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, October 31, 2012

Unintentional Evolutionary Humor

Sometimes, evolutionary "explanations" require the suppression of remarks like, "You gotta be kidding!" in public because they are ridiculous even on the surface. Of course, if a silly explanation of how something evolved is challenged, you may have to endure the standard, "What's your degree in?", as if only the educated elite are allowed to challenge evolution. But I know stupid stuff when I hear it.

Evolutionists attempt to use their worldviews and extrapolate faulty principles with unintentionally humorous results.
Sometimes Darwinians are funny.  They take themselves so seriously, applying natural selection to everything on earth except their own seriousness. 
Charlie Green:  At New Scientist, Mark van Vugt and Vladas Griskevicius think a little applied Darwinism can turn us a different color.   “Let’s use evolution to turn us green,” they said.  People want to be green, but they are too stuck in their old ways. 
Why? It may be time to trawl our deep evolutionary roots for some answers. Natural selection has endowed humans with a psychology best suited to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, which means that a large portion of human-inflicted ecological damage may well be caused, or seriously exacerbated, by innate tendencies to value self-interest, short-termism, relative status and social imitation, and by our ability to ignore novel threats. 
What this implies, naturally, is that Vugt & Griskevicius themselves have innate tendencies for self-interest, such as getting paid to write articles claiming natural selection creates their own psychology. On what basis, therefore, could they appeal to reason, logic and morality to get us all to change our behavior, against the pressure of our evolutionary legacy?  Should we fight the very forces that so endowed us? 
Apparently so.  They didn’t get the message that other Darwinians now think there’s no way old caveman genes can have any psychological influence on us now (8/20/2012, 2/16/2011).  They also apparently haven’t heard that the Easter Island myth of self-destruction is too simplistic (5/19/2010, #4).  Maybe all can agree that having some trees downtown is nice.
You can giggle your way through the rest of "Evolution Funnies", here

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Nye Unto Impossible?

As most of you probably know, evolution cheerleader Bill Nye let fly with an anti-creationist video that got him into trouble with creationists. Ken Ham, Dr. Georgia Purdom and Answers in Genesis issued a debate challenge, followed by an additional challenge.

After his anti-creation videos, propagandist Bill Nye was challenged to a debate from creation scientists, which he ignored. Ian Juby discussed some of Nye's nonsense as well.
Modified from Clker
An update in Ken Ham's October 25,2012 Weblog has additional information:
A number of people have asked Answers in Genesis if we would be open to the possibility of debating the TV personality known as “Bill Nye the Science Guy” (of PBS TV and the Disney Channel)—after Nye’s harsh anti-creationist video went viral on YouTube. 
At last count, over 4.8 million people have watched him make a number of misrepresentations about the creationist position. We posted our own rebuttals to YouTube (“Bill Nye, Creationism is Highly Appropriate for our Children” and “Ken Ham Responds to Bill Nye ‘The Humanist Guy’”). We did publicly challenge Bill Nye to a debate on my blog, but we have also made a formal invitation. 
I wanted to let you know that a few weeks ago, we sent a letter to Mr. Nye in Seattle (and also to his agent in New York City), suggesting that he participate in a creation-evolution debate. You see, we had heard through a nationally known reporter with the secular media that Mr. Nye had agreed in principle to debate with one of our PhD scientists. The reporter told us that Mr. Nye’s had indicated that if his expenses would be covered, he would seriously consider a debate. 
In our letter to Nye, we suggested that the debate theme could be something like, “Which model of origins, creation or evolution, is confirmed by observational science?” (and we have offered him the opportunity to come up with an alternative topic). We also proposed that our debate advocate be Dr. Georgia Purdom of AiG, who holds a doctorate in molecular genetics. And we added that the debate would not necessarily be limited to biological topics, which is Dr. Purdom’s field. We are awaiting Nye’s response.
People are making excuses for Bill Nye similar to those offered by (and for) Richard Dawkins. These are along the lines of refusing to dignify creation science because it is not "real" science. Such remarks are ridiculous even on the surface. A simple reply to offer the excuse-makers is, "If there is no evidence and no science for creationism, then evolutionists can scientifically disprove their views quite handily and shut the rest of us up". Nye probably knows, however, that creationists tend to win the debates.

