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

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Can Creationists Use Logic?


Some misotheists begin with the assumptions that they are somehow more intelligent than theists because they pretend that there is no God, and that theists are incapable of rational thought. Especially biblical creationists. Wrong.



They seem willingly ignorant that many of the greatest scientists of all time have been biblical creationists, and they exist today as well. Rejecting evolution on both theological and scientific grounds does not mean that someone is stupid or uninformed; such assertions are fallacious.


It's ironic when atheopaths use logical fallacies to tell us they're smarter than we are!
Sometimes, it becomes difficult to distinguish between the fallacies, especially when they are blended together. Is the above only prejudicial conjecture, or does it include the genetic fallacy? At any rate, we can see that it is an attempt to berate creationists from someone who has unwarranted presuppositions. This begins to show that Christians and creationists do use critical thinking (and regular readers know that I frequently lament the fact that too many people do not think critically). We reason about science, we reason from the Scriptures to understand them properly, we reason in our daily lives. Logic itself comes from God and is not the product of man-made laws — the laws are only descriptions.

There are Christians who have believed the false definitions of "faith" that unbelievers have presented and done "just believe" approaches. This is not what God has given us. As Ian Juby says, "God gave you an intelligently designed brain, and expects you to use it".

People have asked me about logic, and the following article is worth reading a couple of times. At least. It is not a piece of fluff, but how many things worth learning are simple? This will be very much worth your time and a bit of effort. Use it as a springboard to get into additional learning of logic. Let me help with the Logic Lessons (about logical fallacies) as well.
Logic and reason are far from being incompatible with biblical Christianity. Rather, they are essential. Without them it is impossible to deduce anything from the true propositions of the 66 books of Scripture, the Christian’s final authority. This applies to Creation, one of the foundational doctrines of Christianity. Examples of valid and fallacious reasoning are discussed, with emphasis on showing how logical reasoning can support the truth of biblical creation, and demonstrate the fallacies in many evolutionists’ arguments.

Logic is the science of the relations between propositions. Logic can tell us what can be inferred from a given proposition, but it cannot tell us whether the given proposition is true in the first place. All philosophical systems rely on logical deductions from starting assumptions—axioms—which, by definition, cannot be proven from prior assumption. For our axioms, it is rational to accept the propositions revealed by the infallible God in the 66 books of the Bible.
I hope you will read the rest of "Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation".

Monday, April 28, 2014

Desperation in Explanations for Abiogenesis

"Tweets" are Public, Not Copyrightable 

Proponents of evolution will sometimes attempt to distance themselves from the problem of the origin of life itself. Some will deny that evolution has anything to do with that subject (which is news to writers of textbooks, Neil deGrasse Tyson's Cosmos, David Attenborough's First Life and so on). But still, they defend the arbitrary, circular reasoning of the failed Miller-Urey experiment and try to find explanations for abiogenesis, even though it violates scientific laws. The most logical explanation is that life was put here by the Creator.
Goo-to-you, molecules-to-man, chemicals-to-cats,abiogenesis—all these terms refer to the essential starting point for evolution of life through natural processes. Yet in a massive review published in the American Chemical Society’sChemical Reviews, researchers report, “The origin of life is a fascinating, unresolved problem.” And it will remain unresolved for them until they acknowledge God’s eyewitness account of the origin of life in the Bible. 
Unsolved Mystery
Cosmos host Neil deGrasse Tyson, in the first episode of the new series, says, “The origin of life is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries of science”. Scooping up some water, Tyson adds, “That’s life cooking, evolving all the biochemical recipes for its incredibly complex activities.” Yet while evolutionary scientists, educators, and television personalities promote supposed transitional forms, if they cannot get living cells to evolve from non-living elements through natural processes, their supposed evolutionary extravaganza is over before it starts. 
In “Prebiotic Systems Chemistry: New Perspectives for the Origins of Life,” Ruiz-Mirazo and colleagues, biophysicists and biochemists specializing in molecular evolution, spend 82 pages detailing all the things that have failed to demonstrate how life began on its own.
You can read the rest at "Attempts to Trace Life Back to Chemical Origins Maps the Willful Ignorance of the Hunters".

