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

Friday, November 30, 2012

It Looks Like a Killer!

Vultures. Ugly birds that are assigned with the unenviable duty of eating dead things, thereby helping clean up the environment. Right?

Not necessarily.

Just because something has sharp, pointy teeth or its relatives are carnivores does not mean that it, too, is a carnivore. Appearances are not everything. A vegetarian vulture easily fits in with a biblical creationist model.

I'm not saying that this proves anything, it's just something to take into consideration. But it does interrupt the chain of thought that if something looks like a carnivore, it must be a carnivore. Here, take a look:
Images of vultures circling ominously overhead are often used by Hollywood to signal the imminent demise of someone lost or dying out in the wilderness. So, many people would know vultures to be carrion-eaters, picking the flesh off carcasses of animals that succumbed to the scorching midday sun or were killed by predators.
But one species of vulture is very different. Known as the ‘palm nut vulture’, it feeds almost exclusively on the fleshy outer portions (husk) of the fruit of the oil palm (Elaeis guineensis), or, less frequently, Raphia palm (Raphia spp.). It lives almost entirely in those areas of Africa where the oil palm occurs—forests, savannahs, and mangrove swamps.
You can carrion — I mean, carry on — reading the rest of "The ‘bird of prey’ that’s not", here.

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

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Accretion Formation of Solar System Does Not Hold Together

Most of the text in the above "meme" is directly from the linked article, so it is an indication that the article is not a bit of fluff.

This seems interesting. People who pretend that religion and science are at odds and want nothing to do with anything hinting of the supernatural apparently do not realize that the Nebular Hypothesis of the formation of the solar system had its roots with Emanuel Swedenborg [1], who also formulated a crackpot cult that was named after him. [2] Disenchanted members of this cult become some of the most bitter and irrational atheists one could ever have the misfortune of encountering.

So anyway...

The idea that a huge cloud of hot gas coalesced and particles collided, fusing and forming the sun, moon planets and so on has been popular for a long time. It does not make sense even under a cursory examination, but it has been popular for a while now. After all, why let scientific evidence conflict with an anti-Creator worldview?

There have been various laboratory experiments conducted to attempt to justify this hypothesis. They have failed. Some have resorted to some fascinating circular reasoning. Biblical creationist scientists do not have these problems.
For over 200 years there has been the belief that the sun, planets and moons originated from a vast cloud of gas and dust, the primordial nebula or solar nebula (Lat. nebula = cloud). Celestial bodies allegedly formed when gas and dust particles coalesced in a process called accretion, forming protoplanets or planetesimals. Accretion theory is part of the nebular hypothesis of solar system formation. Experiments have not demonstrated that accretion occurs. God created heavenly bodies by His spoken word (Ps. 33:6), not a process—rapid or not—conforming to post-creation scientific laws. Experimental challenges to accretion theory are presented, followed by discussion of the lack of astronomical observations for it.
You can read about the experiments, the results and the excuses at "Solar system formation by accretion has no observational evidence".

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

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Has "Science" Helped Us Advance Morally?

Biological evolution has been taken as a scientific truth in nature and misapplied to society as a whole, with all kinds of evil as a result. Tyrants have based their murderous regimes on evolutionism [1, 2], eugenics and abortion [3], and more are based on evolutionary concepts like "survival of the fittest". Of course, Darwin's Cheerleaders are popularizing evolution with bad science, relentless publicity and rewriting history.
Ideas have consequences. Over the past century evolutionary thought has become dominant in much more than just the historical sciences. Other branches of science as well as education, law, history, public policy and media have increasingly been influenced by the idea that the world arose spontaneously. This tremendous influence of evolutionary thought has consequences that are largely misunderstood. The misconception is that, while there have been some missteps along the way such as in the twentieth century’s eugenics movement, those were both minor and largely behind us now and the greater and lasting consequences of evolution have been positive. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Evolution’s influence

An obvious example of evolution’s influence can be seen in the popular misconceptions held by those in positions of power. After the 2005 Dover trial, Judge John Jones, who ruled that evolution must be taught in our schools, recalled that he “was taken to school” by the evolutionists. It was, Jones recalled, “the equivalent of a degree in this area.” Unfortunately what evolutionists such as Ken Miller “taught” Jones was
a series of scientific misrepresentations.

