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, August 5, 2019

More Censorship in the Secular Science Industry

A spell back, I wrote about how politics can imprison science because in many cases, secularists hijack science for their own ends, such as gender confusion. Now we see an example of the secular science industry refusing to correct a paper because it did not fit the agenda.

Secular science has a problem with reproducibility. When it fits their agenda, studies falsifying can be censored.
Mostly made at Add Letters, plus clip art and additional text
The science establishment adores Papa Darwin and strives to protect him from scrutiny, even if bad science needs to be lassoed and brought into the corral. There is a reproducibility crisis where paper are submitted relying on other papers, but the original findings are not replicated and can be spurious. Peer review? That has a passel of problems, even though many people adore it. Anti-creationist tinhorns often demand to be shown a peer-reviewed paper (as if they could understand it in the first place). When they are shown such papers from creationist organizations, they utilize the genetic fallacy and light a shuck out of there.



Naturalists are none too keen on Conservatives, Christians, and especially biblical creationists. Recently, a study of the Shroud of Turin was under-reported and new information questioning the techniques used in previous research was questioned. At least this has a semblance of being corrected.

However, a paper purported to show why people hold certain political beliefs (which disparaged Conservatives). This was challenged and the findings did not match the established narrative. It was ignored, and the journal even refused peer review. This was a case of blatant censorship and deficient morality in science.
A study originally published 2008 in Science, by John Hibbing et al., titled “Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits” has now been replicated with opposite results. What happened next reveals a lot about censorship in science.
An attempt to replicate a claim, particularly a controversial claim, should be the normal procedure in science. Repeatability, indeed, is supposed to be a hallmark of the scientific method. In this case, though, the original study, called the Oxley study, was convincingly falsified. . . .
The authors and others are concerned that the reason it was rejected was due to bias against conservatives and creationists. The original study showed conservatives [and creationists] in a very poor light, and liberals [and evolutionists] in a far better light. At the least, the new study should have been peer reviewed and, if valid concerns were determined to exist, the study could have been rejected for valid reasons. This did not happen.
To read the entire article, click on "Liberal Journal and Media Disparage Conservatives, but Censor Falsification".



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

Saturday, August 3, 2019

Video Recommendation: The Atheist Illusion

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

When I receive a list of links from The Domain for Truth, I noticed something called The Atheist Illusion. There are several videos and books that have similar names, but I thought I would click on the link anyway. It went to a video and I expected a lecture. Instead, the video was very informative and well produced. It used graphics, excerpts from other videos, and narration that was easy to understand. I am going to discuss points in it and import some of my own thoughts that were sparked by The Atheist Illusion.

The Atheist Illusion is an informative and compelling video that deals with several subjects. It is well worth your time.
From the opening of the video
It is a fact that atheists have a high degree of degree of depression and suicide, and the video begins by pointing this out and the hopelessness inherent in atheism. It is difficult to live life without purpose, but atheists pretend that the belief that "when you die, that's it, you're worm food" is somehow liberating. No, the atheistic worldview leads to despair.

Those of us who have been around the web and social media for a spell know that atheists lie. A lot. Some even pretend to be Christians so they can sidle up to Christians and begin attempting to tear down our faith. The biggest lies are those they tell themselves, including their belief in science and logic — but few online village atheists demonstrate any skill in understanding either. 

Their appeal to science is based on delusional self-serving presuppositions (such as redefining "reality" as "naturalism"). Actually, science, logic, and reality itself are impossible without the God that they pretend does not exist; naturalism is actually self-refuting. We see that atheists believe what they want to believe, and their religion is one of blind faith, not based on reason; opinions and conjecture are of primary importance. However, they claim that Christians are deniers of science and reality, which is the opposite of the truth.

Many atheists (especially those that have been caught lying) resort to rage, mockery, and extensive use of logical fallacies. When presented with contrary views, misotheists often rail against and attempt to shame those who have the unmitigated gall to believe something different — especially when we provide evidence and logic that refute their positions. Such angry displays (plus the ubiquitous ad homienm and straw man fallacies) do not prove their positions and only make them look more foolish.

The video discussed evolution at some length. This is important because it supposedly make atheism intellectually feasible. Evolution is actually a pseudoscience that cannot be falsified. (It is interesting to me that if there are "mountains of evidence" for evolution, why the need for fraud and tampering with data?) Clinton Richard Dawkins was mentioned several times, including his nonsensical "Mount Improbable" speculation. Essentially, evolutionists believe in luck rather than admit that the evidence supports the work of the Creator.

