Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman

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

Saturday, October 21, 2017

How Biblical Creationists Are Refuted

Or, "How Do I Refute Thee? Let Me Count the Ways..." 

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

As we have seen numerous time on this site alone, anti-creationists want to debunk what we have to say. These self-appointed social justice warriors go on search-and-destroy missions, attacking creationary sites in their efforts to protect "science". In reality, they are attempting to protect evolutionism from rational scrutiny. We get a boatload of them at The Question Evolution Project. What follows involves my own observations as well as material that I recommend for your edification.

Credit: Freeimages / gestoerte

Darwin's Crusaders

Science thrives on information and discussion, but anti-creationists not only oppose free speech, but free thought. Darwinism must be guarded, lest people see it for what it really is. Many of these folks fancy themselves as crusaders for science, falsely calling those who disagree with evolution "liars", egos telling them that they are vitally important to their cause. Most are not taken seriously, and are only making a small splash in a puddle, having no impact on the ocean of truth that biblical creationists present. 

Anti-creationists seldom merit interaction, since they present atheistic and evolutionary talking points, nor do they evince logical thinking. They do like bullying and intimidation, though. Sometimes, they slap leather with uninformed creationists, but Darwin's crusaders are seldom willing to engage credentialed creationary scientists on equal footing. Perhaps it is because the run-of-the-mill atheist on the internet is not all that well educated. More likely it is because they are suppressing the truth (Romans 1:18-23).

Bad Reasoning from Atheists and Evolutionists

Critics of both creation science and Christianity itself are known to use many logical fallacies, even combining several into one statement. Mockery is obligatory. Criticisms leveled at us are common at anti-creationist web sites and forums, and those are parroted by Darwin's disciples in comments on creationary Pages, forums, their own Pages and forums, and so on. Not a whole passel of original thought happening there.

One reason creationists emphasize critical thinking skills, which includes knowing how to play Spot the Fallacy®, is so we're not buffaloed by antagonists (who often have no credibility outside their own camp). Another reason to learn how to think properly is so we can be more exact and God-honoring in our own apologetic.

One of the most common is the stunningly fallacious claim that, because we oppose evolution or anthropogenic climate change, we are "science deniers". (Related to this is the manufactured "war between science and religion" — note the conflation between science and evolution or climate change). This is simply playing to their base and appealing to emotions. It is often the case that when something hateful is said, it is applauded by their fellow travelers, no matter how ridiculous, because being united in hate is important to them. Romans 1:32 comes to mind. If you study on it a spell, the "science deniers" claim is easily refuted. A very good response to this can be found by reading, "Is There Really a War on Science?"