But these were not the only misrepresentations that made their way into American jurisprudence in the Dover trial. For the judge did not enter into his new training as a complete novice. As Jones later
explained, “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind.”

But the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, upon which the play is based, was a show trial used to promote evolution. The entire event was cleverly orchestrated by the ACLU to advance evolutionary thought and disparage skeptics.
You can read the rest of "There is a Big Misconception Right Now About the Impact of Evolution", here.

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

Monday, November 26, 2012

Resource: Evolution is Stupid

This is one of the more interesting things that I have encountered. It is an online book of sorts, written in narrative fashion with a bit of snark. The author refuses to discuss biblical matters and "religion", the topic is strictly about evolution's massive failings.

Click here to see "Evolution is Stupid!".

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

Friday, November 23, 2012

Confuciusornis — It's What's for Supper

Many evolutionists cling to their presuppositions that dinosaurs evolved from birds, even citing experts that make that very declaration with certainty. However, they ignore other evolutionist experts who dispute that concept (cherry-picking). Evidence is mounting that, even in an evolutionary worldview, dinosaurs and birds were contemporaries.

One does not simply become one's own grandfather.


Dinosaurs ate birds.

Of course, proponents of the view that dinosaurs evolved into birds go into frantic damage control, throwing out far-fetched speculations and guesses that cannot be substantiated. It would be productive and scientific to re-examine their conjectures, but they appear to be locked into their belief systems.

You can read all about it at "Dinosaurs Ate Birds". Edit: A newer article on this topic is here.

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

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Abiogenesis — A Secret Evolutionary Dogma

When presented with the observed fact that life only comes from life and never from non-life, proponents of evolution distance themselves by claiming that evolution only deals with the development of life and not the origin of life. This is a disingenuous ploy, similar to when atheists attempt to change the established definition of atheism into "lack of belief in God"; both are transparent attempts at moving the goalposts.

It is interesting that evolutionists will claim that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, but will gleefully accept poor "evidence" that they think accepts abiogenesis, and will also defend the discredited Miller-Urey experiment — usually by ignoring facts and citing outdated and unfounded rhetoric by other evolutionists as "proof".

Despite theories, conjecture, guesses, wishful thinking and loud bullying, the fact remains that life comes from life. Assumptions based on faith will not change that.

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

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Stellar Formation — No Evidence

Circular reasoning in evolution extends to cosmology. Start with current assumption that the universe is 13.75 billion years old, add the constant speed of light, leave out contrary evidence, add a generous helping of conjecture, mix in some genuine observable science (leave out a workable mechanism) and your concoction conveniently "proves" cosmic evolution. Except that the speed of light may very well not be constant, and other observations simply do not support such an old universe. But never mind the details, "science of the gaps" prevails.

The formation of stars has not been observed, and the data indicate that may not be happening at all.

An international team of astronomers recently analyzed a specific frequency of light that hot gas clouds in outer space produce. Very hot stars, like blue stars, are thought to burn near or within these clouds, energizing the gas so that it can emit this characteristic light signature. Secular astronomers are also convinced that stars form inside these distant, turbulent, and gaseous zones.
The team, publishing in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, surveyed the light from a wide range of redshifts. A higher redshift—when a characteristic light pattern appears shifted more toward the red end of the light spectrum—indicates a greater distance between the observer and the light source. So, they examined this light from near and far.
Higher redshifts are also supposed to indicate that more time has elapsed since that light departed from the faraway glowing clouds. However, this assumes that light travels at the same speed in all directions—an assumption called the Einstein synchrony convention. No experiment has verified this assumption. Nobody has yet invented one that could.
You can read the rest of "Study: Star Formation Is Virtually Finished", here.

