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

Monday, June 24, 2019

River Piracy on the Tibetan Plateau

If you mention Tibet, there are several things that can come to mind. These include Mt. Everest, the Chinese communist invasion of Tibet in 1949-51, the "top of the world", Mahayana Buddhism, and other things. Oh, yes. We must remember the geology of the Tibetan Plateau — and river piracy.


Secular geologists saw river piracy happen once, but observations of the Tibetan Plateau refute the latest model and support creation science Flood geology.
Credit: Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA / GSFC
No, this river piracy is not about owlhoots on the waterways getting the drop on folks out for some recreation. We are going to discuss planation surfaces a bit more. You might recollect that these are flat surfaces (most dramatically at higher elevations) that uniformitarian geologists cannot adequately explain. River piracy is not performed by humans, but by rivers themselves (also called river capture). Like planation itself, river capture is almost never observed today. Piracy is a word that describes what secularists do with real science, but we'll set that aside for today.

A new model of river capture was proposed, but it has numerous flaws. One simple thing that occurs to me is how evolutionists and secular geologists attempt to find one or two instances of something happening, then extrapolate it as evidence that this thing happened throughout history — but without evidence. This river capture model is too simple, and what is observed on the Tibetan Plateau clearly illustrates numerous problems with it. However, creation science Genesis Flood models effectively explain what is observed.
The idea of river piracy is that the tributary of a river erodes through a headwater barrier and captures the water from another river or stream. As a result, the water increases in the pirating stream and decreases at the downstream end of the captured river. By this process, river piracy or capture is considered one of the main uniformitarian explanations for how a water gap (a deep pass through a mountain, mountain range, plateau, or any other transverse barrier) can be formed.

However, despite the presence of thousands of water gaps across the earth’s surface there is no concrete evidence that this is an adequate explanation. More surprising, though, is the recent argument that water gaps, apparently derived from river piracy, are also responsible for explaining regional scale planation surfaces. The concept that low-relief landscapes can be formed by river piracy and river network disruptions such as water gaps, put forward in a recent paper, is strongly challenged here.
To read the rest, weigh anchor and sail the net for "Planation surfaces formed by river piracy?"




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

Saturday, June 22, 2019

The Real Pseudoscience

Atheists and other anti-creationists are known for using labels in their attacks on biblical creationists, but those are ad hominems and used for building straw man arguments. They call us "science deniers", which is based on equating evolution with all science. (One rancorous tinhorn says certain creationists "hate science" despite being shown that his claim is completely false.) Many also like to say that biblical creationists use pseudoscience. Actually, the opposite is true!


Anti-creationists have claimed that we use pseudoscience. Upon examination, we see that evolution is the real pseudoscience here.
Original image: The Angry One by Ferdinand Hodler
To fully appreciate this question, we need to lasso ourselves some important definitions. Science is a system of knowledge using a scientific method. However, there is other knowledge to be had that is not scientific. Pseudoscience is a false claim that knowledge is gained by scientific principles. Astrology uses scientific approaches and appears scientific, but that is not the case.

Also, these owlhoots rely on appeals to emotion, not logic. You are unlikely to find a cogent argument based on an accurate representation of what biblical creationists actually believe and teach, nor about what the Bible really says. While it is acceptable to refer to public schools using the suppression of facts refuting evolution and presenting false claims as "education", when Christian parents want their children to know the missing facts, we are "indoctrinating." See how that works? It is an appeal to emotion based on misrepresentation. To be blunt, they are lying to provoke negative emotions for their side.

Both evolutionists and creationists use knowledge, and interpret it based on their presuppositions. However, there are fundamental differences between the claims that both camps make. Creationist maintain that Genesis is historical, and factual. Evolution cannot be supported by science, but the biblical basis makes science itself possible. Darwin's disciples use circular reasoning, assuming evolution to prove evolution, and call it scientific.
Evolutionists sometimes call biblical creation a pseudoscience.  Is such a claim defensible?  Could it be that evolution is in fact pseudoscience while creation makes science possible?
That's all the excerpt I'm going to provide. I'd be much obliged if you'd read the entire article, "Science vs. Pseudoscience". The fan-made music video below was done by ApologetiX. Note how well the video of Rush matches the music.




