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, September 8, 2017

Things Refusing to Evolve

Advocates of microbes-to-microscopist evolution have a great deal to say about the hows and whys of the appearances of things living today, and of those that went before. However, it is difficult to examine their evidence, because it's mighty scarce. Sure, we get a passel of authoritative assertions of "it evolved that way", but assertions and tall tales are not scientific evidence. What follows are several links illustrating false claims of evolution happening. This will be good for students to examine and see how science and evolution can often be mutually exclusive.

Dinosaurs and other things used to promote evolution are actually hostile witnesses
Original image credit: US Dept of Transportation / aschweigert
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Non-Evolving Dinosaurs

Assertions of "being covered with feathers" without any sign of the things; why some dinosaurs moved fast, but details are expected in the future; a crocodile fossil that dates 170 million Darwin Years old is essentially identical to modern crocodiles; Austrosaurus "might reveal" evolution; and more. Read about the non-evolution of dinosaurs at "The Dinosaurs That Didn’t Evolve". 

Unhelpful Fossils

A fossil nicknamed Bad Boy is bad news for evolution, since it has modern features; an alleged stegomastodon is pretty much the same as modern elephants, except for curved tusks; a passel of fossilized jellyfish found in Death Valley (soft tissues get fossilized quickly, you know) are like modern counterparts; the useless explanation of "convergent evolution", and more. You can read about fossils as hostile witnesses for evolution at "The Fossils that Didn’t Evolve".

Birds Refusing to Evolve

Genetic studies comparing flightless emus to chickens; how songbirds learn their songs is speculation, and nowhere near evidence for evolution; question-begging by assuming evolution and how babysitting co-ops for birds evolved (note how, not if); assuming rapid appearance is evidence for evolution; and more. Read about bad reasoning about the critters at "The Birds that Didn’t Evolve".

Plants and an Evolutionary Just-So Story

Using massive evolutionary presuppositions and their Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Rings©, evolutionists have presented (with the help of their obedient, hysterical lapdog media) what the first flower looked like. My, ain't that purty! Looks a lot like a flower we can find today. All assumptions, but no model or evidence. You can read about this one (and another short piece) at "The Plants That Didn’t Evolve".

Additional Information about Plants Boycotting Darwinism

An alga that "shouldn't" be in North America is alive and well; fern extinction information does not provide origin information, and shows a fern is still a fern; attempting to determine "evolutionary relationship" from fossil leaves 200 million Darwin Years old, where DNA cannot survive that long; false advertising on how calcium-based signaling in plants evolved does not deliver; and more. You can read the conclusion of this series at "More Plants That Didn’t Evolve".

Darwin's drones are seeing what is not there. They also use unfounded, unsustainable presuppositions, make arbitrary assertions, and declare evolution without models or evidence. Many will ridicule presuppositional apologetics from Christians and ignore the fact that they are hardcore presuppositional apologists for materialism. The difference is that we show how their worldview is inconsistent and their logic is flawed. Some of us are not fooled by these indoctrination efforts. The truth is, there was no evolution. The real evidence supports recent creation. Yippie ky yay, evolutionists!

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

Thursday, September 7, 2017

Human Eye Optimized for Color

One of the stories that Darwin's Flying Monkeys© like to spread is that the human eye is wired incorrectly, or "backward". Their explanations can be summed up with, "Because evolution". Or mayhaps, "Because Clinton Richard Dawkins said so, and doggone it, Dawkins is an evolutionary scientist and misotheist, so he must be right!" However, claims by uninformed people about the backward wiring of the eye must send ophthalmologists into cachinnation.