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

Monday, November 19, 2012

Using Fraud in Evolution Education? You Betcha!

We have explored the willingness of evolutionists to indoctrinate children, even though their critical thinking skills suffer. (After all, belief in evolution is more important than thinking, yes?) Eugenie Scott has been downright dishonest in her crusade to attack creation science and Intelligent Design, and textbooks contain outdated and fraudulent material. It should not come as a surprise that students are presented with the long-debunked drawings of Haeckel and told that they are real. In addition, their reasoning skills are hindered with question-begging exams!
 A government education institution recently provided a textbook example of how evolutionary dogma blinds the eyes of educators, crushes the ability of students to think critically and hinders the progress of true science.

The biology paper in the Higher School Certificate exam on 19 October 2012, a major public matriculation exam in New South Wales, Australia, contained a question featuring Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings.

Ernst Haeckel’s peers, well over 100 years ago, knew his embryo drawings were fraudulent, and this has been widely publicised, even by notable evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould.2 Yet they are still widely used in education, as the NSW exam question reveals, although some professional evolutionists claim that they are not.

Note that the drawings on the exam paper are simply labelled “fish”, “amphibian”, “bird” and “human”. This seems to be deliberately vague. Apart from the human, there is no indication of which species the drawings were supposed to represent. In reality there are substantial differences within a class. Nor is there any indication of the stage of development. In this way the students are left with the impression that embryos are far more similar than they really are, and the authors seem to be more protected against criticism for inaccurate drawing.
You can continue reading "Biology Exam Fraud", here.

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

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Biases in Evolution at Ancient Ruin

A frequent presupposition from evolution is that ancient man is extremely primitive. After all, he was just a brute that had recently evolved, and had not yet learned to do those things typical of civilized humans. But excavations keep contradicting that bias. An excavation in Bulgaria predates ancient Greece by about 1,500 years, they say. Yet there are signs of civilization, even though they had not invented the wheel. Oh, really? That is an assumption, a kind of argumentum ad ignorantiambecause no wheels were found, they must not have existed. The evidence for civilization would imply otherwise, wouldn't it?
Researchers are calling an ancient ruin near Provadia in Bulgaria Europe's oldest town. Its carbon age between 4700 and 4200 B.C. predates the accepted calendar age of ancient Greece by about 1,500 years. Investigators have uncovered enough clues from the intriguing site to attempt reconstructing the lives of its ancient inhabitants, but it appears that they left out a key conclusion.
The walls were very tall and made of stone blocks. It contained two-story houses, gates, and bastion structures. The town was a religious center, with pits used for rituals, and its main industry was salt production. The city's ancient inhabitants processed and sold salt from a nearby deposit that still yields salt today. And that salt made them rich.
See the Argument from Ignorance as well as the remarkable signs of culture in "'Oldest' European Town News Misses the Obvious".

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

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Fossil Finds Continue to Dismantle Evolution

People believe in evolution despite the evidence. Even when scientists admit that discoveries work against them, they quickly make up implausible stories to cling to their fundamentally flawed worldview.

People believe in evolution despite the evidence. Even when scientists admit that discoveries work against them, they quickly make up implausible stories to cling to their fundamentally flawed worldview. And the faithful spread these tales as if they were fact.

In this article, three items are featured. Read "Three New Fossil Finds Challenge Evolution".

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

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

More Assumptions on the Fossil Record

"We know evolution is true because we have transitional forms!"

No, you have things that look something like other things, but you do not have undisputed "transitional forms".

"We know evolution is true because we have the fossils!"

No, you have preconceptions loaded with assumptions. Fossilization is uncommon. Although there are billions of fossils, there are many more creatures that were not fossilized. The overwhelming majority of fossils are marine life, and over ninety-five percent are marine invertebrates.