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

Friday, June 21, 2019

Our Cooling and Shrinking Moon

You would think that if the solar system was several zillion Darwin years old, things would have settled down. Instead, we have planets and moons showing signs of youth. On July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 landed on the moon and left behind some equipment (as did other missions). Seismomaeters on the moon detected quakes.

Apollo 11. Purveyors of cosmic evolution would have us believe that the earth and solar system are very old. Data from the moon is added to other information indicating a young solar system.
Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin with the seismic experiment
Credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Secular scientists were shaken by the data and unable to explain it. The moon should not have any tectonic activity, but yee yaw boy howdy, it's there! This also indicates that  the moon is cooling, which it "should be" long cold according to secular views. Yet more evidence that Earth and the rest of the solar system were created recently.
Scientists have concluded that our moon is probably still in the process of slightly shrinking as it cools.
Photographs from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) showed embankments called scarps on the moon’s surface. These scarps are caused by a slight contraction of the moon’s crust as it cools. The moon’s cooling creates thrust faults which push up small sections of the surface, forming scarps. 
Because these scarps sometimes distort small craters when they form, scientists inferred that the scarps formed in the relatively recent past. This is because larger meteorite impacts eventually deface or destroy smaller craters. Since these smaller craters had not yet been defaced by more recent large impacts, we know these small craters are quite young. And since the scarps distorted these young craters as the scarps formed, the scarps have to be even younger than the small craters.
To read the rest, blast off for "Moon Is Unexpectedly Still Cooling and Shrinking".



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

Thursday, June 20, 2019

Scratch Another Fake Evolution News Report

Darwin's disciples often try to tell us that a little bit of evolution builds up to minerals-to-mocker evolution, but such a claim ignores facts of biology. It also involves equivocation on the word evolution when variations, speciation, and natural selection are observed. Such is the case in research on pigeons.


Once again, Darwin's disciples attempt to claim evidence for evolution. What they found was natural selection, but no evolution.
Pigeon on a Peach Branch by Emperor Huizong, 1108
Specifically, the research is on the pigeons: lice. That's one reason you see birds preening. Evolutionists are claiming that their research shows microevolution and that this leads to full-blown evolution. (Biblical creationists should avoid the word microevolution because of confusion and deception.) What did they find? Natural selection, a concept that creationists affirm. No genetic information was added, and the lice remained lice. They were created to adapt, not change into something else, old son.



Mayhaps those sidewinders wanted to pull another peppered moth icon, which has been soundly refuted. At least there is no evidence of outright fraud in the pigeon lice research, but this child lacks belief that the scientists were not trying to deal from the bottom of the deck.
As part of the evolutionary dogma, evolutionists are constantly seeking to bridge the gap between simple adaptation and variation and change between types of organisms. This has never been observed, despite numerous evolutionary claims to the contrary.1 However, they persist in attempting to prove their ideology, leading to studies like one published recently by a group of professors from several universities across the United States. This article will demonstrate that the study of lice on pigeon does nothing to confirm molecules-to-man evolution as one of its authors publicly claimed. Instead, while illustrating natural selection, it provides evidence that lice remain lice.
I know you're itiching to read the entire article. Just click on "'Lousy' Pigeon Professors". 

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

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

The Magic of Evolution

Since evolutionism is pantheistic in nature, we should not be surprised then its adherents appeal to animism regarding the origin of life or the usual "forces" and "evolutionary pressures" in their imagined explanations. If you ponder it a spell, evolution seems like magic more than science.


