with. (Nobody had seen Pluto until they went out there and looked with New Horizons probe, remember.) Lots of time, effort, and money have been spent on finding a thousand or so exoplanets, with the hope of finding signs of life. People were betting the odds that there just had to be lots of planets out there, and just had to be life on them. Hope they didn't bet the farm.


Many exoplanets have been discovered, but the few candidates for being habitable are losing credibility. Looks like Earth is still the best place. After it, it was created to be inhabited.
Artist’s concept of an exoplanet discovered by Kepler. Image credit: NASA
Scientists are looking for the "just right" combination of planetary size, composition, star type, and other things to consider if a planet could be habitable. More considerations have narrowed the focus, making the chances of finding life out there (any life, let alone, sentient) even less likely. Now those Voted Most Likely in the astrobiologists' yearbooks are becoming disqualified. Looks like Earth is still the place for life to exist, made by our Creator as described in Genesis.

In addition, the idea of having photographic evidence of a planet in the making is based on the failed planetary accretion model and a whole passel of wishful thinking. Cosmic evolution only looks good in story books, but cannot stand up to real science.

You can read about these stories by clicking on "There’s No Place Like Earth".

 



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

Labels