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

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Creation and Engineering Principles Part 1

One of the arguments used by creationists is that something that was designed had a designer. You may have seen it: a painting has a painter, a building has builders, music has composers — but something with amazing specified complexity such as the human brain is something that Darwinists will tell us is the product of time and chance. People like C. Richard Dawkins say that things are not designed for a purpose, they just look that way. Oh, please!

Evolutionists reject Master Engineer's work in favor of materialistic dogma.
Credit: Pixabay / Stevebidmead
Materialists fall back on their chant of "EvolutionDidIt", even though they have no plausible mechanisms or explanations for what is transpicuous. (You'd think that someone with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering like Bill Nye would be able to understand this, but such is not the case.) Organisms are engineered to adapt, but their false god of evolution receives undue credit. When logic and evidence indicate the work of our Creator, the Master Engineer, such conclusions must be rejected according to materialistic dogma.
When you observe nature, especially living things, does what you see look purposeful or messy? In other words, do living things have body parts that look like they have a proper fit and function, or do they seem as though they were cobbled together through some kind of tinkering process?

In college, I was taught that evolution produced life’s great diversity. What some call “survival of the fittest” was said to be the process nature used to “tinker” with life. Living creatures looked messy to my teachers since to them life had evolved through chaotic, deadly struggles.
To read the rest, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Engineering Principles Point to God's Workmanship".

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Adam Was a Man, Not a Myth

Genesis account creation of Adam not dependent on ancient Near East texts

It is not uncommon for atheists to use selective citing from the Bible, cherry-pick incomplete or utterly false "facts" attributed to history, and a wagon train-full of dreadful reasoning in their efforts to claim that the Bible is untrustworthy. Then they cheer their own brilliance, which is merely justification of their rebellion against our Creator. 

One method is to find some similarities between ancient Near East texts and the book of Genesis, and then claim that Genesis took its inspiration from pagan sources. While there are some similarities, there are also very distinct differences that show how Genesis is unique. Those get ignored to preserve the narrative and reach the conclusion that Adam did not even exist. No need to do thorough research or logical thinking, or consider that the ANE texts were inspired by true history (which is found in Genesis), then corrupted in other texts. See how that works?

Unfortunately, there are liberal "Christian" owlhoots who want to reject Scripture as well, and the best way to do that is at the beginning. This child wonders if the liberal religious folk realized that they're not only supporting atheism, but undermining the gospel message itself.
It is popular for many people to think that the account of Adam’s creation is just another myth from the ancient world. Many evangelical scholars today accept that the biblical account reflects the worldview of the ancient Near East. They accept this, believing that these other accounts of the creation of man pre-date Genesis. Of course, this brings the Bible’s authority into question.
To finish reading, click on "The Creation of Adam: Unique Revelation or Ancient Myth?"

Monday, July 17, 2017

Avoiding Diversions of Internet Atheists and Evolutionists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Since materialists cannot make us go away, they resort to various methods to silence Christians — especially biblical creationists. Many of these efforts involve ugsome reasoning and emotional reactions, which are common among internet atheopaths and fundamentalist evolutionists. We must avoid their manipulation and diversions, stay on topic, and keep them on topic as well. They tend to get mighty ornery when we see their diversions for what they are and keep them on the subject at hand.  I'll allow that it's not always easy, and I've chased a few shiny things myself.

Red Herrings

A common logical fallacy is the red herring, which is a distraction from the subject at hand. In my opinion, most if not all informal logical fallacies are diversions from a subject under discussion. If you ponder it, someone attacking your illustrious person, introducing a different topic, rejecting the source of the information, expecting you to explain or defend statements from a creationary biochemist when all you did was post a link, threats to tattle on you in inconsequential forums, lying about you, and other things will seldom have any relevance for the subject that was introduced. Keep in mind that people like this want to control the discussion and put us on the defensive. Here are a few that I'd like to lasso for your edification. 


Straw Man

Ain't no way, no how, are we required to defend positions we do not hold. Straw man arguments are common on the web, which are essentially attacking a position that a person or organization does not hold. "Look at me, I'm so clever, I destroyed you!" Not hardly! Someone wrecking a position of his own construction (building a straw man) and then tearing it down is not a victory. Putting words in someone's mouth is another form of straw man.


