Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman

Welcome to the home of "The Question Evolution Project". There is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution. Evidence refuting evolution is suppressed by the scientific establishment, which is against the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Using an unregistered assault keyboard, articles and links to creation science resources are presented so people can obtain evidence that is not materialistic propaganda. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Saturday, June 24, 2017

Evolution, Atheism, and Intolerance

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Note: There is an addendum at the very bottom, beneath the music video.

When riding the dusty trail of the internet, it's not uncommon to encounter several illegitimate beliefs and manipulations from intolerant atheists and evolutionists. Evolution is a cornerstone of the atheist religion, and not only have attacks on contrary views intensified, evolutionary indoctrination in schools is also increasing. Ironically, proselytizers of evolutionism do not understand it themselves, but they're "certain" that biblical creationists are wrong, and want us silenced. Aside from opposition to the truth, these folks are opposed to critical (logical) thinking, which would put atheism and evolutionism under anatomization and possible rejection. Christians and creationists need to stand firm, become more educated in both Scripture and science, and continue to put burrs of truth under their collective saddle.


Atheists are the smart ones?

Atheists claim to be more intelligent than Christians, and especially those of us who reject fish-to-fool evolutionism. A common mantra of the atheist religion is, essentially, "We are smarter than theists". So, does joining the club instantly make someone intelligent? Not hardly! I've encountered many atheists on the web that are excerebrose, and try to prove that they're smarter than us st00pid dumb Xtians, but usually fail to demonstrate the ability to reason. A large number of the greatest minds in history have been theists, and many founders of modern science have been biblical creationists.

"Yeah, but studies show..."

Big deal. There are studies for many things, and quite a few of them are fundamentally flawed. What questions were asked? Of whom? When? Where? Under what conditions? Do they mention the study that shows how atheism uses less brain function? I reckon not. There are several points about studies that need to be considered.

A recent article in a science publication entitled, “Why Are Atheists Generally Smarter Than Religious People?” author Laura Geggel starts out with the complex question fallacy. That is, it should be two questions: "Are atheists generally smarter than religious people? If so, why?" Laura also makes a false, impossible assertion that scholars have wondered about this alleged greater intelligence (as if it were a fact) for "more than a millennium". Retract your claws, kitten, intelligence tests aren't that old. Also, tests only measure certain things — especially the ability to score well on a test. Even if the claim was correct, it would not mean that atheism is true!

One of the primary subjects of testing is university students. Secularists are notoriously anti-Christian and anti-creationist, and a disproportionately high number of educators in government-run school systems have such views. Naturally, they seek to increase indoctrination. For more about this, I recommend "Are Atheists Generally Smarter Than Religious People?" If you study on it a spell, if atheists actually were "smarter" than Christians, you'd think they'd be self-assured enough to eschew trolling the web and subjecting us to straw man arguments, personal attacks, outright lying, unsustainable arbitrary assertions, intimidation, manipulation, and so forth. They do not understand that ridicule and contradiction have no place in a rational discussion. I documented the intellectual prowess of one such Mighty Atheist™ in this video. Also:


Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes


Evolutionary Indoctrination

A big part of this educational indoctrination is the belief in atoms-to-atheopath evolution. As other creationists and I have pointed out for a mighty long time, evolution is presented at every turn, including music, advertising, movies, works of fiction, legitimate science research corrupted into the obligatory homage to Darwin, and much more. It was determined that children are born theist (despite the false assertions of atheists), so evolutionary indoctrination is ramped up. See "Accelerated Evolutionary Indoctrination of Children" for more.

Evolution is the atheist's creation myth. With it, they try to justify their rebellion against God and suppression of the truth (Rom. 1:18-23) so they can appear "intellectual" and "scientific". As we have frequently seen here and in sites that are linked, there is a paucity of actual science as well as logic in evolutionary dogmas. Hysterical assertions and omissions of pertinent contrary evidence, those are certainly presented. Whatever it takes to get someone to believe in evolution, right, pilgrim?