Since I've detailed these examples of bad thinking elsewhere, we won't need to saddle up for a long ride down the trail. Instead, I'll give you some short forms of incoherent obloquies that we receive.
  • Ad hominem ("to the man"). For some reason, the Latin name is commonly used for this one, but not for most others. Ad hominem remarks can be simple insults and name calling ("You creotards"), or more subtle attacks on a person's intelligence or integrity. They are frequently combined with other examples of illogical thinking.
  • Straw man. It is easy to set up a straw man by building a position that your opponent does not hold, and then tearing it down. Much more difficult is intelligently addressing someone's actual position. This requires a good working knowledge of the opponent's position. (It is my considered opinion that they are afraid of learning what we have to say.) Putting words in someone's mouth is a form of the straw man fallacy. Some people claim to have "debunked" creationary articles, but the statements they made had nothing to do with the post in question. I saw one jasper humiliate himself on more than one occasion by attacking a position that he claimed creationists held, but the article he ignored refuted his claim! Another aspect of the straw man fallacy is misrepresentation. Many atheists and anti-creationists are very brazen about doing this. They are not only ignorant of what we teach and believe, but are often uninformed about the evolutionary beliefs that they try to defend.
  • Appeal to motive. This presumes to know what is in someone's heart and mind. It seems that just about everyone does this to some extent, but it has no place in a serious discussion. Essentially, "You're doing this because...".  I've been attacked along the lines of this: "You're afraid to debate me because you know your worldview won't withstand the criticism of one atheist, ever!" That critic is a proven liar, has been demonstrated to be unfamiliar with rational thought, and blasphemed God several times. The example included the bifurcation (either/or) fallacy. (I did say they combine fallacies, didn't I? Yes, yes I did.) He not only claims to know my motive, but ignored possible reasons that I refuse to debate him. Apparently, the fact that refusing to give him a significant expenditure of intellectual energy and my time was not considered as a possibility. Watch for some form of, "You're saying/doing this because...", they're being gratuitously fallacious and manipulative.
  • Arbitrary assertions. People will make statements based on their opinions, but many are unable to support them. This can can make the one making the assertions appear intelligent, but is often combined with other errors in thinking. Further, in their quest to pummel creationists into submission, do not be surprised if you are directly lied to — and lied about. It's who they are, and they act according to their nature. 
  • Prejudicial conjecture. Seems like everyone has an opinion to express, but many times, the opinion does not have a good working relationship with facts. Basically, someone does not have knowledge about a subject, but dislikes it and says something negative against it with biased wording. Atheists do this a lot. 
  • Genetic fallacy. Simply rejecting something because of its source. An outlandish example came from a professing atheist who wanted me to know that he is more intelligent than me. I furnished a link, and he rejected it because it came from creationists. I informed him that he used the genetic fallacy. This self-styled genius asked, "What does genetics have to do with this?" Also, I've seen a hater of creationists state that he had no need to read creationary material or attend a conference because he "knows that they're going to say". He managed to combine the genetic fallacy with appeal to motive — and having a godlike ability to know the future. However, be aware that it is not fallacious to reject material from sources that are proven untrustworthy.
  • Red herring. This is a distraction technique, and related to the irrelevant thesis fallacy. We can have, say, a post about how geological unconformities are evidence for the Genesis Flood. The mocker comes along and makes arbitrary, faith-based assertions, and is countered. Then he or she ignores the responses and hijacks the thread, demanding responses to his or her misunderstanding of genetic degradation. Huh? Sometimes, they do not even bother with the subject of a post or article in the first place, and ask questions (or make claims) that have nothing to do with the subject. They demonstrate that they are not interested in answers, and have no interest in learning the creationary perspective (Proverbs 18:2 ESV).
  • Redefinition. I touched on this before, when anti-creationists conflate on the word evolution and call us "science deniers". This also applies to redefining words to suit their own ends. It's not just in the creation-evolution controversy, either, and can apply to a casual discussion. It is very helpful to nail down what each person in a discussion means by a particular word or phrase, and watch for a change in definition.
  • Bonus contribution from Charlie Wolcott, which he calls Shifting the Spotlight. Anti-creationists try very hard to put and keep us on the defensive (as in "change the subject and attack"). The moment anyone dares to challenge or question the evidence, logic, and reasoning of anti-creationists, they get on the prod. Do not let them put you on the defensive. Instead, keep the spotlight on the creationist position, not their own. It shows how much faith they truly have in their worldview and how little confidence they actually have in it. It also show how little they know about their views and the science behind them (as well as the philosophy of their paradigm) and their inability to defend it. EDIT: Consider the comment made by this anti-creationist when he shared the post to his own Page that exists for the purpose of ridicule. He does not read the material he attacks.
Appeal to authority. I'm listing this one separately because it leads into some mighty important material. This fallacy has several facets. The most obvious is when people will cite someone who has no training in a field, such as when Krauss, Dawkins, and other atheists pontificate about the God they deny (Psalm 14:1). In a similar manner, I've been ridiculed for not mixing biblical truth with evolution because the Roman Catholic Pope believes in evolution. (No citation was given.) I don't care what the Pope says, I believe the Bible, you savvy?

Some people look to Bill Nye for scientific knowledge, and appeal to him as an authority on things for which an alleged "science guy" should be a source of knowledge. I've got some bad news for you, sunshine, but Nye does not have advanced science degrees. Worse, he is more interested in promoting leftist causes and atheism than actual science. Back in the old days, he did decent work performing observable science on television. Referring to Nye is not a guarantee of accurate scientific information, especially since he has been wrong many times. The lab coat maketh not the scientist.