Earlier, I had stated that Nye's remarks got him into trouble with creationists. However, his remarks are troublesome to scientists as well — or should be, since Nye is a propagandist for evolutionism. He made logical fallacies such as conflation ("bait and switch"), appeal to emotion, false assertions and more. In addition, he claims that evolution is essential to scientific progress, and that creationism is a hindrance to it, but that is the opposite of the truth. Such behavior and lack of knowledge about science itself should be embarrassing to evolutionary scientists.

Ian Juby shows the glaring errors of Bill Nye's remarks in the following video. Then he discusses "junk" DNA and more. But first, I have to mention an error that Mr. Juby made. He mentioned that Apollo 8 landed on the moon. Actually, it was the first manned spacecraft to go around the moon in 1968. The first spacecraft to land on the moon is Apollo 11 on July 20, 1969. Aside from misspeaking on that, Mr. Juby's points are still excellent. To see the video, click on "The End is Nye".

Monday, October 29, 2012

"Objective" Journalism about Science

A Republican Congressman, Representative Dr. Paul Broun, Jr. is a medical doctor. In addition to having a science background, he is the Chairman of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee for the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee". He spoke at a church function. He referred to evolution as "lies from the pit of hell".

This set evolution propagandists into a frenzy. After all, what business does someone knowledgeable in science have badmouthing a state-sponsored belief system? He should keep his views to himself, because freedom of speech is only allowed if it is acceptable speech!

That bulwark of unbiased journalism known as CNN did a piece on this story. They interviewed "scientist" Bill Nye (funny how someone whose only earned science degree is a Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering is referred to as a scientist, but PhD scientists who believe in creation are not "real" scientists, go figure). CNN also interviewed Dr. Jason Lisle. Well, they kept a few sound bites, anyway. Evolution must be protected.

The video segment is here. Note the loaded terminology, conflation of "evolution" with "science", straw man arguments, appeals to emotion and other misleading "reporting". Dr. Lisle gives his account of the interview:
CNN opted to do a short segment on the reaction to Dr. Broun’s comments. And being ever vigilant in its journalistic obligation to present the truth in as unbiased fashion as possible, CNN interviewed both a creationist and an evolutionist to get their respective reactions. They interviewed Bill Nye to give his evolutionary perspective. And CNN requested a representative from ICR to present the creation view. I was happy to accommodate their request. Lisa asked very good, appropriate questions, and interviewed me for somewhere between 5-10 minutes.
But when the story aired, not all the facts were presented accurately. Indeed, many of the things that were claimed were things that I had specifically refuted in the interview. It’s almost as if the story had already been written, and they just wanted a short sound bite from a token creationist. (I know you’re probably thinking, “Not CNN! That would be journalistically irresponsible!”) Apparently, it’s always a shame when inconvenient facts get in the way of a perfectly good story. Anyway, I will here respond to some of the specific claims made in this news segment.
You can read Jason Lisle's account in context and in it's entirely, here: "The Rest of the Story".

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Heads, You Lose

Once again, evolutionists have had things wrong and have been misrepresenting the data. It had been assumed that intelligence was based on cranial capacity, and evolutionary fitness came about from having a larger brain. But it turns out that things are much more complicated than that, and the body would have to evolve in order to accommodate a larger brain.

Creationists do not have to come up with such cockamamie schemes.