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Video Podcast 21 — The False Dilemma Fallacy

I managed to keep this one under seven minutes.

The False Dilemma Fallacy is used frequently. It is slightly misnamed, sometimes used unwittingly, but I have found that it is usually a cunning attempt to force someone to choose between two possibilities when there are really more than two. Haywire the Stalker was kind enough to provide some examples, and appears to justify his bad logic, playing the victim card and indulging in blatant selective citing (which could be another podcast).

One example that I forgot to include in the video and remembered after it was complete is often found on Facebook. People will post something along the lines of, "If you care about this problem, you will share this picture". It implies that you either care (demonstrated by sharing the thing) or that you do not care (by not sharing). Possibilities that were omitted include:
  • You spotted the fallacy and will not participate even though you really do care about the issue
  • Thinking that sharing does not help solve the problem
  • Someone was busy and forgot to come back and share it.
I've seen things related to this where someone says, "I'm updating my friend list, comment if you want to stay on it". Really? People have to do this to prove to you that they want to remain "friends" on Facebook (or whatever)? False dilemma. Some of the above possibilities apply, but also that someone simply did not see the message and still fails the "test". I think that kind of thing is shallow, and if I'm "unfriended" because of it, so much the better for me.

Although rather manipulative, I think that people doing this on Facebook usually have innocent motives and are simply being careless. Some of us will not post those things, or take out the ultimatums.

I can think of three cautions that are needed here. First, there's no need to jump at someone and say, "Aha! You've just used the either/or fallacy!" when someone is simply making conversation. Second, if you do point out the fallacy, be ready to show one or two options that were left out. Third, sometimes there really are only two possibilities.

Logical fallacies are conversation stoppers and destroy arguments. How can someone build on a flawed foundation?



Friday, April 25, 2014

Danger for Christians and Creationists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Creationists expect to be ridiculed, lied to (and lied about) by atheists and anti-creationists. That goes with the territory. But what happens when someone wants to gain information about creation science and theology but may not realize that the site or social media location has a more insidious goal?

Recent experiences prompted me to seek counsel from Christian friends, and this article is the result. It is going to be different from most of the material here; I want to caution people who are looking for good creation science and theological material. That sounds strange, but stay with me on this as it can be very important for your spiritual well-being.

Background
I choose from a variety of sources for the featured articles and to include in the Creation Links section. Sometimes the individual article is acceptable, but I do not want to risk sending someone to a site that may lure them into with a group that does not have a high view of Scripture, teaches aberrant theology, or tie them down with a false religion altogether. One site looked worthwhile (and was almost identical to a legitimate creationist site) but was rejected because it taught Islamic doctrines.


morgueFile / mettem
Recent Events
I learned that someone claims to be a creationist but has cult beliefs. While putting forward material from legitimate creationist organizations, he also claimed affiliation with one. This was not true. Also, the link to his cult was almost hidden but someone else pointed it out to me. When the owner was confronted, the cult link was suddenly removed and the "affiliation" link was modified — it redirects to America Online!

More Cult Suspicions
The acquaintance that spotted the cult material did more checking, and so did I. This "creationist" uses words like "YAHUWSHUWAH", "YAHSHUA", "YAHUWAH" and so on, usually all in capitals like so. There's no such name — these are spurious words. Usually, they are associated with the "Sacred Name" cult.

Cults, Aberrant Theology and Creationism
While most people will disagree on some theological matters, we can still have Christian fellowship. Cults are a far different matter. One major characteristic is that they claim to be the only ones who follow God's will, and you should convert to their group. Many (like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Sacred Name) will emphasize God's name, that they use it correctly.

A friend was formerly involved in a cult, saw that this guy acted in a similar way to the old Worldwide Church of God, and suggested that I write this article. Some groups will use the creation-evolution debate as a means to hook people. The Jehovah's Witnesses teach a false form of creation science. Armstrongism (the former Worldwide Church of God/Radio Church of God, and some of its surviving offshoots) used the issue and opposed evolution but have gone into theistic evolution. Biologos, other theistic evolutionists as well as Hugh Ross will compromise on the Scriptures. If you talk to Old Earth Creationists, they elevate atheistic interpretations of science as authoritative above the Bible (yet they claim to believe the Bible). I suggest reading my articles "Are Old Earth Creationists Heretics"? Part 1 and Part 2. Some of us suspect that many OECs and theistic evolutionists are actually Deists, rejecting the Bible.

