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, April 7, 2017

Parrots Present a Passel of Perplexities for Evolution Proponents

Those who believe in baryon-to-bird evolution are adept at telling stories around the campfire and making assertions, but dreadful at providing actual scientific explanations or believable models. Many "explanations" can be summed up as, "EvolutionDidIt". The group — actually, the order — to which parrots belong even stumps the storytellers.


Parrots present a passel of problems for evolutionists
Credit: Morguefile / pdell
Darwinists want to find the nearest common ancestor of parrots, but can only throw around a few guesses. But more than that, parrots have unique features that other birds do not possess. Clearly, parrots were a specially created kind, and that is a good reason evolutionists fail in their speculations.
The parrot family is one big family, say biologists. Well, technically an order, the Order Psittaciformes, comprising over 80 recognized genera and hundreds of different species . . . Their shared distinctive characteristics . . . the parrots are readily distinguishable from all other orders of birds.

Evolutionists have a problem, however. They can’t find the parrot’s closest relative. Sure, there have been plenty of suggestions over the years, citing as evidence one or a few shared physical characteristics . . . But as the arguments for or against these and other candidates for the parrot’s closest relative have raged, and biologists turned to new tools such as molecular and genetic studies, more “contradictory results” were reported, generating further confusion.
To read the article in its entirety, click on "Parrot puzzle — Where are the missing relatives?"





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

Thursday, April 6, 2017

How Earth Got Its Water

When we hear about searches for life on other planets, whether in our solar system or out there thataway in some other system, the key word is often habitable. What makes a planet habitable? A spaceship-load of conditions have to be met that imply that a planet could have usable water. 


Materialists ideas of Earth oceans formation fail
Credit: Morguefile / kconnors
Today, we have similar news from two different angles. The first linked article is more in depth. Yes, I made a water joke there.

Evolutionary views of where Earth's water came from have constantly failed, so the concepts that have the fewest flaws seem to become dominant when others are discredited. Notice that we got us a wet one here? Since secularists presuppose that the solar system was all hot molten stuff that became the sun and planets through accretion, there's no place for water. It had to get here somehow, so they came up with comets and things. Yes, really. But evolutionists are drying up that idea, and admitting that the water comes from Earth itself. Isn't that what we read in Genesis? For that matter, scoffers ask, "Where is the water from the Genesis Flood?" It's still here.
“Planet Earth makes its own water from scratch deep in the mantle” was the article headline in the January 27, 2017, New Scientist’s Daily News.

It is ironic that secularist scientists are still seeking to explain where the Earth’s water came from. For many years now they have endeavored to fill in the difficult-to-explain pieces of their “story” about how our home Earth “just happened” to become so habitable for life over the course of its supposed billions-of-years history.

Secularists believe the Earth condensed from clumpy matter flung out of the solar nebula 4.56 or so billion years ago. It was thus originally a hot molten blob that cooled. They used to suggest that most of the water came from inside this cooling Earth, but not enough to fill the oceans we have on the Earth’s surface today. A once popular theory was that comets (which are essentially large, dirty snowballs) collided with the Earth and deposited their water on its surface.
To read the rest of this first article, click on "From Where Did the Earth’s Water Come?". The next article is below.

Although secular scientists are finding out that their water from space conjectures do not work, they still like to spin yarns and pretend that Earth and the solar system are billions of years old. Nope. It was created with the water, and the evidence is showing this fact but they won't give the Creator the credit. Another bit of speculation was floated for approval.
The divination experts see a new vision emerging from meteorites, portending disaster.

If there was ever a coherent theory of how the earth got its oceans, it’s gone. The new reading of meteorites forbids it. Now, inventors of solar system models have to go back to square one. Whatever they come up with is bound to take more heat.

Because the early earth was pictured to be molten with volcanoes going off and meteors hitting repeatedly, cosmogonists were forced into thinking that water arrived later. The ‘late veneer’ theory (which we call the ‘water balloon’ theory) claimed that the oceans were late arrivals, the water being delivered by comets and meteorites after things cooled down a bit.

For empirical support, they appealed to elements in chondritic meteorites, believing that elements embedded in the stones can act as “fingerprints” of conditions at the time of their formation. A new paper in Nature, however, claims that stable isotopes of ruthenium falsify the late veneer theory: “these data refute an outer Solar System origin for the late veneer and imply that the late veneer was not the primary source of volatiles and water on the Earth.” Moreover, these isotopes don’t match those in earth’s crust.  
To read the rest of this second article, click on "Secular Ocean Theory Evaporates". 



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

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

Paleontologists Show a Squid is Still a Squid

In their ongoing efforts to provide evidence for common-ancestor evolution, paleontologists and evolutionary biologists have something to tell all y'all: it's a squid. Yep, a well-preserved fossil that was dated at several million Darwin years is the same as modern squid. That is, a living fossil.


