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

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Evolutionists Upset by More Early Fossils

Rusty Swingset, the ramrod over at the Darwin Ranch, is considering hiring a staff counselor or facilitating an anger management course. That is because evolutionists keep getting upset over findings that do not support evolution or deep time. Problems for evolutionists are seen in out-of-order fossils. More recent fossil finds have them screaming like the simian ancestors they think are in our ancestry.


More fossils that upset evolutionists and foul up deep time and evolutionary beliefs
Modified from an image at openclipart with hologram malfunction effect
It's mighty easy to simply assign a value to fossil ages using the Fit the Narrative Method™. Problem is, when folks pick and choose what they like, and then something else is discovered that conflicts with the earlier assigned value, panic ensues. You often hear, "Earlier than we thought". That's because secular origins science is based on numerous fundamentally flawed presuppositions, including deep time and that evolution happened in the first place. Mayhaps they should stop asking how something evolved, but if evolution happened at all. Likewise, since there are so many discoveries that wreck the evolutionary timeline, secular scientists should honestly consider getting more accurate, honest, and realistic dating methods.

South Africa is turning into a place for digging up dinosaur fossils. A very large sauropod fossil fouls up their thinking about quadrupedalism. Yep, walking on all fours happened "earlier than thought". It changes what they "know" about how walking evolved in these critters. That takes a great deal of blind faith, as walking requires many things to be in place at the same time, or the organism takes a dirt nap. Sorry, old son, but you really don't know anything about the evolution of walking.

To keep the dead Bearded Buddha happy, Darwinists are throwing around the idea that quadrupedalism "emerged", then disappeared, and then reappeared later on. (Sort of like a hologram in s science fiction show that flickers, blinks out, and reappears, I suspicion.) Then these owlhoots are indirectly appealing to Gaia, who has intelligence and makes choices. That ditzy goddess was apparently experimenting with evolution in this case! Who needs evidence or plausible models when we have speculations from people who paid to get degrees? I'll allow that the name assigned to the dinosaur is impressive, translating to "giant thunderclap at dawn". But I'm a guy that liked the name "thunder lizard", too.

Heavy drinking commenced at the Darwin Ranch when one of Darwin's worst nightmares crawled out from under the bed: flowering plants. These were found "earlier than thought" by 15 millions Darwin years. Trying to deal with flowering plants (specifically, angiosperm trees) in the first place was difficult, but now this! Then they tried to wrangle global climate change into the discussion. Oh, boy.

Biblical creationists do not need to constantly modify timelines, resort to fraud and obfuscation, or just ignore inconvenient truths. We have the account given to us by our Creator — the same account that secularists go haywire trying to circumvent.

To read the inspiration for this post and get some details on the items above (plus one more), click on "Fossils Show Up Earlier than Evolutionists Thought". Below is a piece of evolutionary propaganda, with many faith-based assertions. However, it tells about the discovery, measurements, and so on that seem interesting. Dramatic music, too.







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

Monday, November 5, 2018

How I Lost My Faith

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Over the years, I have listened to lectures, watched videos, read essays and articles, had discussions with people, and done all sorts of things that an honest seeker of truth should do. I also did a great deal of thinking. Not just when I did all those other things; I had been doing a passel of pondering all along.


How can someone keep the faith in the face of lies and not getting real answers?
Credit: Unsplash / Nik Shuliahin
When I asked questions, I was rebuffed. Ignored. Given unsatisfactory answers. Verbally horsewhipped by two-bit tinhorns. Was lied to. Many of the "answers" were beyond worthless because they were raised more questions. While I like intellectual challenges, I don't want them when I'm a mite overwrought while getting a question answered. Actually, I don't think those jaspers knew the answers their ownselves and were just bluffing.


via GIPHY

Realizing my faith was unfounded and worthless, I gave up. I'm tired of wasting my time, and wanted more intellectually and emotionally satisfying pursuits. At this point, I deleted accounts and memberships. Canceled subscriptions. Posted angry captioned pictures. Lost friends online and in real life. The whole thing was depressing, and I binge-watched The Prisoner on my Roku. After I came out of that funk, I felt liberated. No more empty faith for me! Fish-to-fool evolution is a lie, and I should have realized it a long time ago.