From this discussion, the video went into the consequences of an evolutionary worldview. Eugenics was examined and how Adolf Hitler took it to its horrendous logical conclusion. Communism and fascism are two sides of the same coin, and Hitler, Stalin, and other anti-Christian Darwinists were discussed, as well as the atheistic Reign of Terror in the French Revolution.

Let's face it: atheism has no answers and only offers death. It has no real science, truth, or even tolerance. Atheists want to be admired and are essentially their own gods. The only truth and hope come from repentance and trust in the God of the Bible.

The Atheist Illusion is about an hour and a half long, so I do not want to embed it here (large videos slow down page loads on sites, as you have probably noticed elsewhere). Instead, here is the link. I hope that you will watch this compelling video and learn from it.

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

Friday, August 2, 2019

Planation Surfaces Beneath Antarctic Ice

We have seen that secular geologists are puzzled by planation surfaces and other landforms. Try as they might, they are unable to explain what is observed by their deep time presuppositions and assumptions. There is another chilling feature that causes consternation.


Planation surfaces are puzzling to secular geologists. Things become worse for them when they are below the Antarctic ice sheet, but these things fit creation science models.
Credit: NASA / National Science Foundation / James Yungel
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
If you recall, planation surfaces are basically the flattened tops of mountains that cover great distances. There are many of them around the world, so they are not simply occasional anomalies. They also exist under the Antarctic ice sheet. How did that happen? Secular scientists are infested with insufficient ideas, but what is observed fit creation science Flood and Ice Age models.
All continents display large, flat erosional surfaces called planation surfaces. Indeed, planation surfaces are especially widespread on the continents of Africa and Australia. The prevalence of the water-rounded rocks that commonly cap their surfaces suggest these surfaces were formed by a heavy sediment-filled flow of water. Antarctica is no exception to planation features. Nunataks are mountains that stick up above the ice and planation surfaces have been carved on some of these mountains.
To read the entire article, click on "Planation surfaces below the Antarctic Ice Sheet".

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

Thursday, August 1, 2019

Creation Science Collagen Research Affirms Genesis Flood Timeline

The hands at the Darwin Ranch, up yonder past Stinking Lake and through Deception Pass, get a mite complacent. When observed evidence is against them, they employ rescuing devices by the wagon train-load. However, the problem of dinosaur soft tissues is the goat at their tea party.


Creationists teamed up to conduct research on bones and collagen. The results support the biblical timeline and are sure to be problematic for secularists.
Background image: Pixabay / Yuri_B
Members of the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society teamed up to do some research on bones. Using new techniques, collagen was shown to decay faster than scientists previously thought. This fits quite well with the Genesis Flood timeline, but is going to cause further difficulty for old earth proponents.
Collagen is a tough, stringy protein that holds bone together like the steel belts in tires. Secular scientists struggle to explain why so many different techniques have found positive detections of collagen in fossil bones. At the heart of the scientists’ struggle lies collagen’s relatively short shelf life. Prior studies accurately measured collagen content, but more precisely knowing collagen’s decay rate would set a sharper outside age limit for fossils that still contain it.

New techniques for Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) could improve this level of precision. As part of my recent Ph.D. research, I applied FTIR to hundreds of artificially decayed bone samples.
To finish reading this short but technical article, click on "Collagen Decays Too Fastfor Evolutionary Time".






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

Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Obscuring Coelacanth Evolution

Many creationists point out that a species of armored fish called the coelacanth was presumed extinct for over 65 million Darwin years, then it was found in 1936 doing just fine. It was just the same as it was in the fossil record, and that's the beginning of evolutionist woes. A new bundle of evoporn is attempting to make excuses.


The armored fish called the coelacanth was an icon for evolution, but it was discarded by reality. Now evolutionists are trying to save face with more fact-ignoring speculations.
Credit: NOAA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Scientists cannot use the unscientific rescuing device of "stasis" for this or other living fossils because during those alleged millions of years, Darwinian mythology has a passel of things evolving. In addition, the claim that certain fins were evidence of it trying to evolve legs, but that was also disproved by Big C itself.

A paper on the coelacanth tried to save face for Darwin, and it did what his disciples so often invoke. They ignored some very important facts, then used weasel words loaded with the equivalent of "I guess maybe", then passed it off as science. Such evoporn may help them feel better, but it does nothing useful for either science or evolution. It is also yet another desperate attempt to obscure the simple truth of recent creation.
This fish hasn’t evolved for 66 million Darwin Years and is a classic “living fossil.” We get a Darwin fish story anyway.
By all accounts, the coelacanth (Latimeria) is a strange fish among an ocean of strange fish. . . .  The coelacanth (pronouned see-la-canth) is unique for its bony fins, and its cranial development and brain. Its neurocranium is divided into two lobes connected by an intracranial joint. If that detail is only worth a yawn, consider this: the fish is a classic living fossil.
You can sea the rest of the article by clicking on "The Coelacanth: A Case of Scientific Obscurantism".