Squid fossil shows little difference from modern squid
Jewel squid image credit: Mike Vecchione, NMFS/NOAA
Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
Living fossils are annoying to evolutionists because there is no sign of something becoming something else over alleged long ages. Still, these owlhoots commence to doing misleading storytelling. They include definitive scientific term probably, and use a passel of assumptions. Circular reasoning is helpful, too. Problem is, Darwinoids grab this stuff as actual science and then spread it around. The logical conclusion is that such evolution did not, does not happen, and the evidence shows special creation instead.
A recent science news article sheds light on the amazing squid, but definitely not on its supposed evolution or origin. Creation scientists maintain squid have always been squid, and science bears this out with a new and highly detailed squid fossil. The article states the fossil is "exceptionally preserved." Clearly the reason for the exceptional formation and preservation of the squid's fragile body in this fossil is due to an obvious rapid and catastrophic burial. A flood of biblical proportions comes to mind.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "The Fascinating Squid".



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

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Rejecting Flawed Crater Claims

We frequently encounter a very basic problem with proponents of long ages as well as fans of rat-to-raconteur evolution. That is, they will pile up conjectures and hypotheses, make models — and those things rely on each other. But the foundations are fundamentally flawed, and the topmost pronouncements are unsubstantiated. I have similar problems with anti-creationists who want to slap leather with this child, and they start out with logical fallacies, and it's highly unlikely that they'll build compelling arguments. They get mighty ornery when I point out their errors and refuse to "debate" them.


Image credit: US Geological Survey via NASA
Usage of image does not imply endorsement of site contents
Evolutionary biology draws heavily from uniformitarian geology, which also takes information from planetologists. A just so story about how Earth got its craters, when it happened (regular intervals), extinctions of life on Earth, is built on nothing much. At least someone in secular science is saying, in effect, "No evidence, no pattern."

Worse, it seems someone's been into peyote buttons, proposing a star that comes around every few million Darwin years and kicks up stuff so we get bombarded with junk. It's called Nemesis, but no trace of it has been found. Sorta like the Oort cloud. Hey, maybe it's made of "dark matter", since no evidence for that exists, either! Sure is a lot of work coming up with incoherent "theories" in order to deny the recent creation of the universe. I recommend reading this short article, "Craters: Seeing Fake Patterns".




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

Monday, April 3, 2017

The Snow Lotus and False Evolution Claims

Way, way up yonder at the "Roof of the World" in Chinese-occupied Tibet (and a few neighboring regions) is a highly-prized plant. Saussurea laniceps is known as the cotton-headed snow lotus or the Tibetan snow lotus (click here for image). Quite a long and difficult trip to pick one, since it's not only mighty cold, but altitude sickness caused by the thin air can be lethal. Amazing that some folks are able to live up there.


Chinese occupied Tibet roof of the world
Credit: Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC
Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
People have been picking the cotton things, taking the taller ones and leaving the shorter ones. Evolutionists are all agitated about it. "Hail Darwin, blessed be, evolution in action." That'll be the day! Their death cult falsely claims credit for "evolution in action", since what happens is just a form of natural selection (given human helping hands), and a loss of genetic information. Simply put, the small plants are the ones are the ones left to commence reproducing. By the way, natural selection actually preserves a species. It is a creationist concept, but the Bearded Buddha corrupted it for his own anti-God, anti-creation agenda.
The Tibetan Snow Lotus, Saussurea laniceps, is highly prized for its use in traditional Chinese and Tibetan medicine for the treatment of headaches, high blood pressure, and various other ailments. Every year at flowering time, Himalayan locals climb above altitudes of 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) to scour the rocky mountain slopes for it, harvesting the whole plant.

Increasingly locals have had to compete with other medicine-seekers, too, given the growing worldwide interest in alternative remedies. Tourists are also eager to souvenir rare plants from exotic locations.
To finish reading (it won't take long), click on "Tibetan snow lotus — A prized flower suffers ‘tall poppy’ syndrome". 



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

Saturday, April 1, 2017

How the Evolutionist Struck Out on Junk DNA — Part 1

“I keep pitchin' 'em and you keep missin' 'em”
— Foghorn Leghorn

Listen up, folks, we need to have a talk. Ready? Great, let's get with it.

Proponents of fish-to-fool evolution have several things they throw at us as proof of evolution, hoping we'll believe them. Unfortunately, they are poor, and people believe these bits of "evidence" anyway. Why? Because they want to. One of these is the concept that DNA has "junk" in it.