What's a Christian to Do?
Many Christians want to learn about theology, end-times prophesy, creation science versus evolution, social issues and more. There are some things that they can do so they do not get tied up with false teachings.

  • Be grounded in the Word. Most converts to cults started out as orthodox Christians and thought that they were given something more complete from these religions. If more Christians had knowledge of what the Bible says and how to search the Scriptures, they would be far less susceptible to false teachings. Compare what someone teaches with the Scriptures. This is what the Bereans did.

  • Get solid teachings. Some side issues can be interesting, but we can have a knowledge ghetto where we get truth out of balance and forget other important matters. Get into the essentials in addition to learning the Word.

    Definitions and Avoidance. Many times, a Christian can have a conversation with a member of an aberrant religion and think that everyone is in agreement, but in reality, they understand our basic terminology differently. Watch for vagueness, generalities and dodging the questions. The cultist mentioned above pointedly ignored people asking him about the deity of Jesus and the Trinity. A Mormon may say he believes in Jesus, but is unlikely to mention that they believe Jesus is Lucifer's spirit brother. Jehovah's Witnesses may say that they believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, but their official view is that he did not die on the cross (it was a "torture stake") and did not bodily rise from the dead.

  • Be wary of "new revelations" and exclusivism. Joseph Smith started Mormonism with a story that he had the only truth, and that God told him everyone else was apostate. This is typical of cults; their new revelations are what make them the One True Church. Jehovah's Witnesses, the Sacred Name, Oneness Pentecostals and others will insist on certain doctrines and practices that set them apart from Christians. You have to convert to their interpretations of Scripture (sometimes using their own sacred texts) or you are not really a Christian.

  • Know your sources. I scanned the sources for the links above for oddities, and even rejected some reference material. But I know CARM.org and GotQuestions.org are reliable (even though I disagree with them on certain nonessentials of theology, thinking Christians do that), so I used their material. When checking sources, look for the warning signs mentioned above (and others) about cult characteristics. I strongly recommend against getting information or reference material from cults and non-Christian sources so that you are not deceived, and that you will not help lead someone else into deception. One simple thing to do is to check an organization's statement of faith (these are unlikely on social media, however). If it is vague, it may be so liberal in theology that is not much use to anyone, and warrants further investigation, asking the owner or simply moving on.

  • Check with knowledgeable Christians. You may have skilled friends, church members, pastor, elders and so forth that can help you out.
Test claims. Not all who claim to be creationists or even Christians are valid.
That caption's not even funny, Cowboy Bob!

What about Creationists, Specifically? 
The above items apply to caution creationists as well. Our first duty is obedience to Jesus and upholding the authority of God's Word. Being a creationist is secondary. Despite what some misotheists will say, most biblical creationist ministries do not claim that belief in a literal six-day recent creation is essential to salvation. Rejection of that does raise suspicion about someone's theology and commitment, so that is where you must use discernment.

You can see that just because someone claims to be a Christian (or a creationist), this may not be the case. EDIT: The cult mentioned earlier is named here, with supporting documents. There are "creationist" Pages on Facebook that are run by cultists. Ask people what they believe, especially about the Trinity. (One guy asked about the Holy Spirit, and said, "The Holy Spirit means different things to different people." Not hardly!) 

These days, we must be on guard at all times. God gives us our minds and expects us to use them in reasoning from the Scriptures, learning about creation through science, and daily living as well. The information here should give you a good start, and you can develop your skills from there as you grow in the grace and knowledge our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3.18). Trust God and his Word.