My regular readers, and people who clicked around on this site, know that I was telling a story to make a point. Younglings are leaving churches, especially liberal denominations. From surveys and interviews, they had questions about origins that were not answered. Biblical creationists try to encourage and equip people with resources and answers. No need for bluffing, if we do not have the answers, admit it. We can also say, "Let me look into that and get back to you". Yes, there are occasions when we have to say that some things are mysteries, but we must never use that as a stock answer and justification for laziness. This site has over 2,000 posts and articles, and most have supporting links so we can learn more.

As for anti-creationists, they can be intellectually honest and find out what we really believe and teach. Many (if not most) use prejudicial conjecture and other logical fallacies as rescuing devices. Those who do not know God suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18-23) and are blinded by their father down below (1 Cor. 2:14, Rom. 5:20, John 8:44).

The questions of origins and the age of the earth are only partially intellectual. They are also spiritual in nature, as evinced by the way anti-creationists strive to reject evidence that threatens their materialistic and postmodern worldviews. God created us and the world recently. He is our Redeemer, and we have to find out what he has to say.

The story I told above does not happen. Ever think about that? I have never seen people reject evolutionism because they could not get answers. Instead, they cling to their blind faith despite logic and evidence. Yes, some evolutionists have rejected it, but mainly because they came to faith in Jesus and saw the dearth of reality in evolutionism. We can pray that God draws atheists and evolutions to him and that he opens their eyes. We need to be ready to help them.





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

Saturday, November 3, 2018

Killifish Flusters Evolutionists

The killifish (three syllables, no need to think it kills things) is found in thousands of species and many families. Some colorful varieties are popular among aquarists. They get attention from Darwinists who get going on its adaptation supports evolution. Then creationists have to set them straight: adaptation is part of the Master Engineer's planning, and it did not turn into something else. Another aspect of certain killifish supports creation and is problematic for evolutionists.


Evolutionists try to claim that killifish are examples of evolution, but further studies show that they defy evolution and support special creation.
Turquoise killifish image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Ugau (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Some varieties, such as the turquoise killifish, are annuals. (Personal difficulty time: I thought "annual" meant "every year", like Question Evolution Day is an annual event. When it comes to flowers and fish, annual means that something lives for a season or a year, and will not be back next year.) They have to breed in a special way, because they die off mighty quick-like, and killifish are often in ponds and such that dry up. Certain traits are unique to the annuals and their eggs, which could not evolve a bit at a time or the critter would be come extinct. More than that, there are annual killifish on different continents with the same traits! Evolutionists are flustered, but biblical creationists have a reasonable explanation.
Researchers tend to use the turquoise killifish (Nothobranchius furzeri) for aging research. The reasoning behind this is the turquoise killifish has an incredibly short lifespan and maturity rate. A recent study found that Turquoise killifish reach sexual maturity in a mere two weeks. This is the fastest known maturation time of any vertebrate. The researchers pointed out how important this was since some of the seasonal pools they collected the turquoise killifish from dried up in as little as three weeks. Previous studies had shown these fish had a maximum lifespan of six months4 in captivity, so maturing quickly and producing offspring is critical to the survival of the species.
To read the entire article, click on "Rapidly Reproducing Killifish Defy Evolution".






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

Friday, November 2, 2018

Superflares and the Origin of Life

You know about the sun, right? Perhaps you've heard of it, it's the greater light that rules the day (Gen. 1:16). By astronomical standards, our sun is well-behaved and quite stable. Other stars tend to be cranky, shooting out solar flares, superflares, and the like on a basis that would be dangerous for life on Earth.