Viperine tactics

I've had people criticize things I've posted at The Question Evolution Project as well as on this site, and demand explanations from me regarding the work of others. This happens to other creationists as well. Somehow, we're each expected to have all knowledge of everything we share, and must be a physicist, astronomer, geologist, biologist, microbiologist, psychologist, geneticist, whateverologist on demand. If I refuse to speculate on matters in an article, the frequent conclusion is that since I can not or will not answer, it's "proof" that creation science is false and there is no God. No, scoffers cannot be bothered to contact the author or organization the gave us the article or video in question. Yes, that's how logic works for many anti-creationists and atheists.

Another disingenuous tactic is to complain about what is not in a post, article or video, while at the same time ignoring material that is provided. I've posted short videos that contain interesting information, and atheopaths call creationists "liars" because a certain topic was not addressed in a video or article. Just how long do these tinhorns want an article or video to be, anyway? Much of what I share is made or written for us reg'lar folk, and the scientific discourses are linked elsewhere. Mockers conveniently ignore the part about, "To find out more, go to our site", and even the additional resources that many provide — including scientific material. It's not difficult: watch the video, go to the site, do further reading. That is too much like thinking for many opponents of God and creation, rquiring intellectual honesty from a serious inquirer. Besides, their goal in such cases is to silence creationists through ridicule and misrepresentation, attempting to negate what we have to say without actually dealing with the content.

A further manipulative tactic is to smugly assert the definition of evolution, and give a simplistic, malleable definition that can "prove" almost anything. (This is similar to the bullying approach of saying that if you deny evolution, you must not understand it. Such a lie has been dealt with many times elsewhere, including here to some extent.) But many evolutionists do not really understand evolution themselves! Even so, I'll take the word of creationary scientists over that of some internet saddle tramp with a bad attitude.


False moral standards

Unfortunately, Darwinoids evangelize people into their worldview. They think they're doing good things (Jeremiah 17:9, Matt. 15:9, 1 Tim. 1:13-15, Psalm 14:1, Rom. 6:23), by attacking God, his people, the Bible, and creation science. But atheists do not have a consistent moral standard, and are unable to account for morality itself. In addition, they show that they are standing on the biblical creationist worldview when they say something is right or wrong. Some accuse us of being "liars" when we say something they dislike. Even if we did lie, they cannot say why it would be wrong. In their materialistic paradigm, there is no free will, and we're all just dancing to our electrochemical impulses. It is hypocritical of the atheist evangelist to condemn Christians, since we are "born that way" and have no choice, according to their paradigm.

By the way, this is one reason that professing atheists have antipathy toward presuppositional apologetics: we show the internal consistencies of an atheistic worldview. Further, we are unwilling to to elevate man-made philosophies (science or otherwise) above the Word of God; they have their presupposed starting point of naturalism, ours is the Bible. Atheism is irrational and incoherent, and only the biblical worldview contains the necessary preconditions of human experience.

I took a side trail there, now back to the main one. Atheists push evolution, because evolution is a gateway to their belief system, and evolution is a pseudo-intellectual appeal to pride to justify rebellion against our Creator. See "Evolution Is the Doorway to Atheism" and "Evolution makes atheists out of people!" for further information.

Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes

Opposition to critical thinking

Secularists and other evolutionists are opposed to critical thinking, especially in education. Biblical creationists strive to teach people how to think, to perceive errors in reasoning, to notice how evolutionary owlhoots put forth speculations and bad science as if they were established facts, and so on. Darwinists and atheists are more interested in telling you what to think. I suspicion they use Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Blair's pupil at Eton, Eric Arthur Blair, as an interfused instruction manual for life, education, and morality. 

For example, this animation of whale evolution is cute, and people will think that evolutionists are such brilliant people. Except that the video is misleading, since there is no justification for the purported changes — especially zillions of missing transitional forms. The animator admits that "we don't know exactly what those ancestors looked like". But it is presented as "science", and Darwinoids are willingly deceived, then the commence to spreading further disinformation.