By the way, we have fossils too. It's not a case of your facts versus our facts; everyone has the same facts. The questions arise on the interpretations of the facts. The coelacanth fossils were dated at 70 million years old, and it was assumed that it "disappeared" because no more were found in the fossil record. But the coelacanth was simply playing peek-a-boo, as it was discovered to be alive and well — and unchanged. The only real fact is that a coelacanth fossil was found. Presumptions that it did not exist before or after the date that was assigned to the fossil are simply guesswork. Biblical creationists do not need to do such manipulation of the evidence or make excuses.

When the facts about fossils are examined according to evolutionary criteria, we find that they end up contradicting themselves.

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

Monday, November 12, 2012

Evolutionists and Insufficient Information

Darwin's Junior Storm Troopers do not want people to offer evidence contrary to evolution, resorting to bullying and flinging around bad reasoning.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

There are many fallacies that Darwin's Junior Storm Troopers use when criticizing Intelligent Design proponents and creationists. Many of these have been discussed elsewhere. There is something that, frankly, (mind if I call you Frank?) I cannot slap a label on. It could be a form of the Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence, where relevant data are ignored when reaching a conclusion.

Here are some ways that I have found that evolution adherents will deceive others. 

First, I must reiterate that their insistence on calling other people "liars" because they do not accept evolutionary orthodoxy is both childish and reprehensible. Further, it is an attempt to protect evolutionism from critical examination.

Here are some disingenuous obfuscations involving absence of information that I have encountered:
  • Commenting on articles without reading. We all do it to some extent. But to simply be a troll and say, "That's not true", make an insulting remark and then post a link to outdated, discredited "science" that the article has just debunked is foolish. On a related note, we often encounter the Genetic Fallacy, where people will not read creationist and ID material because it is not from sources of which they approve. They do not realize that creationists' sources use a great deal of mainstream scientific material.
  • Conceit. Thinking that they know better than accredited scientists because of what they read in high school is amazingly arrogant. Further, they seldom want to know what creationists really believe in teach, preferring to learn from anti-creationist and anti-Christian sites. They don't cotton to confronting the scientists one-on-one, however.
  • Criticism. This is another thing that many of us do. But to take a short article that was written for the general public, pick it apart (including fussing about what was not included), quote outdated and discredited material from evolution indoctrination sites — this only gains applause for the critic from his ilk and not from respectable people.
  • Concoction and Caricature. Using insufficient information and then inserting complete falsehoods in an effort to influence the thinking of others; atheists and evolutionists are notorious for "not doing their homework". I have noticed time and time again that people who cannot refute the evidence resort to personal attacks
  • Circumventing. There are some people who will make an off-topic comment on an article and attempt to commandeer a discussion. When those owlhoots are given evidence supporting a creationist viewpoint, they simply go around it and begin demanding answers to other questions (often a Red Herring or Irrelevant Thesis).
  • Condescension. Smug comments informing ID and creation believers that we are st00pid because we reject evolutionism, and then presuming telling us what we believe, is counterproductive. They have no desire to learn what "our side" really believes, and bully us for holding our own views. It may be good for a temporary boost to a fragile ego, but that is all.

If evolutionists want to be honest, they can learn what we are saying from legitimate sources and not from biased pooling of ignorance sites, hopefully leaving behind their preconceptions about us as well. Further, it would be helpful if they took a rational attitude, asking, "Is there evidence to support this position?" Then, when they want to comment, they might be able to do so intelligently.

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

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Audio Saturday: Checking the Facts with Dr. Sarfati

Ever notice that fundamentalist evolutionists have to actually resort to "No, it isn't!" denial and rapid-fire excuses when the facts cause their faulty worldviews to turn to ashes?

Anyway... Back to a somewhat longer audio today, this one is twenty-eight minutes. Bob Enyart discusses some of the recent science news with Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. Among the items covered are things that have been on this site recently: "Junk" DNA and soft tissues in Dinosaurs. They discuss some other items as well.

To go to the site click here, and to download, look for this near the top of the page:

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

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Are Some Dinosaurs Still Alive?