Striking out evolution junk DNA
Assembled from components at Clker clipart
Evolutionists thought they had a home run with that one! Some of the human genome was sampled, and looked for one function in DNA. With astonishing arrogance, scientists decided that if they could not understand the parts of the genome that they tested for protein coding, the rest must be "junk". Not hardly! They "saw" what they wanted to see based on a junk theory that gives junk predictions, including "junk" DNA. (Of course, Darwin's Drones that rely on biased and fallacious sources like Wikipedia and the like didn't get the memo, and still spread bad scientific information.) Using incomplete science, circular reasoning and other bad logic, blinders on their worldview, evolutionists have spectacularly struck out. More than that, creationists have been pitching all along that DNA is not "junk", it was created for a purpose — and been proved right. Foolish efforts of evolutionists to deny the Creator, yes? Yippie ky yay, Darwinoids!
. . . evolutionary literature gloated for over three decades about evidence evolutionists believed was a powerful confirmation of evolution. Their “proof” was the discovery that a large percentage of DNA they called junk DNA does not code for proteins. Since evolutionists believe that over long ages organisms (and their DNA) are crafted by chaotic environments in which they struggle to survive, evolutionists expect to see in evolution’s wake many different types of  “useless” genetic junk. They were so certain that most non-coding genetic material was junk DNA, some said its only functional ability was embarrassing creationists.
To read the full article, click on "Major Evolutionary Blunders: Evolutionists Strike Out with Imaginary Junk DNA, Part 1". Part 2 is found here.





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

Presenting the Creation Guild

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Edited April 2, 2017

In an effort to move forward with this ministry, improving material on this site as well as The Question Evolution Project on Facebook, I am implementing a system where people can show their support. Giving a nod to the geological layers laid down by the waters of the Genesis Flood, there are layers of support available.
Assembled with various images in the public domain, Clker clipart, and my own, using Paint.Net
No, I am not going to begin charging for material. What is posted on this site and Pages on Fazebook will continue to remain free. This is for the purpose of obtaining additional material for me to study and present to readers. The whole purpose is to spread the truth about biblical creation science and sound creationary theology.

Let's take a gander at the layers.


Obviously, Genesis is the beginning. Some folks want to help, but have to work for a pittance just to stay alive. Even small amounts can add up. Contributors at the Genesis Layer will receive a membership card and a weekly newsletter that does not go out to the general public.


People giving at the Noahic Layer will receive invitations to TQEP events, the membership card, and the newsletter


You can see a pattern here: each layer has an added bonus. The Dispersal Layer has a personalized, numbered ID card (send your picture to my agent), as well as the TQEP events invitations where your personalized ID card gives you free admission, the regular membership card, and the newsletter.


Members of the Founders of Science Layer receive admission to a special site where they can view my articles that have not been released to the public, plus the TQEP events invitations (free admission with the personalized ID card), the regular membership card, and the newsletter.

The Modern Biblical Creation Science Layer adds a free DVD of my relevance of Genesis relating to the increasing hostility of viperine anti-creationists and atheists. Then (you guessed it), the other benefits: admission to the special site, TQEP events invitations (free admission with the personalized ID card), the regular membership card, and the weekly newsletter.

Here's the part that those who are well-heeled can appreciate the most. We will have an annual banquet on Question Evolution Day so we can meet and have some stimulating discussions. A video showing is also possible. Of course, all the other benefits: admission to the special site to read certain articles in advance, TQEP even invitations with free admission if you show your personalized ID card, the regular membership card, and the weekly newsletter.

I hope you're as excited about the possibilities of helping me take my biblical creation science work to the next level! To learn more, click here see below.

EDITED APRIL 2, 2017
Wondering how many people took this seriously and did not recollect that this here article was published on April 1... Anyway, this is the rest, the part that followed the "click here" that was above. It's quite serious:

I spent hours on those graphics, and it was partly in jest. No, there is no "Creation Guild", no perks, am not soliciting donations, and even if received them, they would not be tax deductible. Although I urgently need a car, that won't be paid for this way. Also, I may publish an ebook, but that won't affect this ministry.

There is a serious aspect to the article. Atheists like to complain about Christian ministries that ask for contributions, yet they ignore their own kind. Clinton Richard Dawkins is one of the wealthiest folks in Britain, but that tinhorn has a cult of personality akin to Scientology. He has the effrontery to prey on the gullible fools who support is atheism, (Psalm 14:1) although his philosophy is incoherent, and his attitude alienates atheists. Indeed, even other scientists are not fond of Dawkins.

These things remain unmentioned by atheists and other anti-creationists, which is blatant hypocrisy. Yes, creation science and other Christian ministries ask for money. Those of us who can afford to will give it so they can continue their work. And no, I'm not talking about the fake Christians who are exploiting gullible religious folks, either. They're going to get what's coming to them in the final Judgement — just like the atheists and other false teachers.

 

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

Labels