Human eye not evolved, optimal design to see colors
Credit: Freeimages / melissa ricquier
It has been explained that the human eye was designed by our Creator, and the layout is optimal for embryonic development and beyond. For more about this, see "Eye Design and Evolution" and "Like We Said, Human Eye Design Is Optimal". Now we can add new research that the retina has the optimal design for sharpness of images, and for determining colors.
Evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins have long claimed that our eyes are wired ‘backwardly’, allegedly something which no intelligent designer would do. That is, the light receptor cells are behind the nerves, which supposedly obstruct the light path.
In reality, in the last few years, researchers have shown that light doesn’t go through the nerves, but is instead funnelled through Müller glial cells.
To read the rest of this short but informative article, click on "Fine tuning of ‘backward’ eye is vital for colour vision". Also, ignorant evolutionists who want to denigrate God are not good sources of information. Just thought I'd point that out.

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

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

New Discovery Confounds Galactic Evolution Ideas

Once again, it is a great time to be a biblical creationist. Workers at the Darwin Ranch get their government funding and commence to collecting observed evidence that refutes their views on evolution, deep time, and (in this case) cosmic evolution.

New Discovery Confounds Galactic Evolution Ideas
Credits: NASA, ESA, S. Toft (University of Copenhagen), M. Postman (STScI), and the CLASH team
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by any party listed above)
A "dead" galaxy was discovered that's supposed to be plenty old. Astronomers were fooled, expecting an elliptical galaxy but finding a spiral with very few blue stars instead. Among other unusual traits, it spins way too fast. Sometimes, I think our Creator is playing pranks on evolutionists, sometimes in biology (the duckbill platypus, for example), or out in the depths of space. Discoveries of this nature are not a problem for biblical creationists.
Key features in a newly discovered distant galaxy produce a puzzle for nature-only origins.

NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope imaged the oddity, named MACS2129-1. Sune Toft, Associate Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute of the University of Copenhagen, led a research team that accessed Hubble to investigate this out-of-place galaxy. Toft’s team published details in Nature.

Gravity from an in-between cluster of galaxies effectively magnified (by a factor of 4.6) the light from MACS2129-1. This natural magnification distorted, but enlarged, the galaxy’s image enough to reveal its mixture of unexpected features.
To read the rest, click on "New, Distant 'Dead' Galaxy Perplexes".

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

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Evolutionists and their Imaginary Friends from Space

Townsfolk don't cotton to the hands at the Darwin Ranch because, well, they're kind of unhinged. A saloon keeper remarked, "We all got us some crazy parts in us, but they got theirselfs more'n natural". Aside from believing in impossible things, the owhoots that live in the astrobiology bunkhouse are seeing more imaginary space aliens than usual of late.

Evolutionists seeking aliens are becoming more unhinged in their efforts to deny the Creator
Credit: Pixabay / Pawel86
You see, they want to find life in or from outer space because evolution. That is, materialists know that there is no chance of life forming on Earth, so it had to happen way out there and arrive here, maybe, somehow, scientists think, perhaps. In a series of tremendous leaps of logic, alien life would validate evolution and make our Creator irrelevant. Yeah, they're known for being illogical.

There have been several false alarms of alien signals coming from outer space, and I reckon that if people were less hysterical when doing their space alien detecting, the excitement wouldn't have happened so easily. Then we get someone saying that vinyl cyanide found on Jupiter's moon Titan could be used to make cell membranes, and the joyous science press sent out that idiotic, unscientific information. Gotta be having us some space aliens somehow! One scientist thinks that looking for extraterrestrials is good for science itself, and can unify disparate sciences.

You can read about the above, and a whole passel of good stuff, by clicking on "Etiology of Alien Derangement Syndrome". This space alien nuttiness has, I believe, a simple root: desperation to deny the Creator who made us. He makes the rules, and we must learn what he has to say. Each person's eternity depends on it.

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

Monday, September 4, 2017

You Call That a Bird's Nest?

When talking about birds' nests, what comes to mind? Probably the typical thing you can see by looking up in the trees, made of twigs and other things that were liberated for the cause. Then, the expectant mother lays eggs and keeps the eggs warm with body heat until they hatch. We've seen the scenario. This does not fit the malleefowl.