If you say that you think that dinosaurs may not be extinct after all, you are likely to receive hails of derisive laughter. After all, people are conditioned to accept this false concept: All scientists agree that dinosaurs were killed when a meteorite struck the earth sixty five million years ago. (The truth is, scientists are not in agreement on that.)

The entire problem is circular reasoning. Evolutionists start with the presuppositions that evolution is true, that the Earth is ancient and that the dinosaurs are long gone.
This leads to interesting excuses when it comes to artifacts that depict dinosaurs, or when faced with accounts of dinosaurs still living in remote areas. Remember, there are species of various critters discovered every year; humans have not thoroughly explored every bit of this huge planet. However, evolutionists must deny the evidence according to their worldview — even though this often makes them look silly.

Brontosaurus never existed, really.
It's now the Apatosaurus after they put the right skull on the thing almost 50 years late.

By the way, if it's true that dinosaur DNA has been found (another "impossibility" according to evolutionists), they will go into fact-denial overdrive.

Creationists do not need to dodge observed data.

The concept of dinosaurs still living in remote, swampy ares of Africa (which fit models of prehistoric conditions) is inconceivable to some people. Others take the evidence and reports seriously — seriously enough to attempt to organize searches for them.
Over the past 100 years, there have been many reports of sightings, in a remote area of central Africa, of a swamp-dwelling animal known to local villagers as ‘mokele-mbembe’—the ‘blocker-of-rivers’. It is described as living mainly in the water, its size somewhere between that of a hippopotamus and an elephant, but with a squat body and a long neck that enables it to pluck leaves and fruit from plants near the water’s edge. The creature is said to climb the shore at daytime in search of food. Witnesses’ drawings show that mokele-mbembe resembles nothing recognisable as still living on Earth, but it does bear a startling likeness to a sauropod dinosaur known to us by its fossil skeletons—similar in shape to a small Apatosaurus.
The animal partly submerged, and remained visible for 20 minutes with only the neck and head above the water. The imprints of clawed feet and other tell-tale animal trail marks in the jungle around the swamps clearly show evidence of a large, heavy creature that is not a crocodile, hippopotamus or elephant. Most reported sightings of mokele-mbembe itself are by local fishermen who, while fishing or travelling by dugout canoe, have unexpectedly encountered the creature. However, there have been scientific expeditions mounted specifically to find the animal in the swamps that dominate much of Congo, Gabon and Cameroon. University-trained biologist Marcellin Agnagna described what he saw on one such expedition to remote Lake Tele in 1983:
You can have your own expedition to finish reading "Mokele-Mbembe: A Living Dinosaur?"

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

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Dinosaur Soft Cells and Tainted Love

Some evolutionists feel betrayed by the facts. When presented with evidence that the impossible exists ("impossible" according to their old Earth presuppositions), they deny the evidence.
The love we share
Seems to go nowhere
And I've lost my light
For I toss and turn, I can't sleep at night
(From "Tainted Love" by Soft Cell)
Some even accuse creationists of lying because evolutionists refuse to face the evidence (even thinking they're smarter than Mary Schweitzer, discussed in the link). Others will simply say that cited articles are outdated, misquoted or inaccurate. And we find some that even attempt to propose excuses that fly in the face of observed data. Sorry, Sammy, it's time to man up.

Biblical creationists do not have these problems.
Original dinosaur tissues in fossil bones are probably the most controversial finds in all of paleontology. Secular scientists have difficulty interpreting them. They debate whether the tissues are real, based on laboratory-measured tissue decay rates, or whether the tissue decay rates are real, based on plainly observed tissues.
The latest report on this subject characterized original dinosaur biochemicals found inside fossil bones, and it adds further proof of the chemicals' originality.
You can plainly observe the rest of "Dinosaur Bone Tissue Study Refutes Critics".

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

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Dinosaur Feathers AGAIN?

Promoters of evolutionism tend to obscure the truth in their pursuit of "science". Sometimes, evolutionists are so determined that their naturalistic worldview is the only possible interpretation of facts, they see things that are not even there. In this case (and with help of the biased media), "feathers" were found on a dinosaur. Wow! Proof that dinosaurs evolved into birds!

