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!

Wednesday, March 8, 2017

Definitely Dinosaur Protein

One of the items that the bosses at the Darwin Ranch have filed away in the locked back room under Try Not to Discuss is soft tissues from ancient critters. Although we've been hearing about those tissues for a spell, it's not such recent news as some people may think. Just that the more recent events about dinosaur soft tissues have rightly exploded since that business with Mary Schweitzer, Mark Armitage, and others.


undoubtedly dinosaur proteins in remains
Triceratops at the Dinosaur Journey Museum credit: US Dept of Transportation / aschweigert
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Some uninformed but loyal evolutionists have tried to deny the tissue problem (even lying about it in forums and on social media), since it's a serious problem for them: dinosaur soft tissues and proteins cannot last for millions of years. That means dinosaurs have not been extinct as long as their dogma requires, and gives another indication that Earth was created much more recently than evolution requires. Excuses have been made, such as the "iron as a preservative" concept, which smacks of desperation and illustrates bad science. Even though Mary Schweitzer believes in long ages, she's willing to present the conclusive evidence that the dinosaur proteins are original material.
Mary Schweitzer’s team reports the most rigorous techniques yet to certify collagen in dinosaur bone. But will evolutionists finally give up their beloved millions of years?

Since 2005 and even earlier, Dr. Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State has boldly charged against fossilized dogma, proving the existence of soft tissue in dinosaur bones. She still believes they are millions of years old, but has faced criticism and (more often) silence from her stubborn, incredulous colleagues. This response hasn’t fazed her. If anything, it has stimulated her to prove she’s right. Now, the latest press release from NC State announces, “80-Million-Year-Old Dinosaur Collagen Confirmed.” Here’s their interpretation that rescues long ages by assertion:
To read the rest, click on "No Doubts Left: It’s Dinosaur Protein". 





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

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Is the Echidna One of God's Pranks?

There's a critter down Australia and New Guiney way that is sometimes called the spiny anteater. It's spiny, but not with sharp pointy quills like a porcupine. Also, it does eat ants somewhat, but is not closely related to anteaters. Seems gentle enough, but it's a protected wild animal, so don't be getting a notion to make a pet of one. Maybe consider a hedgehog and name it Spiny Norman, since there's a bit of resemblance. Anyway, the subject is the echidna (I kid you not, it's pronounced ee-KID-nuh), and is baffling to evolutionists, like its cousin the platypus.

Echidna puzzle for evolution
Credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainImages
The classification for yon beastie is a monotreme. It's a mammal, but lays eggs. Yes, really. Read up on its alleged evolution and you get a whole whack of storytelling but no actual scientific evidence. Then they deny the Creator and resort to the nonsensical "convergent evolution" tale. Because of its unique characteristics and those of the platypus, it's not difficult to be suspicioning that God has a sense of humor and put some of these things on Earth to cause evolutionists to say, "I find this very troubling".
You might think that spiky little animal waddling along the forest floor is a porcupine. But it has a long, sticky tongue and it digs for ants, so maybe it’s some kind of anteater. Nope? Well, it’s a mammal, at least, right? Wait—it lays eggs. Mammals don’t lay eggs. So what is this thing?

The echidna seems to break all the rules. It’s a mammal, but it lays eggs. It’s warm-blooded, but it has a low body temperature. It lives on land, but it detects food like some fish do. And, like so many other rule-breakers, such as the platypus, the echidna settled in Australia.
To read the rest, click on "Echidna—Outback Oddity" (audio version also available).


 



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

Monday, March 6, 2017

Moving the Cosmic Goalposts

The Big Bang and cosmic evolution have many things going for them — on paper. Start with some assumptions, do some calculations, make impressive pronouncements, let the sycophantic science media get the bit in their teeth and gallop to the public. But do not, under any circumstances, let actual science interfere with grandstanding. Evidence is bad medicine for speculations in secular cosmogony and cosmology.


Big Bang and new theory of gravity
Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
Since observed evidence causes problems for secular cosmogony concepts, secular scientists come up with rescuing devices. Dark matter, dark energy, dark other things that have never been observed but look good for calculations abound, and "explain" why spiral galaxies hold their shape after assumed zillions of years. These things have not been observed, only inferred according to presuppositions (see "Dark Matter Remains Missing"). Another rescuing device is to come up with new physics, and even find a new theory of gravity that makes things all better for the Big Bang. I reckon that this is the fallacy of moving the goalposts on a grand scale. By doing these things, they're tacitly admitting that the Big Bang is wrong. Cowboy up, people! The evidence y'all deny testifies that the universe was created much more recently than you want to believe.
Occasionally we read in the popular press, especially online, that someone has come up with a new theory of gravity. Why is that even necessary if the current theory describing the evolution of the universe is so correct?