Thursday, April 24, 2014

Even the Mole Troubles Evolution


Many people find various creatures to be creepy or annoying, and sometimes both. Darwin's Cheerleaders are unable to have a coherent explanation for the evolution of the mole because (yet again) the fossil record is a hostile witness. Creationists see the different kinds of moles as yet another testimony to the wisdom of the Master Designer.
For fans of Kenneth Grahame’s classic The Wind in the Willows, mention of a mole conjures up images of a quaint bespectacled creature renowned for his loyalty to his friends. However, to most residents of Europe, Britain and the US, moles are simply pesky animals that leave behind untidy molehills, destroy crops and fields, and damage tree roots and plants with their burrowing. 
Neither conception does justice to the remarkable physical traits of the mole. Classified in the family Talpidae and the insect-eating order Insectivora, moles have an array of design features perfect for their subterranean lifestyle.
Dig into the rest of this article at "The Mole". 


Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Recalcitrant Fossils Defy Evolutionary Explanations

Have you seen that picture with the caption, "We have the fossils. We win"? It's not true. Well, you can "win" if you move the goalposts by reinterpreting the data. Nobody has their own facts. The disagreements come when people interpret the evidence differently.


Fossils frequently cause problems for paleontologists. Assumptions about the ages of fossils require increasingly ridiculous assumptions. The framework of Noah's Flood explains the observed evidence far better.
Image * After (modified)
As I keep saying, everyone has presuppositions by which they interpret data. Evolutionists start with the assumptions that the earth is billions of years old, that evolution happened, and that so-called "index fossils" are reliable. When fossil discoveries persistently cause difficulties for paleontologists and they have to resort to increasingly absurd explanations for discrepancies, they should seriously consider using the far more believable Noachian Flood model.
Do rocks and fossils hold clues that demand millions-of-years? Not the fossils from China's Daohugou beds. On the contrary, their clues speak to more recent origins. 
Accessible from several outcrops northeast of Beijing, fossil hunters have been unpacking a trove over the last few decades, including some of the best-preserved insect and other arthropod fossils, as well as both familiar and unfamiliar vertebrate fossils. 
When were they deposited? Authors of an extensive review of Daohugou vertebrate fossils, published in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, wrote, "Following the discovery of this locality, conflicting opinions rapidly emerged as to the age and correlative relationships of the Daohugou strata." 
The study authors cited peer-reviewed reports that assigned Daohugou layers to Middle Jurassic, Upper Jurassic, and even Lower Cretaceous—a span of about 40 million years in conventional thinking. If these fossils contain clear clues about when they were deposited, then why would researchers propose these conflicting opinions on their ages?
You can read the rest of the stone-cold facts at "How (Not) to Date a Fossil".

 

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Beards, Therefore, Evolution

People will interpret things according to their worldview. This includes their experiences, education, religion, upbringing and presuppositions. It is not unexpected when proponents of evolution will attempt to interpret data using an evolutionary framework, as creationists will interpret data within a creationist framework. But sometimes evolutionists get ludicrous when they attribute just about everything to evolution.


Now it is posited that beards are a product of evolution. Yes, really. But this smacks of desperation (or possibly obsession), since the research is extremely slipshod. But it is true to other evolutionary models: Incomplete data while ignoring better explanations.
Noting shifting fashions in men’s facial hair, some evolutionists are trying to link them to Darwinism. 
It’s not controversial that beards go in and out of style; they’re hip now, but may be on the way out. What should make men twirl their mustaches is the notion that their morning soliloquy, “To shave or not to shave,” is an evolutionary force acting on them, making them pawns of unguided natural processes. 
No less than Science Magazine bought into this idea, along with the BBC News (“Beard Trend Is Guided by Evolution”) and Medical Xpress. According to some evolutionary biologists who did some attractiveness surveys with a limited number of participants in Australia, beards are seen as more sexy and attractive when they are the exception, not the rule, and vice versa for the clean-shaven.
You can continue reading at "Hairy Science: Do Beards Evolve?" It'll grow on you.

 

Monday, April 21, 2014

What about Creationists and Peer Review?

Creation scientists and peer review
"Why don't you write a paper that refutes evolution, get it peer reviewed and get a Nobel Prize?", he smirked. Similarly, "Show me proof of creation, but only from peer reviewed sources", she insisted.