Appeal to Motive

The first line of attack for anti-creationists is simple ridicule and insults. Second seems to be the straw man. A strong contender for the third attack is the appeal to motive fallacy. Certain tinhorns assert that they know what is in someone's mind as to why something was said or done — an assumed motive which invariably meets with their disapproval. Someone might say, "You won't debate me because your worldview can't withstand the scrutiny of one atheist, and you're a coward!" No, you don't get debates because you waste people's time with childish behavior, terrible thinking, and trolling.


Arbitrary Assertions

Christians and creationists who have spent any amount of time on social media have probably encountered atheists and evolutionists who simply make an assertion and expect it to be so. Arguing from their naturalistic presuppositions, they assume and declare that their worldview is "reality", and those of us who believe the truth of God's Word (as well as appreciating how science and logic support recent creation) are "reality deniers". In addition to this, there are many who call us "liars' because we disagree with their opinions. (Some of them are unwilling or unable to ascertain the difference between a contrary interpretation of facts and the intent to deceive.) There are many other claims that opponents of the gospel will make which cannot withstand scrutiny, and when they are called upon to defend their statements, they give us red herrings, personal abuse, and so on. Arbitrariness is frequently encountered when dealing with an irrational worldview, so watch for it.

Moral Relativism

These days, materialists do not have a consistent moral compass. Many do not care. They cannot say that it is wrong to torture infants to death for personal pleasure, or that the Nazi concentration camps were evil. It is interesting to be called "evil" by an atheopath who has no consistent moral standard. In fact, evil is a theological term. Such a relativistic view is inconsistent and unlivable. To see an article where a biblical creationist responds to statements (and arbitrary assertions) from a moral relativist, click on "Answering a moral relativist". For a more lengthy examination in a debate setting, I wrote a post linking to a video, "Incoherent 'Reasoning' from Silverman in Debate".

Debate Challenges

When a creationist becomes known on social media, feral atheists and evolutionists often demand a debate. Drawing from my experiences and observations, they seldom know the content and purpose of a real debate — especially when they remain anonymous. It is supposed to be the deliberate, structured presentation of ideas, with respect for the person holding the contrary position, and knowledge of that position. Friends can debate a topic and still remain friends afterward. A debate is not intended to humiliate the other person or position, nor is it for the purpose of bolstering egos or to turn into a snarling dog fight. It's who they are. For more about debates themselves and who should qualify, click on the aptly named "Debate Challenges".

Dealing with atheists and evolutionists can be difficult when they want a dog fight
Dogs fighting in a wooded clearing / Frans Snyders / Wikimedia Commons
One of my favorite stories is that I "lost" a "debate" on Twitter that I did not know I was having! An atheist and I disagreed, and I wandered off to have supper or something. When I returned, he claimed that my lack of response gave him the victory. Right, so I should debate someone who uses logical fallacies (in that case and another one quite similar, the argument from silence was utilized mightily). Nope. It's mighty hard for someone to present a coherent argument and reach a valid conclusion with errors in thinking. They may blunder into a correct conclusion, but such a thing is not to be expected.


Be Ready

One way to be ready for attacks from those who despise the truth of Christ is to be ready to spot basic logical fallacies. While it may sound intimidating, it is not difficult. When dealing with misotheists and other anti-creationists, you need to wear your armor. Like it or not, know it or not, we are in a war. It is not about knowledge, science, wisdom of the world and so on, but it is spiritual. Naturalists deny this, and unbelievers consider the things of God foolish (1 Cor. 1:18). God has negated the wisdom of the world (1 Cor. 1:19-20) for salvation (1 Cor. 1:21, 25).

I do not counsel people on the internet to go into strongholds of those who hate God. (Some are called by God and skilled in the art of debate, but finding a rational opponent can be very difficult.) However, we are to be ready to give an answer to those who ask us to give a reason for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). We do not have to be experts in all areas of theology (no human is), but have a good working knowledge. Trust God and his Word. 

You will find several articles on presuppositional apologetics such as this one. Also, I recommend "Fool Proof Apologetics". Atheists and other anti-creationists hate this method because it does not appeal to their pride, and it challenges their worldviews.

"But Cowboy Bob, if I take a stand for biblical creation and the truth of the Bible, people will say mean things about me!"