Additional problems with appealing to authority include the simple fact that an expert can be wrong, may have modified views since a statement was made or a book was published, has views that other experts in the field consider outlandish (i.e., Erich von Daniken's ancient astronaut claims are rejected by archaeologists, and are shown to be lacking in facts, so he should not be cited), and so on.
Exercise: spot the fallacies in point (1) of this diatribe.

The Scientific American Bundle of Fallacies and False Science

Although written in 2002 by then editor-in-chief and non-scientist John Rennie, the article "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" still makes the rounds. In fact, it was recently posted again at The Question Evolution Project. You can tell it is biased and propagandistic by the loaded terminology in the title, and things go downhill from there. Using this article against creationists is a fallacious appeal to authority, as you'll discover down the trail. 

Now it's time to give you some resources. First, the article was refuted by Dr. Sarfati at Creation Ministries International. You can read it by clicking on "15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry: A point by point response to Scientific American". Something I have been saying for a long time is that I am convinced that activities by anti-creationists, including that propaganda piece, are efforts to silence creationists through ridicule, appealing to emotion, and by poisoning the well. In a more overt move stifle thought, Scientific American threatened CMI with a lawsuit! CMI was not willing to accept bullying by those secularists.

Some more material that I'd be much obliged if you'd read is a 3-part series by Dr. Jason Lisle. He discusses several logical fallacies in the SA article, and he also discusses some scientific facts that contradict Rennie's claims. To read this, begin with "15 Answers to Evolutionist Misconceptions (Part 1)". The second article is linked at the end of the first. Same with the second article linking to the third. I like it when things happen that way, nice and convenient.

The drawback is that these informative articles are much longer than the one they are refuting, so fill your canteen and load up your saddlebags. They are lengthy, but well worth your time. This here article before your very eyes, as well as those linked, can also help you see that many anti-creationists are uninformed about what we teach and believe. But their ignorance does not stop them from claiming that they are "debunking" creationists. To revisit my earlier analogy with water, what they are doing more closely resembles a gorilla splashing in a wading pool. With a bit of education and perseverance, we do not need to accept bullying and intimidation from anti-creationists. Oh, and the title, "How Biblical Creationists Are Refuted" — they're not.


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

Friday, October 20, 2017

Secular Miracles and the Origin of the Solar System

During a few hours of downtime, the hands at the Darwin Ranch were working with their Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Rings© (obtained by sending in UPC codes from Uncle Nabal's Primordial Soup© cans). They were trying to determine if they had evidence — real evidence — for the origin of the universe. They used a word they learned down Mexico way: nada. Or, zilch. Nil. So, they did what they saw in a cartoon and invoked a miracle for the origin of the solar system.

Secular cosmologists avoid science and invoke their version of miracles in solar system theories
Credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Atheists do believe in miracles, secular cosmologists and cosmogonists ignore inconvenient scientific truths to invoke their miracles. No, they do not give credit to the Creator. Instead, they give their puny gods of evolution and nature a kind of intelligence that makes things happen. Those owlhoots have an amazing amount of blind faith in nothing, don't they?
Skipping over a difficulty because it can’t be solved scientifically: that’s one giant backward leap for theory kind.
Finagle’s Rule #6 for scientists recommends, “Do not believe in miracles. Rely on them.” Secular materialists follow that rule implicitly when trying to account for the origin of the solar system. They know full well that the “building blocks” of small grains, thought to have condensed out of a primordial gas cloud, do not stick together. They bounce off each other or, worse, erode each other into smaller grains. Only when an accreting ball of grains grows to about a kilometer in diameter will the so-called “planetesimal” begin to accrete more material through gravity. That’s the problem; you have to start with small planets to get planets. But materialists need a theory from the bottom up: from molecules to planets. How can they deal with this giant hurdle? Two ways: (1) invoke miracles, and (2) use the Big Lie tactic while doing it to make it sound convincing. Need proof? Look right here.
To finish reading, click on "Miracles in Solar System Origin Theories"

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

Thursday, October 19, 2017

Unconformities Not Conforming to Secular Geological Views

So, when rock layers that have assigned ages are separated by non-depositional or erosional surface, that surface is called an unconformity. There are four of them, with words that are unlikely to be found in casual conversation: nonconformity, angular unconformity, disconformity, and paraconformity. The last is the most troubling for uniformitarian geologists.