Evolution seems less like science and appears more like magic, invoking forces and misusing natural selection.
Background image credit: Pixabay / Kai Kalhh
Papa Darwin bushwhacked creationist Edward Blyth and stole his concept of natural selection, then then turned it upside down. Instead of culling the unfit and preserving the best members of a species, Darwin imagined it as a creative force. It was largely abandoned, but neo-Darwinism conjures up new life forms through mutations and natural selection. Like magic.


via GIPHY

Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ will use evolution to "explain" anything, even when phenomena are contradictory. If something explains everything, it really explains nothing, old son. The late Philip Skell was an evolutionist, and he had problems with the way Darwin is invoked at every turn:
...Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.
I still think that the hands at the Darwin Ranch are ingesting too many peyote buttons, as they think they see evolution via natural selection at every turn. How about the "magic" of reality and admitting that there is no molecules-to-magician evolution and that life was designed by our Creator? Cowboy up!
If it exists, it evolved. How? By natural selection. How does that work? It makes things evolve. That’s all you need to know.
Darwin’s “Stuff Happens Law” (natural selection) persists in the media. Why? It has to; Darwinists and their willing accomplices in the media and academia have outlawed every other explanation, including logic.*
*If logic evolved, it isn’t logical.
To read the rest and learn what we're talking about, click on "Natural Selection: Darwin’s All-Purpose Magic Wand".




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

Tuesday, June 18, 2019

Canyons, Valleys, and the Genesis Flood

Uniformitarian geologists offer assumptions based on deep time presuppositions regarding many aspects of geomorphology (an expensive word meaning the study of features on the earth's surface). They cannot offer actual evidence. However, there is a rational explanation for what is observed.


Secular geologists have ideas about how canyons and valleys form, but they do not fit the evidence. Instead, observed evidence supports the Genesis Flood.
Credit: Unsplash / Jonathan Auh
During debates about the formation of canyons and valleys back in the 1800s, people wondered which came first, the valley or the water that was often found in it. Catastrophists believe that they are the result of a huge amount of water in a short time, while uniformitarians insisted that they were carved out over millions of years. Obviously, Flood geology was shouted down. After all, Darwin needs lots of time, so secularists want to make sure he has it. However, the evidence fits the global Genesis Flood models instead of secular ideas.
Continental valleys and canyons come in all sizes and shapes. Some are V-shaped valleys, and others U-shaped canyons. Some are shallow and others have tall vertical walls, like the Grand Canyon. We rarely observe valley and canyon formation taking place today and then only in association with a flooding event. Therefore, uniformitarian theories about valley and canyon formation are not built on observational science but instead upon their assumptions about the past.
To read the rest of the article, click on "How valleys and canyons formed during Noah’s Flood".




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

Monday, June 17, 2019

Engineered Adaptability and Design Features

Some critters can put up with a great deal of bad conditions and still survive. Darwin wanted us to believe that they had to evolve in response to their environments, but that is the opposite of the truth — and the opposite of what can be observed. We can make some comparisons with construction.


Using engineering principles as a model, we can see that our Creator has designed living things to adapt to conditions they face. This is the opposite of what Darwin believed.
Earthquake damage in Chile image credit: USGS / Walter Mooney
Usage does no imply endorsement of site contents
We see damage from natural disasters like earthquakes and storms (and even man-made disasters) where some buildings have fallen but others are still standing. I'll allow that there are many factors involved such as where the storm or quake struck, but we can see that the buildings were designed in anticipation of potential damage to remain standing. Evolution cannot happen if an organism cannot survive, obviously. Instead, the Master Engineer set up creatures to adapt.
Engineers are rarely able to redesign external exposures. Conditions like wind, waves, and geology aren’t economically feasible to control. It is the traits and features designed into entities that are controllable. These can be engineered to solve a range of uncontrollable and uncertain challenges. These features, not the conditions, determine both whether a design is successful and if that engineered solution becomes dominant in a trade.
The engineers assess if they have correctly gauged the external challenges the designs were purposefully intended to solve. When failures happen, they focus more on an entity’s traits than its exposures. They search for possible poorly or under-designed traits and correct them—not the challenges.
To read the entire article, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Engineered Features Determine Design Success or Failure". You may also want to see more about a creature that was discussed early in the previously linked article at "Tardigrades too tough for evolution".

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

Labels