Yes, that happens. But do you think that caving in to bullies of this nature will help? I learned long ago that if someone is going to say or think something wicked about you, there is nothing you can do about it. Atheists, evolutionists, cultists, legalistic or liberal "Christians", atheists pretending to be Christians, and similar sidewinders will attack and justify their rebellion against God (Job 40:8 comes to mind). Are you here to gain the approval of men or of God (Gal. 1:10, Luke 9:62)? Those of us in creation science ministries receive many attacks and attempts to silence us, and those in high-profile ministries have harassment far worse than you or I. When things get rough, I remember that I never carried my cross through town. Persecution of Christians and creationists is increasing, and that will continue. 

This vile comment was left on my other Facebook Page,
and those contumelious cretins said it did not violate their "standards".
Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes.
It is vital that Christians stay in the Word and get solid biblical teaching. In addition, learn the truth of biblical creation science. This site, and the aforementioned Page at The Question Evolution Project will point you to many good resources that present science that refutes evolution and affirms special creation. The major creation science ministries are also are doctrinally solid. I have the unpleasant impression that too many Christians think they can defeat atheism and evolution by sharing "memes" and other pictures. Sure, that's a lot of work, pilgrim. We share images as well, but they usually include links to important articles.

Please pray for this ministry, for those of us who administer The Question Evolution Project, and for me, personally. I'm asking that we are given grace and wisdom to continue to follow our Savior and Creator, Jesus Christ, God the Son.

Saturday, July 15, 2017

The Created Cat Kind

Cats are a problem for evolution and affirm creationEver notice that many of the animals we have are used for a purpose? Throughout history, we've used them for food and many have been domesticated for labor (plowing, riding, and so forth) and some as pets. (Cowboy wisdom: never name a cow you're going to eat.) Smaller animals like dogs are often useful, birds can be cute and fascinating, reptiles as well, and cats — don't try to harness a tiger, and the house cat is too small to be a laborer. Sometimes for catching mice, and yet, they are adored pets in many places around the world. Some of us coddle them while marveling at their grace and dignity. Guess we humans don't necessarily have to be utilitarian about everything, do we? Especially when many of us consider pets a part of the family.

So, where do they come from? The consensus was that our pets came from Egypt. Although they were worshiped there, genetic testing indicats — I mean, indicates — that they came from Shinar. Well, the Iraq area. And they ultimately descended from an ancestral pair that Noah took on the Ark. After the dispersion of people at Babel, they took their pets with them. See "Cats from Shinar, not Egypt".

Cats are problematic for proponents of fish-to-feline evolution. Yes, there have been mutations over the centuries (including selective breeding), and the presence of stripes is a problem for evolution. For that matter, they have a problem explaining the presence of manes as well. After an introduction, I link to a technical creationist article in "The Origin of the Cat Family".

Our little frisky friends appear throughout history and receive several mentions in the Bible. Everything was created vegetarian, and at the close of all things in the final revelation, there will be no more of the killing and eating of animals. If you are a vegan, that's your choice, but it's not your cat's choice because (except for a few exceptions) it must eat meat. Several animals do that. So don't be getting ahead of God's timetable force your food choices on an animal, you savvy? Cats can be affectionate and loyal, especially the blind one that attacked an intruder. I'm glad God provided us with pets, and I cotton to the ones that purr.
Cats are reckoned to be “the most popular pet in the world”, with more than 600 million living among people worldwide, despite the fact that they “contribute virtually nothing in the way of sustenance or work to human endeavour.” This helps explain why there is much less variation in domestic cats than in dogs. The diversity of canine sizes, shapes, and temperaments reflects the fact that people have long selected and bred dogs for such tasks as guarding, herding, hunting, and sled-pulling. Cats on the other hand, which according to Scientific American, “do not take instruction well”, have not been subjected to the same selective breeding pressures. While domestic dogs can look completely distinct from their ‘ancestral wolf’ form, many house cats are hard to distinguish from the wildcat—with which they readily interbreed, and share the same species name, Felis silvestris.
To read the rest, click on "Cats big and small".

Friday, July 14, 2017

Seabirds and Salt Water

We observe seagulls around lakes, rivers, bays (no jokes about bay gulls, please), and so on. For some reason, they like to hang around our grocery store parking areas that are a long way from water. They also live up to their name, living around the sea. Did you know they can drink sea water? 

