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, March 17, 2020

The Formation of Coal Seams

You could be looking at a rocky outcropping and notice one or more black stripes, which may be coal seams. There are different kinds of coal that are generally found in different depths according to uniformitarian geology. Coal is the end result of plant matter that was subjected to heat, pressure, and other things.

Secular geologists have a nice story about the formation of coal seams. It does not fit the facts, but creation science geology has a far better explanation.
Credit: US Geological Survey (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Secular scientists use the complex principle of Making Things Up™. When I went to school, we were told that plant material would be washed in, land would be uplifted, various processes happened including plants turning to peat, and then the cycle would happen again.

"It would re-peat!"

Well, sorta. But even as a young 'un, that story seemed like a guess instead of science. If you think about it, we don't see coal forming today. There are plenty of peat bogs around, just take a stroll on the Emerald Isle (with extreme caution) and you're likely to encounter some. But no coal forming.

While we know that plant material is in coal, the uniformitarian (slow and gradual) story doesn't rightly hold up. In addition to not seeing coal forming nowadays, there are fossils in coal seams that don't really belong such as sharks, fish, seashells, and so on. Biblical creation science using Genesis Flood models provide a satisfactory explanation.
Recently someone asked a question that went something like this “If the earth is only thousands of years old, how did dinosaur bones turn into coal and oil?” After reading this question, I realized that a lot of people really don’t know what coal and oil are made of and how they are formed. 
To finish reading, click on "Coal Creation". I also recommend a more recent article, "How Did Coal Seams Form?"

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

Monday, March 16, 2020

Attempting to Resist Rabbits

Many people like to have cute fluffy bunny rabbits as pets. Long before that, it appears that they were raised for food. It is possible that there was a bit of overlap when someone took kindly to a rabbit and made it into a pet. Cowboy wisdom says never to name an animal you're going to eat. In some places, rabbits and hares are pests.

Rabbits can be pets and also have been used as food. In some places, they are vermin because they multiply so efficiently.
Credit: Good Free Photos
Rabbits are especially troublesome in Australia. They were introduced there, and as Bugs Bunny observed, rabbits know how to multiply. This helps support the post-Flood distribution as postulated by biblical creationists. Since they were so much trouble, the myoxma virus was used to thin the herds. Evolutionists claimed that resistance was evidence for evolution, but that is not the case.
While some cuddle bunnies, others curse them.
For example, in the Australian state of Queensland, such is the fear of rabbit overpopulation and resultant ravaging of pastures—and the potential hazard of warrens (underground burrows) — that all rabbits are declared vermin.
Police there seized a pet Flemish rabbit for destruction; its lady owner faced a $44,000 fine and possible six-month jail term! But in the neighbouring state of New South Wales, where there is no such prohibition on pet rabbits, a Rabbit Sanctuary heard of the case, and she was permitted to take the rabbit across the border to safety.
This article is similar to a nature documentary that has many pieces of interesting information. You can read the rest by hopping on over to "Bunnies cute and cursed".

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

Saturday, March 14, 2020

Engineering Principles by Ancient Humans

Evolutionists have determined that ancient humans not only used stone tools, but engineered them. This is surprising to them, but fits the expectations of biblical creationists.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

A reader of The Question Evolution Project on Fazebook sent me a link to an article about the use of stone tools by "our ancestors". It was an interesting report about how ancient humans apparently used different stone tools for different jobs. I know the feeling because the other day, I had to drill some holes in our metal-plated door. It seems that the set of bits I had were intended for wood, so I had no results (except the one that broke and I never found the other end). When I put a tungsten drill bit in, things were much better. Those folks engineered and made different tools for various jobs. Some were heavy duty, some were for lighter work.

The report was infested with obsequious fawning to Darwin, presupposing evolution, and unsubstantiated millions of years, including the ridiculously loaded word hominins. The action took place at a hotbed of evolutionary storytelling inspirations, the Olduvai Gorge. That's where they got H. habilis and other "ape-like ancestors", conveniently neglecting lack of evidence and the fact that humans have a great amount of variation even today.

What is even more interesting to this child is that this research fits in quite nicely with the biblical timeline. Creationists believe that humans were intelligent from creation, not just stupid brutes that had not yet learned to think way back when. Darwin's acolytes were presenting Neanderthals are partially evolved things but they had to admit that Neanderthals were fully human and very intelligent — we even have their DNA! So this report should be of no surprise to biblical creationists, but evolutionists are puzzled.

If'n y'all want to have a look-see at the Darwin-fawning article, keep an eye out for the dodgy words and phrases. To see it, click on "Early humans revealed to have engineered optimized stone tools at Olduvai Gorge".

We use computers so much that it’s easy to forget that they’ve only been around for about 70 years. But the most brilliantly engineered machines cannot even come close to the complexity and construction of the human brain.

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

Friday, March 13, 2020

Industrial Melanism and Peppered Moths

When Rusty Swingset, the foreman at the Darwin Ranch, commences to speechifying to school kids, he invariably brings out the old chestnut that peppered moths are proof of evolution. Of course, he leaves out many important details such as lack of field research, staged photos, and the fact that moths are still moths (still not evolving). Newer research on industrial melanism gives further problems to evolution.