The standard ΛCDM big bang cosmology is derived from an application of certain non-biblical boundary conditions to the physics of Einstein’s general relativity theory. But when that was applied to the universe as a whole, two problems developed for the secular model. One is the need to add in dark energy (or the cosmological constant, Λ (Lambda), to Einstein’s field equations) and the other is the need for a significant amount of invisible cold dark matter (CDM).
To finish reading, click on "Why look for a new theory of gravity if the big bang cosmology is correct?" Also worth seeing is "The Expanding Big Bang Fairy Tale".



 




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

Saturday, March 4, 2017

Creationists and Credentialing

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There seems to be a fine line between rejecting material because someone dislikes the source (the genetic fallacy), and using caution because the source is questionable. Some owlhoots fallaciously balk at learning science from creationists because creationists do not support materialistic presuppositions. Other times, material from individuals is questioned because they lack the proper credentials.


Some creation scientists have dubious credentials
Image credit: digitalart at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Readers of this Weblog and The Question Evolution Project may notice that several creationary mavericks are absent from the corral that I choose for reliable resources. I'll allow that sometimes I'm a mite skittish when atheopaths are looking for excuses to discredit individuals or organizations since I also want to make good material available for readers and viewers, but do not want to give detractors fuel for their fires.

Don't disunderstand me. There are very intelligent people who have no advanced degrees that have studied their material and present it accurately, and are not claiming to be more credentialed than they really are. My problem is that there are some individuals, such as Kent Hovind, Don Patton, Carl Baugh, and others who seem to be sincere about presenting creationary material, but are using doubtful credentials to bolster their credibility.

One anti-creationist claim is that a few of the numerous people in creation science circles have doctorates from unaccredited universities. If an American college or university did not go through the accreditation process, that does not necessarily mean that the program is substandard. (Similarly, a scientific paper may pass a peer review process, but that does guarantee it to be factual or even useful.) One simple reason that a small Christian school is not accredited is that the cost to obtain and maintain the accreditation can be prohibitive.

I'm ambivalent about relying on this credentialing business as to whether or not to use material from a dubious doctor. People may hear "not credentialed" and think, "Oh, it must be a bad place, and the creationist is a fraud." Not hardly! For example, James White has a doctorate from Columbia Evangelical Seminary, a non-traditional school. He has responded to critics on this, but nobody can legitimately challenge his knowledge of his material. Some of the creationists in question have their doctorates from "degree mills", such as Kent Hovind's "degree" from Patriot University in Colorado.

Aside from the questionable credentials of a few people (several of them are no longer active), I shy away from them if more reputable creationists and creationary organizations find their material to be lacking. Sometimes, the doubted creationists presents material that anti-creationists gleefully ridicule, but then, they ridicule just about anything that shows evolution to be the fraud that it is. Yes, there are some "evidences" and "arguments" that creationists should avoid (Answers in Genesis disagrees with Carl Baugh about the Paluxy River tracks), but there are a few arguments on the "get that out of Dodge" list that some creationists want to see included on the "use this material" list again.

Wikipedia, the biased, unreliable go-to source for atheists and anti-creationists, had an interesting "tell" in a post about Baugh: "Both scientists and creationists have criticized Baugh's claims." See that? They are using loaded terminology to basically say that scientists are not creationists, and vice versa. That lie is easily refuted.

Unfortunately, uninformed people condition others who are also uninformed that uncredentialed is immediately a bad thing. Because of public perceptions as well as the dubious teachings of some individuals, my recommendation is to be very careful who you endorse. If the material presented is in your area of understanding or expertise and you believe it is worthwhile, then obviously, feel free to use it. Otherwise, I recommend caution, and feel it's a better witness to use sources for which we can feel confident.






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

Friday, March 3, 2017

Bubbles of Abiogenesis

Proponents of molecules-to-milliner evolution are still having problems overcoming the original hurdle: the origin of life. Some even try to rework the failed Miller-Urey experiment, and others try to find different ways to justify the non-science of abiogenesis. One desperate idea was to invoke a kind of intelligent design by space aliens. Oh, please! 