Seagulls and other seabirds are equipped to drink salt water
Seagulls Over the Waves, Ohara Koson, 1915
Those of us who live in areas where we can get drinking water out of a faucet or in bottles at the grocery store where the seagulls hang out may take our plentiful supply for granted. In fact, most of the water on Earth is salty. (Sure do hope they make progress on that graphene water purification study.) Several varieties of seabirds don't mind, since our Creator provided them with salt glands — and some fresh water-drinking birds can adapt to drinking salt water!
On Day Five of Creation Week, God created the birds and all creatures that live in the water. While some of these creatures live only in freshwater and others live only in saltwater, some creatures, including many birds, are able to live (and drink) in both freshwater and marine environments. Since about 97% of the earth’s water is saltwater, the ability to drink seawater presents a big advantage, but also a big challenge.

Seawater has about three times more salt than is found in the blood and other body fluids of most land-dwelling vertebrates. If any of these creatures are to survive drinking seawater, they must somehow rid themselves of excess salt.
You can read the rest of this short article by clicking on "Salt Removal On Demand".

Thursday, July 13, 2017

More On Dinosaur Feather Fake News

Remember all that hoopla about a "dinosaur feather in amber", or even "feathered dinosaur tail trapped in amber"? For that matter, remember the criticism of the Jurassic Park/World movies because it did not show feathered dinosaurs? How about the bumps that were claimed to be possibly maybe they hope the beginnings of feathers, but nothing was really found? That's the result of evolutionary zealots spreading fake science in their desperate attempts to deny the Creator. They do that. It's who they are.

Assembled with components from Clker clipart
The lapdog press of the secular science industry was glad to spread sensationalistic stories, and the Evo Sith were more than happy to wave this "evidence" in the faces of creationists and say, "Aha! Gotcha!" As usual (and often before scientists are ready to make definitive claims), further examination reveals that Darwin's enthusiastic disciples were asserting too soon. Dinosaur feather? Sorry, old son, but the feather was not attached to a dinosaur. Now we have secular scientists admitting that the smoking gun was not even loaded. But we knew that, because there is no evidence that dinosaurs evolved at all, let alone, evolved into birds. (Not all evolutionary scientists believe in the dino-to-birds story anyway.) Dinosaurs were created on the sixth day, like we were.
Scholarly illustrations, museum mock-ups, and even children’s cartoons show tyrannosaurs covered in feathers. Two new fossil descriptions give reasons to doubt the tales of feathered dinosaurs.

Perhaps God did create some creatures that we might call “dinosaurs” with feathers on their bodies—it’s hard to tell. After all, most of the fossils with bona fide feathers were definitely birds, and the questionable ones could also represent some strange, extinct, bird kinds. Other fossils including real dinosaurs have simple filaments that some call “feathers” but others say are decayed skin fragments. More observations from more fossils should help clear the confusion.
To read the rest (it won't take you a whole lot of time), click on "New Doubts about Dinosaur Feathers". You may also like to see, "Pin the Feather on the Dinosaur".

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Flat Earth and the Faint Young Sun

The link featured today has two interesting ideas from secular scientists, one of which tells biblical creationists something we already knew. First, scientists are suspecting that Earth way back yonder was flat. No, not that way (even though the Flat Earth Society is run by evolutionists). Rather, it was flat in a round way. Uh, let me try that again. You know those maps showing hills, mountains, valleys, and whatnot? Those are relief maps. (Unfortunately, they don't show where I can get relief when I'm taking a long drive, but oh well.) The round, flat earth did not have much relief going for it, not very bumpy, but ocean covered. We knew about that from reading the recent creation account in Genesis, and creationists also believe that the mountains were formed during (and shortly after) the Genesis Flood.

Faint young sun paradox, early Earth covered with water and without features
Credit: Pixabay / jodylehigh
The other part of the article is about the faint young sun paradox. No matter where they place it during those billions of Darwin years, it's not the right temperature to sustain life. Some scientists have speculated that solar flares caused life to happen on Earth. Now some owlhoot is thinking that a solar flare caused Earth to happen in the first place. That's not science, old son, it's non-science.
No mountains, covered with water — does that sound vaguely familiar?

For a world that, to secular scientists, was born in a fury of collisions and volcanoes, the announcement by New Scientist must sound very strange: “Early Earth was covered in a global ocean and had no mountains.” It was a flat earth: not like a pancake, but like a sphere with very little relief, covered by water. Astrobiology Magazine puts its headline this way: “Earth was barren, flat and almost entirely under water 4.4 billion years ago.” According to Australian scientists who pored over zircons from the world’s oldest rocks,
To read about the wet, featureless earth and the solar flare business, click on "Early Earth Was Flat and Ocean-Covered, Secular Scientists Claim".