Brain size can’t be used as an independent measure of fitness, five evolutionary anthropologists contend.
How long have evolutionists told us that our relative brain size gave us the fitness edge as we evolved from apes?  That assumption has been called into question by Jeroen B. Smaers and four European colleagues in a new paper in PNAS (Smaers et al., “Comparative analyses of evolutionary rates reveal different pathways to encephalization in bats, carnivorans, and primates,” PNAS October 15, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212181109).
First, Smaers & friends pointed out the long history of the assumption.  A summary of the paper on Science Daily says,
Dr Jeroen Smaers (UCL Anthropology and UCL Genetics, Evolution & Environment), lead author of the study said: “When using brain size relative to body size as a measure of intelligence, the assumption has always been that this measure is primarily driven by changes in brain size. It now appears that the relationship between changes in brain and body size in animals is more complex than has long been assumed.
You can head over here to read the rest of, "Brain Size: Another Evolutionary Assumption Shot in the Head".

Monday, October 22, 2012

Evolution — The Racism Angle

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
— Charles Darwin

It has long been established that evolution is racist in nature, and has been used to justify racism. This goes back to Darwin's writings as well.

But what happens when one racist-based pseudoscience is used to support another racist-based pseudoscience? Phrenology, was pseudoscience that postulated that the size and shape of the skull indicated levels of intelligence. Although its advocates stumbled across the occasional scientific truth, the field as a whole has been long discredited. Another pseudoscience that allegedly supported phrenology was facial angle. Adding the three pseudosciences of evolutionism, phrenology and facial angle together gave strong "scientific" support for racism. To make matters worse, racist presuppositions were plugged into evolutionary biases.
A measurement technique called facial angle has a history of being used to rank the position of animals and humans on the evolutionary hierarchy. The technique was exploited for several decades in order to prove evolution and justify racism. Extensive research on the correlation of brain shapes with mental traits and also the falsification of the whole field of phrenology, an area to which the facial angle theory was strongly linked, caused the theory’s demise.
. . .
The theory proposes that animal evolutionary history involves a progression from a nearly horizontal facial angle to a vertical one, a transition that was also used to support the evolution of ape-like creatures to humans. Facial angle was also commonly used in classifying other animals from primitive to highly evolved life-forms. Proponents of the facial angle theory hypothesized that facial angle was not only a trend from fish to humans, but could also be used to rank human groups from inferior to superior. It was a “primary instrument of scientific racism”.
If you can bring yourself to face the truth, you can read the rest of "Using facial angle to prove evolution and the human race hierarchy", here.


Saturday, October 20, 2012

Audio Saturday: Logic, Atheism, Evolution, Worldviews and More

This edition will probably appeal to Christian apologists most of all.

Sunday, October 14, 2012 was an interesting day for me. I was invited ("invited" as in, "hounded the guys until they gave in") to be on the "Evidence 4 Faith" radio show/podcast. Host Keith Kendrix was away, and Kirk Hastings was filling in. It was my first live guest spot on a radio show, not including call-in shows. (Before that, I was involved in a three-part  podcast for Theopologetics, but that was recorded and not a live broadcast.) I was hesitant a few times, not wanting to steamroll over Kirk — it's not my show. And I had a dry throat problem on occasion.

By the way, they've read my letters a couple of times on the air. One of my haters wrote to them in response and told them what a bad man I am. I bet he loves this development.

Enough of the personal stuff. We discussed several things, including logic, atheism (which is fundamentally flawed), evolution (but we did not do much with the science aspect, they are doing that with other guests, and have done it in the past), wordviews, presuppositions, biases, the way that Christians should present the gospel, and more. If they ever want to have me back on the show, there are some things I would like to develop further.

To listen, you can go to their Website, linked above, or download the MP3 here.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Science Deniers and Laments

One of the most interesting insults that I have ever been given was that of a "serial fact denier". This was from someone who was confused that evolutionary conjectures were actually proven. Very few evolutionists have the courage to examine contrary evidence. Most of these are filtering the facts through their evolutionist worldview, and whatever does not comport with their assumptions is considered "wrong", or even "lies". Very disingenuous.