Except that evolutionary scientists are not in lockstep on the dinosaurs-to-birds bandwagon. More than that, the tendentious interpretations of this "evidence" is shameful. Any scientist with integrity should be embarrassed.
The first North American “feathered dinosaur” has put the media in a frenzy of celebration over questionable data.
Three Canadians from Alberta took a look at old fossils of the “ostrich-mimic” dinosaur Ornithomimus stored in drawers at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, and found fibrous impressions in the sandstone they interpret as feathers on the forewings.  News media immediately launched an artwork-laden campaign of touting this as the first “feathered dinosaur” found outside of China and Germany (Archaeopteryx being the German claim).
As soon as the paper hit Science, as if on cue, Science Daily, PhysOrg, Live Science, the BBC News and the other usual suspects put up Julius Csotonyi’s creative artwork from their paper in their coverage with no critique or alternative analysis whatsoever.  Strangely, the popular reports added colorful backgrounds of sky and forest that were not present in the small image in the paper, though the University of Calgary press release came fully illustrated.  Moreover, the popular reports simply parroted the interpretation of the feathers as courtship displays, while soft-pedaling the problems.
And there are problems.  First of all, the rock impressions of the “feathers” consist mostly of straight lines that look nothing like the pennaceous flight feathers of Archaeopteryx.
You can read the rest if you fly over to "Another Flap Over Dinosaur Feathers".

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

Monday, November 5, 2012

Toeing the Line on Dinosaur Footprints

There are dinosaur footprints in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. People with an evolutionary worldview posit models that attempt to fit the facts into their presuppositions. This uniformitarian approach fails to explain the evidence in a credible manner, and requires explanations that defy credibility. On the other hand, biblical creationist scientists posit models for the Noachian flood, and the observed data support this view quite well.
In October 2012, Catalyst, the science television show of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, featured amazing dinosaur footprints from the Kimberleys in north-west Australia.

Catalyst reporter Mark Horstman says, "You’ve gotta be quick to study the fossils here. This tide is racing. And this was dry a few minutes ago. The tidal range is up to 10 metres, and the fossils are only visible at the lowest of low tides, so that’s for a few hours for a few days for a few months every year."
Sand is washed in and out of the area, continually revealing new footprints. The program shows Steve Salisbury measuring a recently-exposed sauropod footprint about 1.7 metres long—a world record. He said the animal that made that print could be 7 or 8 metres high at the hip and more than 35 metres long.
These footprints were made during the global Flood of Noah’s day as recorded in the Bible.

There are so many clues in the rocks at that point to the catastrophe of Noah’s Flood, yet Steve Salisbury and his team did not make the connection. They have been trained for years to think in one particular way, and Noah’s Flood is not on their radar. Worse still, if they ever did seriously float that possibility they would almost certainly lose their jobs (see Expelled).
Indeed, the footprints help us work out the timing of when the rocks were laid down during that year-long catastrophe. Clearly the land animals were alive when they made the prints, so the floodwaters had not yet peaked. After that, there would be no footprints because all land animals perished. Other evidence of the timing comes from the geology and from the landscape. This indicates it was not long before everything was inundated.
To finish reading, stroll over to "Huge dinosaurs flee rising waters of Noah’s Flood in Australia".

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

Friday, November 2, 2012

Propaganda Talk about Origins

As usual, I am going to give you an introduction and then link to a specially-selected article.

And now for something completely different. For a bit.

The article that I am going to link is on a site that is very difficult to read. Edit: It's been improved, so I am leaving this paragraph here for helpful browser hints. So I am going to offer a few practical options. First, many current versions of browsers will let you enlarge and reduce text on pages with CTRL+Plus Sign, or similar keystrokes. You may want to check your "View" in the menu bar. Second, you could sign up for a free account at Readability so you can have a nice, clean view for your computer, smart phone or tablet.There are other features that go with it, and it's worth having. Third, Send to Reader is extremely useful (and free) for Kindle users. (Similar services for non-Kindle users are lacking, I don't know why.) In my opinion, you'll be glad to have any or all of the above options many times over.