Although refuted, evolutionists pretend the peppered moth story supports evolution. New research makes it even less credible and supports creation science.
Light and dark varieties of peppered moths
Credit: both from Wikimedia Commons / Olaf Leillinger (link to top is herelink to bottom is here)
Genetic research indicated that a transposable element in DNA was the cause of the coloring, which changes gene expression. This made evolutionary researchers wonder if it was more than just chance that made the moths dark. The team did further research and saw that other lepidoptera also darkened due to pollution, but more research needs to be done regarding the transposable element factor.

Instead of thinking that maybe the Creator designed the moths to work that way (and remember that both mutations and the false god of Darwinian natural selection require a great amount of time to operate in this mythology), they are at least considering the possibility that there is more than just an accidental mutation happening. No kidding, Sherlock. In fact, this research may be supporting the Continuous Environmental Tracking model under development by the Institute for Creation Research.
Back in 2016, a genetic research team led by Ilik J. Saccheri of the University of Liverpool, England, discovered that the black coloration was due to the insertion of a “transposable element” of DNA. . . . In fact, of the 105 black moths the team examined 103 (98%) had this identical insertion of the transposable element, but the insertion was absent in all 283 white moths studied. 
. . .  
A recent paper by Saccheri’s team now extends their research. Peppered moths were not the only moth species that responded to pollution by an increase in the frequency of the black variety.
You can read the entire article by flying over to "Peppered Moth Color Changes Are Engineered", and I hope y'all will come back for the second part, below.

Glad you came back. Some interesting research indicates that black coloring is not a method of hiding. The damselfish will attack highly venomous sea snakes, but only the darker versions. It seems that they are a mite confused by the Turtle-Headed Sea Snake ("I didn't do anything!") that is harmless to adult damselfish and the other dark-hued sea snakes that do cause problems.

Credit: Cropped from an image at Wikimedia Commons from Tim Cameron (CC by-SA 4.0)
At first glance, it seems to make sense that nasty Victorian air of London, England, the black peppered moth variety would switch on its super power to go dark. But what about those sea snakes in clear water? Apparently, they are receiving trace amounts of heavy metals from mining operations. To help relieve toxicity, it gets into their skins, which are shed later!

Instead of giving credit to the Master Engineer, the lead researcher evosplained the observations in vague terms and made use of "selective advantage", a subjective and vacuous term. While the research is interesting, it is also incomplete. Questions are raised that need to be lassoed and corralled. Also, this may be another indication of ICR's Engineered Adaptability part of their CET model.
In her paper, Goiran cites studies that other species of land-dwelling snakes and reptiles also sequester trace elements by melanin in their skin that are excreted with sloughing (shedding) their skin. She also cites a study on pigeons in Paris, France where there was an increased population of dark-feathered pigeons living in soot-soiled areas of air pollution. Chemical analysis found that melanin pigments in the darker feathers also had high levels of bound trace elements. These toxins were excreted with feather loss. Goiran concludes,
You can find out what Claire Goiran concluded and to read the entire article, click on "Shedding Toxins: A Surprising Role for 'Industrial Melanism'".

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

Thursday, March 12, 2020

Insects for the Clean-Up Committee

We have two articles for your perusal. The first one is in the here and now, the second involves fossils. Some critters bring out the urge to draw our shooting irons or maybe find flamethrowers because they are creepy. A good part of that is our cultural conditioning, plus the fact that some things transmit diseases. We are none too fond of finding them in our breakfast cereal, either. However, our Creator had a reason for putting cockroaches on the earth.

Though many people detest them, cockroaches are surprisingly helpful for waste removal and other aspects in ecosystems. They also thwart evolution.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Stuart Cunningham (CC by-SA 3.0)
Don't be getting your "Ewww Factor" in high gear. Although there are only about thirty species that bother humans, the other several thousand species go on about their business. Out in the wild, they are found in a variety of colors. It seems that their main purpose is to dispose of various kinds of waste.

For that matter, cockroaches are being farmed in China to take care of kitchen waste, and they are mighty tasty to hogs. Are we missing out? (I'm not ready to try a bacon and cockroach with cheese on rye sandwich, though.) By the way, no, the urban legend is wrong: they would not outlive humans after a nuclear apocalypse. Those of us who trust God know that the world won't end that way. There will be a big bang and global warming, but on his terms (2 Peter 3:12-13). Are you ready? Well, you'd better make sure of where you're going!

I thought the article featured below would be a mite dull, but it turned out to be quite interesting. These critters actually do us, and ecosystems, a great service.
Our first instinct is to recoil at cockroaches because of their “creepy” appearance; their tendency to spread disease and aggravate asthma; and, of course, their propensity to set up shop where we don’t want them. But when we resist our revulsion and learn about these much-maligned insects, we find not malevolent fiends skulking in dark corners, but creatures equipped by God to perform a critical function in our fallen world.
The full article (and the audio version) can be found at "Cockroaches—The Right Creatures for the Job". A similar post can be found at "Insect Sanitation Engineers". Next, fossil problems for evolutionists.