Sean B. Carroll is frustrated so many still deny evolution, but he shoots his own argument in the foot.
Carroll, portrayed as wandering around the Smithsonian in ecstasy at all the exhibits showcasing evolution, was given ample space in a press release from Tufts University (echoed on PhysOrg) to rant about all the fools who disagree with him.  He can’t believe that people enter the museum and continue to carry their God bias even after sights like these:
The sign in front of the tall display case at the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum of Natural History lures visitors to “meet one of your oldest relatives.” Inside stands a morganucodon, a mouse-like animal from the Late Triassic period, 210 million years ago. “A close relative of this tiny creature was the first mammal on earth,” the sign says. “Its DNAwas passed on to billions of descendants, including you.”…

The facts of evolution may be written in stone and bone and DNA, but close to half the American public “accepts a biblical creationist account of the origins of life,” according to the Pew Research Center for People & the Press. Evolution is just one front in a broader conflict between science and individual belief.

Much of the essay about “science denialism,” is buttressed with the views of fellow Tufts graduate Paul Offit.  Offit and Sean B. Carroll (not to be confused with Sean C. Carroll of Caltech) positioned themselves as the promoters of reason and evidence.  “All I have on my side is reason,” Offit said.  “We are about evidence and weighing evidence,” Carroll said.  They portrayed the “science deniers” as impermeable to evidence, being swayed instead by theistic bias or general distrust of experts.  This is the either-or fallacy, overlooking the fact that science depends on belief and that many evolution skeptics are keen on scientific evidence, pointing to key evidences that evolutionists and advocates of consensus science ignore or re-interpret due to their “individual belief” (e.g., 10/12/201210/08/20129/26/2012).
Do not deny yourself the pleasure of reading the rest of "Evolutionist Beside Himself with 'Science Denialism'", here.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Indoctrination Stations

What do you get when you present only one side of the scientific evidence, cherry-pick data to support your belief system, misrepresent those who disagree with you, resort to stalking, harassment and libel, present outdated and fraudulent information as fact? Yep, you guessed it! Evolutionary indoctrination. Let's be blunt: It is brainwashing.

How do the "educators" delude themselves as well as their  students? Today's article is so short, I am not even going to post the first part as an introduction. Instead, you can read "
Training Non-Skeptics One Course at a Time", here.

Monday, October 15, 2012

No Wonder Evolutionists Are So Fouled Up!

When having what passes for discussions online, Darwinoids often resort to "proof" or "evidence" that is jaw-droppingly dreadful in their efforts to stifle creationists. Those of us who have a grasp of scientific thinking and news are baffled that nonsense is offered.

They should be thinking things through and asking questions in science classes. But what good is "should be" when we must deal with what actually happens? People like Mohamed Noor will offer bad logic and outdated science to his students. Since they trust him to deliver material that their parents are paying for, they accept the stuff and pass it along.

Not good.
Today’s first set of lectures in Mohamed Noor’s Introduction to Genetics and Evolution course would seem downright bizarre to anyone not familiar with evolutionary thinking. Noor is teaching this course via through the coursera on-line service and the Earl D. McLean Professor and Associate Chair of Biology at Duke University is maximizing accessibility to his material by minimizing the course prerequisites. Non specialists are welcome and many newcomers to evolutionary thought, now seeing what it is—or should we say what it isn’t—have sunk back in their chairs with blank stares wondering what in the world evolutionists such as Noor are thinking.
You can read the rest of "Mohamed Noor: Evolution is True Because We Say So", here.

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Audio Saturday 41: Further Follies of "Junk" DNA

Creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design have been saying for years that the concept of "junk" DNA belongs in the dustbin. Ironically, people like Eugenie Scott, Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins and others want to believe that the biblical worldview is false, and yet, an evolutionary worldview based on chance, mutations, random processes and so forth make science impossible! To depend on the uniformity of nature, they have to stand on the biblical creation worldview because their own will not support them!

Here is an episode of "Real Science Friday", where Bob Enyard and Fred Williams discuss ENCODE and more.

Since the Web page is full of information, you may have to search for the download or streaming audio links. Let me help with that, they're near the top:
Click here to access the page.