And now, back to our usual refutation of evolution and irrational worldviews.

Proponents of evolutionism have essentially declared war on creationism and Intelligent Design. Some people do not want to allow free speech or contrary viewpoints; they would rather protect their belief system with fundamentalist fanaticism rather than allow scientific discourse. This is not simply a matter of disallowing comments on Websites, since there are many forums that exist for the purposes of argument (such as the Evolution Fairytale Forum). No, some individuals and organizations wish to eliminate the opposition.

Not only are there self-appointed storm troopers attempting to preach their false gospel of naturalism at creationist and ID sites, but they have repositories of outdated "science", philosophy and faulty logic. One of the most prominent is the Usenet group Talk.Origins.

This group has the support of famous anti-creationists and anti-creation organizations, but is quite overblown. I cannot count the number of times that someone will post something from Talk.Origins as if it was a discussion ending coup de grĂ¢ce. However, their faith in the group is sadly misplaced.
Talk.Origins is a moderated Usenet discussion forum concerning the origins of life, and evolution. It remains a major venue for debate in the creation-evolution controversy, and its official purpose is to draw such debates out of the science newsgroups, such as sci.bio.evolution. In the early 1990s, a number of FAQs on various topics were being periodically posted to the newsgroup. In 1994, Brett J. Vickers established an anonymous FTP site to host the collected FAQs of the newsgroup. In 1995, Vickers started the TalkOrigins Archive web site as another means of hosting the talk.origins FAQs. It maintains an extensive FAQ on topics in evolutionary biology, geology and astronomy, with the aim of representing the views of mainstream science. It has spawned other websites, notably TalkDesign "a response to the intelligent design movement", Evowiki, and the Panda's Thumb weblog.
Talkorigins.org has gained many awards and achieved substantial recognition. The Archive is also referenced in college-level textbooks and has had material from the archive incorporated into over 20 college or university courses.
Here we can read that the world of science consists of many powerful organizations obviously opposed to anything involving creationism. They are not only opposed to creationism being taught in schools, but against it in general. They give each other good grades in the media, controlled by themselves, which gives the public the notion that they are right and creationism is wrong. It's one big family.

* * *
...there is a huge organization behind the evolution propaganda worldwide. I would like to focus on Talk Origins because that's the website I most frequently viewed in order to find information about evolutionary thought. Because it is backed by mainstream science (and skeptic) organizations it would be wise to not regard it as objective. As everybody now knows it is AGAINST everything that questions evolution, and FOR all that is pro evolution.
You can read the the entire article, in context (and remember the tools mentioned at the top of the page), at "Talk Origins vs True Origin". If you click around, that site can keep you busy for quite a while!

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

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Politics and Evolutionist "Logic"

To see Darwin's Cheerleaders resorting to logical fallacies to defend their errant worldview is commonplace. But to see several logical fallacies used in an attempt to influence political opinion and promote evolutionism is rather painful. And humorous.

Here, we can see poisoning the well, name calling, prejudicial conjecture and more.
The conviction that the world must have arisen spontaneously dates back to antiquity and is no less strong today. Its contemporary label is evolution and if you want your funding, or just respectability, you must accept it. Skepticism of the power of spontaneity is not allowed as this latest post from investor and all-around smart-guy Whitney Tilson makes clear:
Even if Romney is a pragmatic centrist, I question his ability to act independently of a party that I fear has become beholden to people I view as extremists – anti-intellectuals who are hostile to women, minorities, the poor, immigrants, and gays, and who don’t believe in evolution, diplomacy, protecting the environment, equality for women, global warming, and gun control.
You should find the rest of "Whitney Tilson’s Diatribe Explains Why Science (Still) Doesn’t Matter" interesting.

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