Generally, there are some assumptions made with statements and questions like that:
  • Creation science is not "real" science
  • Creationist scientists are not "real" scientists
  • Creationist scientists do not publish in scientific journals, nor have they had their work peer reviewed
  • Peer review guarantees that the material is accurate
  • Peer review us uncluttered with biases and personal views
Also, people making such statements are showing ignorance of what really goes on in the peer review process, and that the Nobel Prize has been awarded to people who were rejected by the peer review process. It is a valid process, but peer review does have some serious drawbacks. And yes, creationist scientists do publish in scientific journals. But do you think a creationist scientist presenting evidence for the global Flood or how DNA findings refute evolution would be welcomed by secularists who get grant money from evolution? I'm a frayed knot.

The two links above give some excellent information. But wait, there's more! Here is a short video to put things into perspective and give some eye-opening information.

Sunday, April 20, 2014

What Does the Resurrection of Jesus Have To Do With Creation?


Someone may ask why creation science ministries discuss theology and the historical fact of the bodily Resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Biblical creationists take Genesis very seriously, as it is the foundation for all major Christian doctrines. Jesus is God the Creator, the second person of the Trinity, who became a man. He suffered on the cross for our sins, reconciling those who receive him to God, rose from the dead and defeated death. Jesus is "the last Adam", not, "the latest in a chain of evolutionary processes". Jesus and the apostles referred to Genesis as literal history, not as allegorical or fictional. Biblical creationists would like to plead our case to other Christians and show them why Genesis matters.

Rembrandt, "Resurrection of Christ", 1639
Below is a short video discussing "The Resurrection and Genesis", and here is a link to the article under discussion, which has a great deal of useful information that could not be covered in this video. I wish you a blessed Easter in celebrating the Resurrection of Jesus!


Saturday, April 19, 2014

Is Easter a Pagan Holiday, and Should Christians Celebrate It?

Some people claim that Easter is based on pagan origins. Not true. Those ideas came from bad research. Here are some links to far better material.
This is written primarily for Christians, although unbelievers may be interested in the historical and cultural material. 

It is interesting that some mockers will ridicule Christians by saying, "You celebrate Easter! That's a pagan holiday!" The joke is on them because they are simply parroting bad information that conflicts with scholarly research.

Unfortunately, some Christians also believe this pagan origins stuff; there are even modern Christian sources (such as Got Question.org) that pass along erroneous information. It is sad when some Christians will use the same bad sources as misotheists in their efforts to scold other Christians for celebrating Easter. Ignorance of actual history is bad enough, but looking down on brethren in Christ out of pride and out of disdain for the Bible that they claim to believe is far worse. Even if the claims that the origin of the word "Easter" and the celebration time were of pagan origins were true, that does not excuse their trampling of Scriptures and having judgmental attitudes (see Romans 14.5-13).

As we shall see, saying "Happy Easter" is not evil, nor is it promoting a mostly-forgotten Mesopotamian goddess. Substituting the phrase "Resurrection Sunday" because you detest the word Easter is a wrong motive. However, I am not happy with the word Easter because of the connotations involving pastel eggs, Peter Cottontail and sickly-sweet marshmallow candies. I prefer using the word "Resurrection" so people can know where I stand. But I won't tell others that they must use that term or forbid them from referring to Easter.

"But we're not commanded to celebrate Easter. Or Christmas!"

So? We do a lot of things we're not commanded to do. Nor are we commanded not to celebrate. Again, see Romans 14.5-13. Also, Jesus celebrated Hanukkah, the Feast of Dedication, see John 10:22-23. This kind of "logic" of forbidding what is not commanded not only violates our liberty according to Scripture, but tells us that God in the flesh was sinning!

Thanks for hearing me out. Now, for some articles that I think are fascinating as well as useful.
If you want support for that first excellent article and to go a bit further, here you go:
I hope you have a great celebration (or non celebration) as you choose, without judging others. And hope that you will learn the facts.

 

Friday, April 18, 2014

They Say Jesus Walks the Dark Hills


Here is a song that has always resonated with me. Although the song is not specifically for Good Friday, the video that was made is appropriate for the day. The song is "The Dark Hills" by Day of Fire. God the Son, the Creator, humbled himself and became a man. He died on the cross and bodily rose from the dead on the third day out of love for my sinful self. And for you, if you will repent and receive the free gift of salvation. Sunday's coming!