Evolutionary paleontologists get all agitated when they find fossils that they think support evolution, then they spin the stories to try to fool the rest of us. What was found? A fossil cockroach in amber. How is it different? Well, it's still a cockroach with no appreciable changes.
Cockroaches preserved in amber show no evolution, but the Darwinists celebrate anyway.
Rafi Letzter from Live Science always finds ways to put an evolutionary spin on things, even when no evolution is evident. “‘Exquisite’ dinosaur-age cockroaches discovered preserved in amber,” he writes. But the roaches entombed in a roach motel made of amber look just like modern roaches, except that they apparently were dark-adapted for living perpetually in caves (as are some today).
You can finish reading this one by clicking on "Fossil Roaches Did Not Evolve", and see other fossils that also are recalcitrant to Darwinism.

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

Wednesday, March 11, 2020

Quasars Trouble Big Bang Concepts

Great news for creationists, bad for believers in current cosmic evolution ideas. A paper was published that examined galaxies and their associations with quasars. This gets into some deep astronomy and mathematics, such as redshift and whether or not the association is random.

Quasars are mysterious objects that took astronomers a long time to figure out. Now ideas are changing, and the Big Bang has another big problem.
Galaxy Cluster, Quasar 3C 186 image credits:
NASA/CXC/SAO/A.Siemiginowska et al. Optical: AURA/Gemini Obs.
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
"This is all very interesting, but what is a quasar, Cowboy Bob?"

Glad you asked. Like a social media relationship status, it's complicated. When first detected, astronomers were puzzled and decided to call them quasi-stellar objects, shortened to quasars. Has a catchy sound do it. They are very bright and contain a great deal of energy, and seem to be the products of black holes at the cores of galaxies. Or are they something else? It took a mighty long time to get a handle on quasars, and that has changed.

The paper is strong evidence against the Big Bang and cosmic evolution, and supports recent creation. It should be another nail in the coffin of this failed "theory", but we know how they work: rescuing devices are conjured up quick-like. We'll see what they dream up.
In a paper just published that looked for an association between putative parent galaxies and pairs of quasars, the authors found many such quasar families, suggesting that the association is real, and not just coincidental. They used the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) data release 7 and the 2MASS (Two Micron All Sky Survey) Redshift Survey (2MRS) Ks ≤ 11.75 mag data release to test for the physical association of candidate companion quasars with putative parent galaxies by virtue of Karlsson periodicity in quasar redshifts.
To read the rest, click on "Confirmed: physical association between parent galaxies and quasar families".

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

Tuesday, March 10, 2020

Nonsense in Origin-of-Live Concepts

We have seen that evolutionists are committed to naturalism (denial of the Creator), and some are taking their pantheistic religious beliefs to absurdity. Add to this the insistence that life can come from non-life by way of spontaneous generation (abiogenesis, or chemical evolution) from primordial slime, and we see what denial of God does to the mind.

Abiogenesis research is increasingly absurd. Logic and basic science are rejected in favor of naturalism and denial of the Creator.
Background image furnished by Why?Outreach
In their desperate attempts to maintain the narrative, facts are ignored or neglected. Indeed, even basic logic has been cast aside. The scientific law of biogenesis (life can only come from life) is consistently ignored in origin-of-life research. When reading their material, watch for weasel words such as maybe, perhaps, maybe, scientists think, and more in their bad science. In reality, there was no chemical evolution nor universal common ancestry; we were created, and that was done only a few thousand years ago.
Origin-of-life scientists know chemistry, but not logic.
Having presupposed materialism, origin-of-life scientists are stuck with it. They cannot consider ideas outside the materialist box. They can talk endlessly about chemistry, which is fine; but logic is not their specialty, because materialistic origin-of-life (henceforth OOL) leads to bad math, bad logic and bad conclusions. Some of the conclusions are truly absurd.
The basic logical defect in OOL studies is this: nature has no obligation to conform to human imagination. Just because a chemist can imagine a way that some building block “might” contribute to a materialistic origin of life, that doesn’t obligate nature to perform it. The logical fallacy is much worse than imagining one step. Robert Shapiro once likened OOL to playing 18 holes of golf (15 April 2007).  If the OOL scientist can imagine how a ball might roll down a mountain and possibly land in the cup, there are still 17 more holes to win the game. The scientist might next imagine an asteroid impact launching the ball up a mountainside where the next cup is. The sequence of necessary steps to complete the course quickly becomes absurdly improbable. Shapiro said,
You can finish reading and be amazed by clicking on "Tomfoolery in OOL".
Used under Fair Use provisions for informational purposes.
Facebook hypocrisy showing approval of anti-Christian hate speech.

In the 19th century, the theory of abiogenesis was widely accepted, much like evolution is today. Charles Darwin strongly promoted the idea that life was generated spontaneously from non-life. However, Louis Pasteur, a French microbiologist and believer in biblical creation, made a startling discovery that turned this notion completely upside down.

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