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

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Pondering the Origin of the Brain-Eating Amoeba

For some reason, I found the subject matter of the so-called brain-eating amoeba (Naegleria fowleri) rather unsettling. The science behind it is interesting. Amoebas are single-celled organisms, and infections from these are usually fatal. Fortunately, they are rare. But where did they come from?


There is an amoeba that can kill you, but fortunately, these are rare. Both creationists and evolutionists are challenged with the origin of this nasty thing.
Processing a sample for detection of N. fowleri
Credit: USGS / Peter Wright, WY-MT Water Science Center
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Resisting the urge to make jokes about criminal cyberstalkers, the "brain-eating" part of the name is wrong. The nasty things enter through the nasal cavity and infect the host's brain resulting in  primary amebic meningoencephalitis. These amoebas are in contaminated warm fresh water or even hot springs. I found it interesting that drinking the water does not cause this particular disease. Take a look at this PDF from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Don't get on the prod about all amoebas, as many of them are beneficial and eat bacteria that we're disinclined to enjoy.

Evolutionists don't have a clue about their origin, so they fall back on their stock non-explanation of "it evolved" and call it science. Biblical creationists have to do both science and theology, because we believe that God created everything very good before the Fall of Man and things commenced to devolving. We reject the Aristotelian concept of the "fixity of species", which would indicate that God created harmful things that were not very good. 

Both creationists and evolutionists seem to agree that this foul N. folweri amoeba is the result of a minor mutation that had devastating effects on those it invades. Like other critters, venom, and other traits that we might find abhorrent, creatures were designed to adapt. This was likely to have been "front-loaded" at creation and adaptations engaged after the Fall.

The content of this article is technical and people with a good knowledge of biology would get the most from it. However, the rest of us can also learn a few things.
There is strong indication that the pathogenic N. fowleri differentiated from the nonpathogenic Naegleria lovaniensis on the American continent, then migrated to Europe and the rest of the world. It appears there has been an overall loss of genetic information. . . . The genetic differences between a nonpathogen and pathogen are small: adhesion to host tissue and coding for stealth/entry from nose to the brain via the olfactory nerve seems to be only differences between the two closely related species. Pathogenic N. fowleri appears to have emerged from a prolonged heat spell and an adaptive mutation in recent times.

Rapid multiplication, diversification, and adaptation to prolonged changes to environments appear to be themes in the Creator’s plan for life after man’s fall into sin. Changes in these amoeboflagellates have occurred, but they are still amoebas.
To read the entire article, click on "The Genesis of the “Brain-Eating” Amoeba".

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

Monday, July 29, 2019

Evolutionists Alarmed by Not-Random Mutations

Atheists and evolutionists claim to rely on fish-to-fool evolution being a process that relies on chance mutations — with some intangible pressures from the environment thrown in. Except when they invoke evolution as a deity that makes choices and something evolved because or for a purpose, which is teleology. Streng verboten!

Some evolutionists are not happy with the established view on mutations. Although they will not admit it, organisms are designed to adapt to their environments.
Credit: Unsplash / Jaron Nix
Some evolutionists believe that the current belief in the way mutations operate is actually harmful to Darwinism. Although they will not leave their religion of evolutionism in a steamy plop on the trail where it belongs, they are seeing that adaptations are not exactly purposeless after all, and that organisms adapt. Of course, they do not want to commit the ultimate heresy and admit that organisms were designed by the Master Engineer to adapt, no siree.
Increasing numbers of evolutionists question the validity of their own theory of evolution everyone is taught in school. A recent challenge came from a paper with the intriguing title, “What is mutation? A chapter in the series: How microbes ‘jeopardize’ the modern synthesis.”

Some may ask: What is the “modern synthesis?” The modern synthesis is the technical name for the classic view of evolution that has held sway for over 80 years. It couples two unproven conjectures into a two-step process that are said to explain how adaptation and evolution happen. The first assumption is that the genetic variability, needed to fuel evolution, is produced through random genetic mutations within a given population. The second step envisions that this genetic variability is then fractioned out in the population through deadly struggles to survive. . . .

Why is the modern synthesis seen as important? The consensus among evolutionists is that the modern synthesis is a thoroughly natural, essentially anti-design way to explain why creatures only look like — but are not actually — designed to fit their environments.
To read the entire article, click on "Purposeful Genetic Changes Challenge Evolutionary Theory".

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

Labels