Friday, October 12, 2012

Humans and Chimps Increasingly Dissimilar

Common sense tells us that humans and chimpanzees are not really that much alike. Amazingly, Darwin's Cheerleaders insist on using the idea that similarities in human and chimpanzee DNA is a really big deal, but there are many differences. In fact, there are irreconcilable differences in brain cells as well. Evolutionists are trying to explain away the data, and creationists are happy to be proved right. Again.
New research adds to an ever-lengthening stream of discoveries that confirm exactly what a Bible-believing scientist would expect—humans are distinct from chimpanzees. They should be, if they were created in the image of God, not as an imaginary pre-human primate. The study, published in American Journal of Human Genetics, investigated DNA methylation patterning in human and chimpanzee brains.Two observations from this research support the biblical origins of mankind.
In a process called methylation, cell systems add methyl groups to some regions of chromosomes. DNA methylation patterns are different in brain cells than they are in muscle cells, for example, and they differ between individuals and species. They do not change the genetic code, but they regulate some genetic functions. Therefore, they comprise a level of information separate from the genetic code. Studies show that they provide critical regulation of the activity of DNA-manipulating enzymes both during embryonic development and during the daily life of adult cells. When methylation patterns are errant, they cause gene malfunction and can lead to disease. Some types of abnormal methylation patterns are lethal.
You can read the rest of "Stark Differences Between Human and Chimp Brains", here.


Thursday, October 11, 2012

Kindly ENCODE My "Junk" DNA

From the Ministry of Irrelevant but Somewhat Interesting Material:
This post was scheduled for 08.09, 10-11-12, Eastern Daylight Time, New York, USA.

It seems that some evolutionary scientists are not happy about the findings of ENCODE. The findings do not support the presuppositions of an evolutionist worldview. (One arrogant assumption was that since they cannot find a use for something they do not understand, they label it as "junk", leftover from our imaginary past evolution.) The data fit the biblical creation model without any problems, but evolutionists would rather force-fit the data into their faulty premises than accept the better explanation. Dr. Georgia Purdom continues her discussion about the ENCODE project. If you missed Part 1, that is here.
In part one I discussed the exciting discoveries of the ENCODE project on “junk” DNA. In part two I want to discuss the opposition of many evolutionists to the ENCODE findings.

Rather than put words in the evolutionists’ mouths, I will let them speak for themselves as to how they regard approximately 98 percent of human DNA, the so-called “junk” DNA. Only about two percent of DNA is thought to consist of coding DNA or genes (packets of information on how to make proteins).
You can read the rest of "ENCODE and the Dark Matter of the Genome — Part Two", here.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Scientific Paper Fraud? It Peers to be So!

"Prove to me that creationism is scientifically valid with peer-reviewed papers!"

First of all, creationists do have peer-reviewed scientific journals, and are published in other scientific publications. But what of the secular peer-review process? It is seriously flawed and biased. We should not be surprised, really. Evolution is about the survival of the fittest, after all. If submitting a fraudulent paper will improve someone's life, then they are acting like a Darwinist should act; they do not have a consistent moral standard. Creationists, however, do have a consistent moral standard.

Unfortunately, the problems are not confined to research on origins or other irrelevant, impractical matters. Rather, they involve real science that impacts people's lives. And the fraud is increasing.
Ethicists are becoming alarmed at the explosive increase in scientific fraud cases – and those are just the ones that were caught.
Fraud on the Rise
It’s a truism that scientific research requires honesty (as with any intellectual endeavor).  For some reason, fraud cases have increased dramatically.  Is it due to better detection and reporting, or to a disturbing trend that no longer values honesty in academia?  Some recent articles weigh in on the problem.
In Nature News Oct 1, an article headlined, “Misconduct is the main cause of life-sciences retractions.”  That’s misconduct in contrast to slipshod error, as Zoe Corbyn expressed:
Conventional wisdom says that most retractions of papers in scientific journals are triggered by unintentional errors. Not so, according to one of the largest-ever studies of retractions. A survey published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found that two-thirds of retracted life-sciences papers were stricken from the scientific record because of misconduct such as fraud or suspected fraud — and that journals sometimes soft-pedal the reason.
You can review the rest of "Peer Reviewed Research: The Fraud Explosion", here.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Another Challenge for Bill Nye