Liquid droplet story of abiogenesis fails
Image credit: Pixabay / Alexas_Fotos
Some owlhoots try to distance themselves by resorting to the canard that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. Sure, pilgrim. You want us to spot you the most difficult part, and then you'll take the bit in your teeth and run with it from there. Claiming that abiogenesis (also known as chemical evolution) is irrelevant is, I believe, blatantly dishonest, since they should know that the origin of life is in evolution textbooks, on documentaries, and so on.


Denying relevance of abiogenesis. Lying, stupid, or something else?
Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
A more rational idea involves primordial liquid droplets. They're sort of like bubbles, but do not have air. These droplets contain materials that could maybe somehow someday bring forth primitive life. This contains a great deal of Creator-denying wishful thinking, presumptions that common-ancestor evolution did happen, and assuming they know the conditions of Earth way back yonder — a subject that scientists are still scrapping about. Let's take a look at what the droplet people are doing wrong.
Life? How did something so complex begin? Biological observations all show that life only comes from life. (This is called biogenesis.) Nevertheless, evolutionists confidently tell us that life evolved from nonliving chemicals through random natural processes.

Believing life began through abiogenesis despite the lack of observable scientific support, evolutionary scientists naturally search for ways to show how this could have happened. One of their latest notions suggests that the barrier between living cells and their surroundings got its start in self-replicating liquid droplets.
To read the rest, click on "Liquid Droplets Begat Life?





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

Thursday, March 2, 2017

The Genesis Flood and Ancient Earth Impacts

For this post, you're going to need your cogitating machines fully operational, because this material isn't very easy. It's down to Earth. Very. One of the deepest layers in the geologic column is the Cambrian, which has caused considerable consternation among Darwin's Cheerleaders because of the "explosion" of fossilized life forms, and they try to come up with explanations for this evolution-defying event.


Genesis Flood and Precambrian Earth Impacts
Credit: Pixabay / RafaelMousob
Before the Cambrian layer is the Precambrian (yes, really). Not a whole passel of fossils there, but there are signs of meteorite impacts. There is some controversy about how many actually set themselves down, since one impact can effectively erase another if it's close enough, and the criteria are a mite too rigid. Evidence exists that there may have been many more impacts than are officially recorded. Michael Oard offers his hypothesis and evidence (65 footnotes) that Precambrian impacts had a major effect on the Genesis Flood.
Only 182 impacts have been ‘confirmed’ on the earth. This number may be very low for two reasons. First, numerous impact craters are observed on the moon and other inner solar system bodies. Second, terrestrial impacts have been significantly modified by erosion and the emplacement of lava flows and thick sedimentary cover. The large Vredefort and Sudbury impact structures illustrate the extent of this alteration. Based on this evidence, other impact features may be difficult to identify. Other factors hindering the confirmation of past impacts, especially in the Precambrian, include overly stringent requirements for impacts, thick Phanerozoic cover, and the fact that until recent decades few geologists have been looking for impacts. Indirect evidence for other impacts, especially during the Precambrian, include cratonic basins, other circular or arc-shaped features, impact spherule layers, and other subtle geological and geochemical features. Thousands of impacts may have occurred during the Precambrian. It is likely that many Precambrian sedimentary rocks are Flood deposits, such as black shale, quartz arenite, phosphate-rich rocks, or those with diagnostic fossil traces, such as raindrop imprints. This suggests that many Precambrian impacts occurred during the Flood. These may have contributed to the energy needed to start and sustain the Genesis Flood.
To read the rest, click on "Precambrian impacts and the Genesis Flood".






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

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

Evolutionary Clocks Continually Embarrassing

When the hands at the Darwin Ranch at Deception Pass ride into town on payday, a word of advice: don't play cards with them because they stack the deck. Not very well, though. Even more so when it comes to science, because after stacking the deck, they still don't like they hand they're dealt. Case in point, molecular clocks.

Derived from images at Clker clipart
Using their scum-to-scientist evolutionary presuppositions, scientists attempted to calibrate various molecular clocks to give them the long ages they desire. In their attempts to deny the Creator, genetic clocks are embarrassingly bad.
Evolutionists assign millions of years to fossils, and even to genes in the DNA of living creatures, in an attempt to bolster evolutionary theory, which needs the magic of “deep time” to seem plausible. But the supposed ancient clocks they use for these age assignments rarely agree with each other. In other words, the DNA clocks rarely line up with the fossil clocks, despite the fact that both clocks are statistically calibrated by the same evolutionary assumptions.
To read the rest, click on "Evolutionary Clock Futility". For additional information, see "Genetic Clock Research Disputes Evolutionary Predictions" and "Recalibrating Molecular Clocks".

 



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

Labels