Secular cosmologists continue to try and rescue explanations to solve the faint young sun paradox for the origin of life.
M6.4 class solar flare erupting, image credit: NASA / SDO
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Secularists argue from materialistic presuppositions, including deep time. Using the discredited nebular hypothesis, they build a scenario for the origin of the solar system and the planets. Since they presume that life evolved, they commence to building themselves a heap of problems, such as the alleged faint young sun paradox. As scientific knowledge increases, their guesswork becomes increasingly implausible. Interestingly, there are secular scientists who think that superflares may have made goo-to-gambler evolution possible. 

Biblical creationists point out inconsistencies and lack of completeness in research on the ideas of secularists. Creationary scientists use secular science against them. In addition to many problems that materialists concoct for themselves, there are other problems that they have not sufficiently considered. Superflares? Okay. Let's take a look-see at what happens with other stars, and the negative implications for the possibilities of life originating on other planets.

Click for larger ("Tweets" are public domain)
Before I got further, I want to inform you that the article excerpted and linked below is mighty technical. If you don't have a mind to go that route, I'll refer you to an earlier post, "Did Solar Flares from the Faint Young Sun Bring Life to Earth?" For those who want the hard science and physics, y'all can press on.
This paper considers the naturalistic view of the early sun at the time when abiogenesis was supposed to be occurring, and early life was, allegedly, evolving on Earth. Theoreticians have, historically, been concerned about answering the faint young sun paradox, but there is growing realisation that the hypothetical early Earth would have faced a very hostile environment from solar superflares, extreme coronal mass ejections, and very harmful radiation storms. While some have tried to turn this to their advantage, the evidence presented is not compelling. This also has a bearing upon the search for extra-terrestrial life. It turns out that the vast majority of star systems are not conducive to hosting Earth-like planets, but most stars are far more variable in their flare output. The sun–Earth system appears to be unique and optimally designed for organic life.
To read the rest, click on "Superflares and the origin of life on Earth".





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

Thursday, November 1, 2018

The Lena Horse and the Age of the Earth

Although is is interesting to read about the people and politics of Russia, something that gets neglected in the news is the natural habitats. Russia is a big place in all four directions, with eleven time zones and many kinds of habitats spread around. This sort of thing happens when you have the largest land mass country in the world, you know.


Secularists assign a ridiculous age to The Lena Horse of Siberia, and raise questions that they cannot answer.
East Siberia taiga image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Terpsichores (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Of interest to us today is the Batagaika crater in the taiga of east Siberia. It's a cold place, but we're finding out that this permafrost isn't. That is, it's not permanent. That "crater" was not caused by a meteorite. Instead, it is the result of melting, which was influenced by the forest around it being removed in the 1960s, and by flooding. For scientists, this was much better than digging. People explore stuff, you know. It's our nature.

Many ancient animals have been found there, and are remarkably well preserved. We hear that more and more nowadays. Using their uniformitarian deep time presuppositions, dates have been assigned to the findings that make things very impressive. Scientists have found critters that have been flash frozen, allegedly tens of thousands of years ago. One of these was The Lena Horse.

We're supposed to believe that, although frozen, there was no significant decay from anything for all that time. The Lena Horse is so well preserved, they're thinking of cloning it! Well, they have a far better at this than the foolish notions some have of cloning dinosaurs. The situation isn't going well for evolutionists, since conditions in various places that were widespread catastrophes are not happening now. They cannot adequately explain their findings. Creationists have plausible models that do present reasonable explanations of scientific data.
An exceptionally-preserved foal has been found in Siberian tundra. Can scientists bring it back to life as a clone?

A baby horse, the “best preserved ancient horse ever found” according to Live Science, has been recovered in Siberia. But is it as old as claimed?


The astonishingly intact body of a young foal that died between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago was recently unearthed from melting permafrost in Siberia. Its mummified remains were so well-preserved by icy conditions that the skin, the hooves, the tail, and even the tiny hairs in the animal’s nostrils and around its hooves are still visible.