Malleefowl engineers incubates mound defy evolution affirm creation
Leipoa ocellata (malleefowl) image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Peterdownunder (CC BY-SA 3.0)
This chicken-sized bird is found in 'Straya and other neighboring areas. It doesn't quite build a nest. Instead, it builds a mound (that is like a housing project) for the purpose of incubating the eggs. After the construction is completed and it's determined to be in the proper temperature range, Mom lays an egg, and does it again every week or two for six months. Dad keeps the temperature at the right level by making adjustments in the mound. Egg design, knowledge of temperature, maintenance, unique features, and more all indicate the work of the Master Engineer and thwart evolution.
What if your life depended on your parents’ ability to discern a narrow range of temperature without using a thermometer? If you were an unhatched Malleefowl chick, belonging to the family of birds known as incubator birds, then your life would absolutely depend on the ability of your parents to incubate their eggs between 29 to 38 degrees Celsius (average 33 degrees Celsius).

Incubator birds don’t warm their eggs by sitting on them. Instead, they build a sort of “greenhouse.” Although the humble size of a chicken, the industrious Malleefowl take on the engineering task of constructing an impressive mound for the eggs, digging about 3 feet deep and 10 feet wide (approximately 90 by 300 cm) with their large feet. Then they fill the depression with all sorts of organic material—sticks, leaves, bark, grass, sand, and soil.
To read the rest, click on "The Incubator Bird: Nest Engineers"

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

Saturday, September 2, 2017

Fibers, Burrowing, and Other Biomimetics

Still kind of hard to cognate folks who believe that everything happened by time, chance, and random processes. There is no Master Engineer who designed everything and has explained himself in Scripture, no, can't have that, science is arbitrarily established as having naturalistic beliefs; no creationists need apply. For that matter, use of language in a paper even remotely implying the existence of our Creator gets said paper retracted

Science is impossible in an atheistic or evolutionary worldview. So, they study the design in nature for human applications. Does that make sense, to study something for the sake of imitating it if that something was the product of chance, and then praising Darwin, blessed be? Not hardly!

Bamboo and other things in creation are studied for biomimetics
Credit: Pixabay / StockSnap
Okay, I went away for a while, but I'm back now.

There's some exciting work being conducted in the field of biomimetics. A sea sponge makes a kind of fiber optic cable, and is being examined for flexible glass. Mussels and octopuses are being studied for underwater adhesives and other applications. Research is being done on bamboo for building materials. Machines that dig into soil may get help from lizards that dig their way into the sand. Inspiration for advances in night-vision comes from silk worms.

Read about these items and more by clicking on "Sea Sponge Makes Flexible Glass".

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

Friday, September 1, 2017

Simple Eyes and Blind-Chance Evolution

There was a time when individual cells were considered simple, and as scientists learned more, those cells were not so simple after all. They're amazingly complex. The same kind of thing happens when studying marine invertebrates with eyes that should be simple. Well, compared to those of more complex creatures, they're simpler, but those eyes are also very involved. 

"Simple" eyes like those in jellyfish testify of creation and refut evolution
Image credit: Marijke Wilhelmus / NOAA
Evolutionists think that they can find the origin of eyes by backtracking on light-sensitive cells, but that is a fool's errand. Some cells are sensitive to light, and those have microbial rhodopsin, a protein photoreceptor. The patch of photoreceptor cells is has intricate, specified complexity that defies evolution and testifies of creation.
The complexity of the vertebrate eye disturbed Darwin, but he supposed it might have originated millions of years ago through a series of small steps that started with a rudimentary light-sensitive spot. Today, evolutionary theory claims that all eyes found in the animal world somehow evolved independently and can supposedly “be traced from a simple ancestral patch of photoreceptor cells.” Those same authors stated, “There appears to have been a single evolutionary origin of light-sensitive cells.”
To read the rest, click on "Do 'Simple' Eyes Reflect Evolution?"

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