Unconformities are explained by Genesis Flood models, not by uniformitarian geology
Angular conformity near Catskill, NY, about half an hour north of me (street view, I drove right by this)
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Michael C. Rygel (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Since geological activity happened in the past, it is history, and not strictly science, so there cannot be eyewitnesses. Scientists have speculations, reasoning, models, and so forth based on the presumption of an old earth. Errors are made, and some facts are neglected. What we really have is geology that is best explained by the rapidly-flowing water and catastrophic tectonics of the Genesis Flood.
What are unconformities and what do they mean to young-earth, biblical creationists? The simple definition is that they are surfaces, usually seen as a linear contact in a vertical rock outcrop or exposure, that separate younger overlying rock strata or layers from the older strata below. They are interpreted by uniformitarian (evolutionist and “old-earth creationist”) geologists as gaps in the record, each gap representing missing time and sediments. But is this interpretation warranted by the field evidence?
To read the rest, click on "Geological Unconformities: What Are They and How Much Time Do They Represent?"

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

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

That Star is Older Than It Should Be

According to Big Bang mythology, the numbering of "population" stars is backward. Population III stars are presumed to be the oldest, although none have been discovered. Population II stars are somewhat younger, and were brought into being by population II stars. These have more metals. (In astronomical terms, "metal" is defined as elements heavier than helium. Yeah, makes sense to me, too.) So, population I stars are the ones with even more metals, and are youngest.

Credit: Digitized Sky Survey (DSS), STScI/AURA, Palomar/Caltech, and UKSTU/AAO
Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
Some factors in determining the ages of stars is first by presuming the Big Bang and stellar evolution in the first place, rejecting special creation, measuring brightness and metal content, and so forth. There's a star with the romantic name of HD 140283. (I'm going to write a song, "Kiss Me when HD 140283 Rises, Oh My Darling".) Using secular models, assumptions, and logic, this recalcitrant orb has been determined to be older than the universe itself. Secularists don't cotton to objects in the heavens that cannot fit their schemes, so a bit of adjustment can be done. But then it's too young to have even formed. Mayhaps they'll adjust the Hubble constant again or something. Looks like a model fail to me. Biblical creationists do not have these problems.
Author Howard E. Bond and his collaborators presented their work on the star HD 140283.2 From its high velocity and low metal content, astronomers had long thought HD 140283 was an extreme population II star and hence among the oldest stars. . . . Application of the most up-to-date models of how such stars evolve enabled the team to determine the age of HD 140283 to be 14.46 ± 0.8 billion years. The age of the universe currently is thought to be 13.77 ± 0.06 billion years.
To read the rest of the article (which is not all that lengthy and will not bombard you with numbers that make your eyes go crossed), click on "HD 140283: Older than the Universe?"

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

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Cavitation and the Genesis Flood

Never underestimate the power of water — especially when it is moving. People get hurt or killed when they think they can drive or walk through swiftly-moving flood waters, and storms on the ocean shore can fling huge boulders. Waterjets have been developed to direct the stuff at high velocity and cut through hard objects with precision. Another way that water can pack a punch is through cavitation.