Did you notice that people who complain about "intolerance" are often the most intolerant? This is actually fitting with evolutionary thinking! If you study on it a spell, you'll see that demonizing people so they are unwilling to allow other people to present their views helps atheistic and evolutionary views. That worldview continues its dominance — especially in academia, nay-sayers are streng verboten.

Also, consider that (generally speaking), materialists espouse leftist elitism, and Bible-believing Christians tend to be more on the right politically. Albert Mohler has an interesting podcast/transcript on The Briefing in "Is your pastor a Democrat or Republican? The fascinating link between denomination & party affiliation".

Atheists and leftists think they're taking the morally and intellectually honorable high road by attacking Christians, God, the Bible, and creationists. They suppress what we have to say, and they demand "equal time" with against, even on our own sites, forums, social media, and so on. The end justifies the means, mein Herr?) I believe this is out of fear of the truth, and because they are controlled by their father down below (John 8:44, 1 Cor. 2:14, Psalm 14:1, Rom. 1:18-23). Ironically, evolutionists and atheists are the ones guilty of the censorship that they decry (here is just one of many examples), and they complain about not being given a platform on creationary sites and Pages as well; they want theirs and they want ours, but a biblical creationists is hard pressed to get a fair hearing from atheists and evolutionists. This atheopath even brags while playing the victim card because his bigoted diatribe was deleted — by Facebook, of all things! If these atheists didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all. 

I'll allow that not all atheists are sidewinders like those discussed here (generally considered "New Atheists"; the only thing "new" about them is the intensity of their hatred and vituperation.) Not all atheists are bigots, but they don't seem to care about the vile behavior of their fellow travelers. For example, this anti-creationist forum apparently approves of atheistic bigotry and libelOther professing atheists don't seem to make their presence known on the web nearly as much, nor do they police their own and say, "Hey, that's not cool! Our reputation is bad enough without your bad behavior!" 

The foundations of creation in Scripture are vitally important, and the opposition is intensifying. Christians need to know what and why they believe. This ministry, and many of those where I direct readers, seek to equip Christians to stand for their faith, learn that both science and Scripture support biblical creation, and we hope that intellectually honest skeptics will question evolution and learn about the truth of creation. Nobody is saying that it's easy, but in the end, it's worth it.



ADDENDUM: This narcissistic atheopath lost access to his main Page, and resumed his conceit on another of the same name — still using graphics taken from The Question Evolution Project. He "debunks" by throwing out irrelevant links and making inane, sarcastic comment. Then he congratulates himself, receiving accolades from Haywire the Stalker and other weak-minded individuals. That is not something to brag about. Actually analyzing the material and dealing with it? Not hardly! This graphic was made for me by another Admin (click for full size):


Friday, June 23, 2017

More Confusion about H. Naledi

Science is tedious at time, since there is a great deal of testing, observation, research, re-testing, patience, and so on. Other times, science is exciting when a test is confirmed, a breakthrough is made, or a discovery is presented. But science is also exasperating, since those new discoveries yield new information, old results are refined and discarded, the science industry causes embarrassment by making grand announcements over incomplete data, and additional studies need to be made.


Homo naledi not good candidate for human evolution after all
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Paul H. G. M. Dirks et al / Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
News about bones in remote cave chambers began trickling in, and the hands at the Darwin Ranch were having a hootenanny for their ownselves. As the puzzle pieces were assembled, the party slowed a mite, as the bones were dated to be much more recent than evolutionists had hoped. Further, some of the bones may indicate not extreme age or another alleged evolutionary form, but pathological conditions, such as cretinism. There is no compelling reason to believe that these bones are evidence of human evolution.
On Tuesday 9 May 2017, the second live streaming instalment of the Homo naledi saga occurred, broadcast from Wits University, Johannesburg, South Africa. Lee Berger, Paul Dirks and John Hawks took turns in presenting the latest findings regarding the so-called hominin (or hominid) fossils from the Rising Star cave system.
They were also first authors on three new papers on the topic, published on the same day. Paleoanthropologist Lee Berger, of Wits University, is the leader of the Rising Star research team. A similar live streaming event occurred on 10 September 2015, introducing the alleged ‘ape-man’ species Homo naledi to the world, accompanied by the initial Homo naledi publications.
The following article is long, technical, and has 128 references, so it's intended for people with significant knowledge in the area, and are smarter than me. To proceed, click on "Den of ape-men or chambers of the sickly?" You may also want to check out the "Related Articles" and "Further Reading" items at the end.
  