Scientists believe it was about 2 months old when it died. The Lena Horse, as it is being called, measures about one meter in length. Phys.org adds that “The foal was discovered in the Batagaika crater, a huge 100-meter (328-foot) deep depression in the East Siberian taiga.” Fox News adds that this crater is known locally as the “doorway to the underworld.”
You can finish the article and learn about this and related news by clicking on "Horse Found Frozen in Tundra".



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

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Can Scientists Bring Back Dead Things?

In an earlier post, we examined the idea that if scientists were able to obtain adequate DNA, they could make living dinosaurs. While that idea is sensational, it is unrealistic on several levels. Some scientists think that they can toy with the idea of bringing back other things that have joined the choir invisible.


Scientists are tinkering with the idea of using DNA to bring back extinct things from the dead.
Background image credit: Pixabay / Ioulou Nash
After all, we are humans, the pinniacle of evolution; with science, we can fiddle about and do anything we want to! Materialists have a passel of hubris, don't they? Aside from the thrill of the challenge and possibilities of scientific progress, there are still some ethical questions to be answered. One that this child will throw out there is: Where will it end? After all, we've seen that many secularists are ethically challenged and use science as their justification to work materialist magick.


via GIPHY

Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself because such questions could be addressed more fully down the trail. Even so, I reckon they should be kept on the back burner and stirred now and then in the meantime. The most important thing is that life comes from life, and ultimately, from our Creator. There was only one true Resurrection, and how we respond to that is the most important consideration for each of us.
The idea that science can solve any problem flows from humanism. This teaches that humans are the pinnacle of evolution and can create better futures and develop technologies to rescue us from all harm. Humanists seem to want the benefit of everlasting life without having to turn to God.

But science can’t solve every problem. Technologies can help improve health, but they fizzle when it’s time for an animal or a person to die. Scientists may measure brain waves, and doctors can perform incredible medical procedures, but they are powerless to reverse death. Science can’t bring animals or people back from the dead.
To read the rest, click on "Can Scientists Resurrect Extinct Species?"







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

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Fossils Frequently Fluster Evolutionists

Years ago, I posted about fossils that are in the "wrong" place according to Darwinian beliefs. Angry atheists reacted with remarks that had the intellectual equivalent of, "Haw, haw! St00pid creatard thinks there are fossils out of place!" One offered to school me on the topic on his (now defunct) weblog. This was one of the earliest indications I saw that Darwin's Flying Monkeys© need schooling themselves, or that denial can be an ugly thing. Perhaps they should not listen to the claims of tinhorns like C. Richard Dawkins.

Evolutionists try to deny or do damage control when fossils are found out of order.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Cheung Chungtat (CC BY 2.5)
This is not an isolated case. Fossils are frequently found in the wrong order, and evolutionists have to ride herd on the evidence to keep it from wandering away and interfering with their stories. For example, Confuciusornis was a very modern-looking bird. The narrative of dinosaurs evolving into birds needed damage control when it was discovered that dinosaurs ate birds like Confuciusornis. Even in the reality that secularists espouse, you cannot be a contemporary of your alleged ancient ancestor.


via GIPHY

There are many examples of fossils that are recalcitrant to the evolutionary timeline. Biblical creationists believe that there is some sort of order to the so-called fossil record, but are not surprised or flustered when fossils are in different places. After all, the Genesis Flood was violent, and things were buried rapidly but not necessarily deposited in a strict sequence.
Evolutionists love to tout the fossil record as evidence for their theory. No less an authority for evolution than Richard Dawkins has said, “All the fossils that we have ever found have always been found in the appropriate place in the time sequence. There are no fossils in the wrong place.” Dawkins’s statement is emphatic and confident. It makes for a good quotation. However, Dawkins is wrong. Fossils are often found where they are not expected, and these finds cause evolutionists to frequently revise their timelines.
To read the rest, click on "Disharmonious Fossils".




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

Labels