Graphic liberated from Sye Ten Bruggencate 
A debate challenge has been issued to Bill Nye, but so far, he has shown no interest in backing up his assertions. If he is even remotely aware of his poor logic skills, he is wise to hide:
If we raise a generation of students who don’t believe in the process of science, who think everything that we’ve come to know about nature and the universe can be dismissed by a few sentences translated into English from some ancient text, you’re not going to continue to innovate.
Statements like this are fundamentally flawed and should be disappointing to any of his fans who actually know about science. Not only is he appealing to emotion and making a straw man fallacy, but he is equivocating evolutionary philosophy with practical science. The truth is, evolution is not at all important to true scientific and technological development! (For that matter, the Dobzhansky myth that "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" has been debunked as well.) Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis has this challenge:
I want Bill Nye to name one invention—one piece of technology—that would not have been able to be invented without the inventor believing in evolution. Just name one!

Usually, when I have challenged an evolutionist to come up with one example of something invented for mankind that would not be possible without accepting evolution, I get the following response: “Understanding resistance in bacteria and thus being able to invent drugs.”

But as we have written on our website many times before, antibiotic resistance has nothing to do with molecules-to-man evolution. Whether one is an evolutionist or a creationist, a researcher can observe the resistance and even understand issues of mutations and other things that can cause the resistance. Such research is dealing with observational science.
You can read "My Challenge to Bill Nye" in its full context, here.

Monday, October 8, 2012

Bullying, Intolerance and Politics in "Science"

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In some ways, the spirit of scientific inquiry has little or no resemblance to the real goal of "a system of acquiring knowledge" [1]. Since people look to science for answers and turn science into the false religion of scientism, where "science" is a kind of entity and the final arbiter of truth [2].

Science is used as a political tool — the scientists themselves are often used to further political agendas. For example, Adolph Hitler attacked Albert Einstein and "Jewish physics" in 1931 by enlisting one hundred scientists to denounce him. (Einstein made a simple but strong point: "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough".) [3] More recently, global warming has been a political tool for the leftists' green agenda, even with the dishonest claim that it is "settled science" [4]. Heidi Cullen embarked on a coercive campaign "advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming"[5] despite the fact that there are many scientists who oppose global warming [6, 7].

Even so, adherents of man-made catastrophic global warming are on a campaign to bully people into accepting this politically-driven "science". In addition to bullying and ridicule, proponents utilize the logical fallacies of appeal to authority and appeal to majority [8]. This is not only contrary to the spirit of scientific inquiry, but intolerance of the views of others, plain and simple.

Similarly, many proponents of evolutionism are bullies and bigots, especially self-appointed Internet thought police. (I must admit that I have a serious problem with bullies. I will often expose them for what they are, and stand up to them.) They range from Oxford to Weighton Road to Japan to California — everywhere. Although evolutionists claim to be good, moral people who oppose injustice, evolution does not have any basis for consistent morality ("survival of the fittest", "we are all just modified pond scum", and so forth) [9]. So it is not surprising that there is hypocrisy in their ranks. Darwinism deniers are not allowed to have our own views, and must be re-educated. When disbelievers in evolution interpret evidence that conflicts with evolutionary worldviews, they are often called "liars" [10]. This also stems from circular reasoning based on their "evolution is true" presuppositions.

One petty stalker in particular is unwilling and apparently unable to respect the wishes of others. When he spammed me with irrational, illogical e-mail (and having 47 CCs on an unwanted e-mail is spamming), I told him to stop and blocked him. He persisted, and continued spamming another e-mail account. After blocking him there, he started harassing me in the comments of a book review I did on Amazon!