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Cry "Reason" and Let Slip the Dogs of Creation

"But Cowboy Bob, shouldn't that title read —"

Yes, I know, the real phrase is, "Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war", from Shakespeare. I figured it was the leashed I could do.

Creationists have used dog breeds for many illustrations, including the variety of diversification that our Creator built into the genetic structure of the dog kind, and also how breeding (artificial selection) reduces the fitness for survival of the animals. 


New genetic study of dog kind diversity
Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / Bill Perry
In days long passed, dogs were bred for their abilities. Now they are also bred for their appearance. A new study surprised scientists because they expected certain breeds to be related due to similar traits, and vice versa. But with all of the genetic studying, there is no evidence supporting Darwin's dreadful idea; dogs are still dogs and are not turning into something completely other — even with human interference.
People have loved (or hated) dogs for thousands of years. Dogs were frowned upon as dirty scavengers in Biblical times, but for many centuries more recently, they have been man’s best friend. Because of their usefulness for hunting and herding, people groups around the world have bred individuals to accentuate traits they desired. A new survey of 160 dog breeds, described in Nature, shows that genetics is now allowing scientists to untangle the complicated lineages of different types.
To finish reading, click on "Dog Breeding: Exploring the Limits of Change". Yippie ky yay, secularists!
  

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Elephant Species in Darwin's Room

Ever heard the expression "the elephant in the room"? Not sure if it's used much outside these here United States, but it basically means an obvious problem that people are uncomfortable discussing for various reasons, including a desire to avoid making problems for the group. A problem for scientists as well as us reg'lar folk is the definition of species.


Image credit: cropped from Freeimages / fabrizio colombo
It's a common term and convenient, and people can use it to sound all sciencey and stuff. Carl (also, Carolus) Linnaeus was the creationist who is called the "father of modern taxonomy", and originated the concept. It's had problems ever since, as the classification system becomes increasingly difficult. Can two critters reproduce? Maybe, but they're on different continents. Similar characteristics? Not so fast, Freddy, lots of things have similarities but are unrelated in other ways. Scientists dispute whether or not to classify certain organisms as different species. The biblical term kind works, but people want smaller details, and secularists prefer the more difficult man-made term. Can't get the Creator any credit, because evolution, right?
When you think of the largest land animals on earth today, what comes to mind? Most people would probably say those creatures with long trunks and sharp ivory tusks. But do you mean the floppy-eared elephants of Africa or their small-eared cousins in Asia?
Identifying animals is much harder than you might think. Indeed, it touches on one of the most fundamental questions of biology. This difficulty actually has a name: “the species problem.”
To finish reading, click on "Defining Species—An Elephant-Sized Problem". Also, you may be interested in a more recent post here, "Bears, Hybrids, and Evolution".
   

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Science, Miracles, and Natural Law

When the hands at the Darwin Ranch are playing cards down at the bunkhouse, sometimes a troublemaker will bring up the subject of miracles. They promptly dismiss miracles as impossibilities because miracles don't happen, and besides, they violate natural law, whatever that is. Then they go back to cheating a poker.