Bubble cavitation fits Genesis Flood models of creationists
Credit: Pixabay / Tobias Dahlberg
Water commences a-churning from pumps, dams, propellers, and other sources. Bubbles are formed. Under the right conditions, they implode with sound and fury, signifying destruction. When your outboard motor's propeller has been pitted and possibly damaged, cavitation has happened. Tiny bubbles, but the energy in them is tremendous, and is also very hot. Interestingly, our Creator equipped a kind of shrimp with the ability to hunt by cavitation! On a large scale, dams have been dramatically damaged by cavitation, and this kind of power fits in mighty nicely with Genesis Flood models.
When Britain’s Royal Navy ships were suffering considerable and unexplained damage to their ships’ propellers in WWI, physicists worked out that violent ‘bubble cavitation’ was the cause. This happens because tiny bubbles grow and then collapse as a result of pressure variations in the turbulent water around a propeller. But nobody knew just how hot the bubbles could get before releasing their destructive energy.
However, in recent years researchers have found that temperatures inside the tiny bubbles can rise so high that the bubbles start to glow. In fact, there’s evidence that temperatures can rise as high as 15,000 Kelvin (~15,000ºC; 27,000ºF). This indicates that the collapsed bubble has a hot plasma core, i.e. “as hot as the surface of a bright star”.
I know you're bubbling with excitement to read the rest. To do so, click on "Beware the bubble’s burst".

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

Monday, October 16, 2017

Engineered by the Master Architect

Some rather deep articles have been linked from here regarding engineering causality as a response to Darwinism. The short form is that Darwin and most of his followers believe that external forces are responsible for changes, and they extrapolate horizontal changes into vertical evolution — of which there is no evidence. The answer for Darwinism's silly idea is that organisms were designed by the Master Engineer. It is interesting that many human inventions and structures reflect designs in living organisms.

Cathedrals and other architecture reflect our Creator's brilliant designs in living things.
Interior of Salisbury Cathedral, William Turner, 1805
Architects who engineered cathedrals built them to endure, and many have lasted many centuries. Some of the support structures are found in the skeletons of animals. Only took humans a few thousand years to catch on to that aspect of our Creator's design. For that matter, the box turtle's shell exhibits architectural engineering as well! Interestingly, some evolutionists give credit to nature (which is the fallacy of reification, making nature into a being that makes decisions), instead of where the credit rightfully belongs.
“Nature is a pretty impressive engineer,” states evolutionist Daniel Lieberman in an issue of Nature magazine. He notes:
The physical world poses many basic challenges, such as gravity, viscosity and pressure gradients, to all living creatures, which in turn have evolved an astonishing array of solutions. Many of these, such as paddles, valves and hydrostats, are so widespread that we rarely notice them. Others perform so well that we marvel at their superiority to human-made devices.
Creationists maintain it was God who addressed these basic challenges with astonishing solutions—not chance evolutionary processes working for millions of years. Indeed, even if we were to give more time than what the evolutionists would like, we would still never see “nature” producing animals and their multiple systems with such superior function and detail.
To read the rest of this fascinating article, click on "Architecture  and Engineering  in Created  Creatures".

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

Saturday, October 14, 2017

Evolutionary Thinking is Wrecking Society

Biblical creationists have pointed out for a long time that evolution is not just a campfire discussion topic for academics and scientists. It is far more than that, since it is a worldview that not only covers origins, but meaning, purpose, the future, and more. Materialists who control the science industry use atheism and evolution to affect Western society.

Evolutionists consider humans "just another animal", and are wrecking society
Credit: Pixabay / Herbert Aust
The biblical creationists present a message of hope:
  • We are created in God's image
  • There is a purpose in life
  • Our Creator has redeemed his people through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ
  • There is a final Judgment where people are recompensed according to their deeds, evil receives eternal punishment and God's adopted children are rewarded. 
Darwin's Flying Monkeys© on the internet want to destroy this, offering:
  • We are the products of time, chance, and random processes
  • There is no purpose in life
  • There is no ultimate justice, we're just worm food when we die
  • We're here to keep on spreading our genes around.
Evolution is foundational to atheism. No wonder they have such a high suicide rate!

Just stop and think about the foundation of morality for these people. In the real world, evolutionists not only agree with the dismal presentations of those on the internet, but also make things much worse on a large scale. They are portraying humans as just animals, nothing special. Evolution is being used to justify abortion and eugenics. Marx, a sidewinder who admired Darwin (and vice versa) is being brought out of mothballs, but his bloody legacy is being ignored by leftists and atheists. Read about these and more by clicking on "Evolutionary Ethics Ruins Families".

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