Two examples are noteworthy. First, "If you allowed comments under your blog posts there would not be a need or wish to email you about some of them." [11] He has been told in no uncertain terms that I do not wish contact with him, but he insists on shoving his religion of evolutionism down my throat, and inflicting it on others. Second, "If he stops complaining about me in his blog posts (where comments aren't allowed) and on Facebook (I don't post on Facebook other than clicking on any comments I 'like') I will stop reporting those complaints here [at Amazon]!" [12] So, I am being blackmailed by a petulant child. Edit: I learned that I am being libeled by him in other places on Amazon. I had a link, but the comment has been removed. Are these the actions of a sane person? They are certainly the actions of a bully, even though he claims to oppose bullying [13 - PDF]. As others have learned in the past, when I am harassed, I just fight harder. Amazon seems to approve of this off-topic harassment. So, I am using the stalker's comments to prove my points.

Unfortunately, the above foolishness is not atypical. Darwin's Cheerleaders feel the need to protect "science" (that is, the philosophy of evolution that is conflated with observational science) from "religious" people. When I pressed this guy for an answer as to why he cared what I believed, I received this Stalinist response:

Not only the Thought Police, but a preemptive strike on what I may do. This is fallacious on so many levels, and people like that are potentially dangerous. He is worried about what I may do based on his straw man view of "religion", I am concerned about what he has stated outright.

Evolutionists (especially Bill Nye fanbois, it seems) are intolerant of the views of others [14], and resort to bullying and ridicule [15] in addition to fallacies like "evolution is the consensus, believe it" [16]. Adherents of both pseudosciences of evolutionism and catastrophic man-made global warming are thuggish bullies and intolerant of the views of others [17], which seriously hinders scientific inquiry.

Saturday, October 6, 2012

Podcast — Bob Enyart Flusters Eugenie Scott

Eugenie Scott, anti-creationist, anti-Intelligent Design atheist and popular liar for Darwin, made dogmatic assertions about so-called "junk DNA". Even when this radio show was made, she sounded ridiculous with her assertions, obfuscation, dodging, dishonesty and basic silliness. This rebroadcast with additional comments shows the strength of the creationist position.

Since the Web page is full of information, you may have to search for the download or streaming audio links. Let me help with that, they're near the top:

Click here to access the debate.


Thursday, October 4, 2012

Horseshoe Bend Unlucky for Old Earthers

Uniformitarians do not seem to grasp reality. Their worldview causes them to interpret data in convoluted ways, and when the evidence does not support their presuppositions, they come up with even more implausible explanations. 
Uniformitarian geologists are often presented with observed evidence that refutes their positions and supports the Genesis Flood. Their "explanations" are weak at best.
Of course, this includes dismissing better explanations out of hand. Unfortunately for them, more and more evidence supports the Noachian Flood model.
Earlier this year [2012], a well-known geologist stood with a group of people at the rim of Horse Shoe Bend, Arizona, (figure 1) and declared that Noah’s Flood could not have formed this feature. During an energetic event such as Noah’s Flood, he said, the water would flow in a large gush in one direction. According to this professor of geology at a university in California, the winding course of the Colorado River indicates that the river had low energy and would have been flowing just above sea level at that time. 
You should carve out a few moments and read the rest of "Horse Shoe Bend, Arizona Carved by the receding waters of Noah’s Flood", here


Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Antediluvian Floating Forests?

Some peculiarities of the plant fossil record are best explained by the Noachian flood model, and by existing floating marshes.
Certain rock layers hold fossils of unique and extinct plants that had hollow tube-like structures, which probably made them lightweight and able to float on peat mats before they were buried and fossilized. A recent video from the United States Geological Survey featured scientists studying a giant modern floating marsh field in Louisiana.2 This unusual ecosystem can give a glimpse into the world as it might have been before Noah's Flood and can help explain a peculiar feature of the plant fossil record.
You can read the rest of "Louisiana's Floating Marshes Echo Pre-Flood Ecosystem", here.