Jesus heals blind man, miracles excluded by naturalistic presuppositions
Christ Healing the Blind Man, Eustache Le Sueur, 1600s
Of course, the naturalists' mantra of "Miracles do not happen because they are impossible" is based on circular reasoning as well as materialistic presuppositions. As for violating natural law? There's a prairie schooner-full of of natural laws that we're not rightly cognating on yet, but scoffers and evolutionists still rely on certain unknown and unseen things by faith. They have the a priori atheistic assumption that God does not exist and therefore cannot make himself known in his creation. I'll allow that the word miracle is thrown around far too often when something is most definitely not a miracle, but people are pleased about some good circumstance. There are also documented instances of healing that cannot be explained through natural means, so scoffers reject them and place faith (again) in Science of the Gaps, and even believe in the "miracle" of evolution without real evidence. Even though we do not know how something works does not mean it does not happen. There are times that referring to something as a miracle is indeed the most logical conclusion — especially the most obvious miracle, creation itself.
Atheists and agnostics don’t like miracles (though ironically they need them to justify their evolutionary worldview: Five Atheist miracles and A miracle by any other name would be … called science?). They often claim that miracles are somehow impossible, or inherently improbable, or unprovable—although their proofs become circular, as explained in Miracles and science. The idea is that miracles can be safely ignored as an option before the evidence is considered . . .
To read the rest with your miraculously, intelligently-designed eyes and brain, click on "How do miracles happen?"


Monday, June 19, 2017

Chicxulub Crater Questions

If you're heading south down Mexico way, past Mexico City but before the Guatemala border, you can find the Yucat√°n Peninsula. That's the place that some folks of the long age persuasion say that a meteorite or asteroid hit some 65 million Darwin years ago and led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. While some call it a "smoking gun" piece of evidence for the dino demise idea and an old earth, others (not just creationists) are not so certain.

Chicxulub meteorite dinosaur extinction not compelling
Artist's conception of Chicxulub impact / credit: NASA Goddard
While the site looks like it would have accommodated a large object from space, but the "smoking gun" didn't eject expected amounts of iridium, which is common in meteorites. Other minerals found there that could be from a meteorite are sparse, and the expected melting is nowhere near deep enough. Creationary scientists speculate that an impact may have happened at the time of the Genesis Flood (the results of the Flood would have eventually led to the demise of dinosaurs), the impact was nowhere near as large as the secular science industry is proclaiming.
In secular literature and movies, the most popular explanation for the dinosaurs’ extinction is an asteroid impact. The Chicxulub crater in Mexico is often referred to as the “smoking gun” for this idea. But do the data support an asteroid impact at Chicxulub? I recently reviewed the evidence and found some surprising results.
To read the rest of this short but interesting article, click on "Chicxulub Crater Theory Mostly Smoke".
  

Saturday, June 17, 2017

Fast Frog Food Flusters Evolutionists

Most of us probably know that frogs eat insects with the use of their sticky tongues. Have you ever seen it happen? Probably not, since the procedure takes less than the blink of an eye. Also, they eat more than insects. And yes, toads have the same food-zapping apparatus.


Frog sticky tongue meal process defies evolution

There are many factors at work here. The tongue flips out, but it's very soft and acts like a shock absorber so it doesn't knock lunch into the next county. At the same time, the saliva is honey-thick at the start, but much thinner when it reaches its prey. After it reels in its lunch, it has to get it off the tongue. Many factors have to be happening correctly at the same time, or nothing works, nothing makes sense to have without the rest. Gradual evolution is woefully inadequate to explain frog feeding, this is all in place because of the wisdom and planning of our Creator.
Frogs have the incredible ability to catch and eat a wide variety of prey, from hairy to furry to oddly-shaped. This prey can be up to 1.4 times their own body weight. A recent study published in Journal of the Royal Society Interface sought to figure out how frogs can accomplish this since not much research had been done previously. Their findings were summed up in an article from Science News.

After viewing slow-motion video footage, conducting experiments, and analyzing frog spit (it took several hours of scraping fifteen frog tongues to put together enough spit for just one test. Now who says science isn’t glamorous?), researchers discovered that the frog’s super-soft tongue and unique saliva work in tandem.
Stick with me now. You can read the rest by clicking on "Super-Sticky Spit: How a Frog Gets a Meal".
 

Labels