Thursday, April 17, 2014

Animal Rights Extremism Is Another Symptom of an Evolutionary Worldview


In an article called "Radical Environmentalism and the War on Humans", it was pointed out that environmentalism has some good elements that are based on compassion and what should be common sense. The extremist view is dangerous; I do not say that lightly, since some people advocate exterminating millions, or billions of people because Earth is more important than humans to some of them. 

Environmental concerns and care of animals are good things when kept in balance. But with evolutionary thinking, humans are devalued - and possibly endangered.


One aspect of this is "animal rights". This, too, is based on compassion and what should be common sense. Indeed, standing against animal cruelty is in line with biblical values. However, the extremists want to give animals the status of "personhood". (Hypocritically, an unborn human child is not a person to them and has the moral equivalent of lettuce.) This is based on evolutionary thinking. Creationists point out that people are made in God's image, and are special. Evolutionists degrade humans because of their evolutionary mindset. (Will bigoted, hateful thinking from fundamentalist evolutionists like this one lead to violence at some point?) While it may be easy to laugh off some of the "Give Bonzo sorta legal rights" movement as nonsense, it is actually growing. And they use "science" as validation.
Lawsuits on behalf of captive chimpanzees in America could be a turning point in how the judiciary adjudicates on animal rights. 
A group known as the Nonhuman Rights Project filed lawsuits on behalf of the chimps claiming they were ‘nonhuman animals’ that had a right to live free from confinement and not be regarded as property but as ‘legal persons’.
You can read the rest of the article on this rather disturbing trend at "Activist challenges judges to redefine chimpanzees’ legal status".

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Eyes for Details


Human eyes are a marvel of the Designer's ingenuity, even if Richard Dawkins and other atheopaths (who know nothing about ophthalmology) claim that it is "bad design" — which has been thoroughly refuted. Darwin said that the evolution of the eye by natural selection was "absurd", but because of his worldview, he chose to believe that it evolved anyway. Not only the design of the eyes themselves, but the brain has to be able to process the images so we can function.
"Jesus had compassion and touched their eyes. And immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed Him.” Just as quickly as He made the first human eyes out of dust, Jesus the Creator fixed two men’s broken vision systems as only a Master Biotechnician could. Today, new inner-eye wonders are regularly uncovered, exposing the eye’s miraculous origin. 
One critical vitamin-like eye molecule bears the chemistry-friendly name “11-cis-retinal.” When this molecule is embedded in its partner protein, energy from an absorbed photon straightens its bend at the 11th carbon atom to complete vision’s first step. This altered shape initiates other factors that amplify the visual signal inside the eye cell. Yet, slightly different versions of the retinal molecule—those built to bend at the 9th, 10th, or any other carbon atom—demonstrate little or no optic activity. The Lord placed each atomic bond precisely where it needed to be.
You can use your wonderfully-designed eyes to finish reading "Miracle Eyes".

Monday, April 14, 2014

For the Love of Scientism

People are enamored with science. It is understandable, because scientists have given us fascinating glimpses deep into the universe, improved lifespans, advanced our technology and much more. Unfortunately, it goes beyond appreciation for the achievements of scientists. There seems to be a cult-like following of scientists.


Source: U.S. Navy

They are put on a pedestal and made into an all-knowing elite group. (Some people recognize this and joke, "Scientists have discovered that people will believe anything when you say 'scientists have discovered that. . . '") This has been happening for a long time. In fact, "science" is spoken of as if it was a living being; watch for the reification when people say, "Science says". It is "scientism", where people are practically worshiping science and scientists. Sorry, but scientists are people and science is not an entity.

Scientists speak of historical science (using what exists in the present to try and determine what happened in the past), exceeding the limits of their knowledge and making metaphysical pronouncements with certainties. People accept this, and attack skeptics of the science used to support evolution, an ancient universe and more as indulging in "denial of reality". However, evolutionists accept such "science", rejecting evidence against evolution and a young universe from their own pride, arrogance and blind faith. One might even say that it is fantasy dressed up as science if one was so inclined.
God has given us a clear history in the biblical account.  Genesis Chapter 1, from a straightforward reading, describes the history of the planet Earth, the solar system and the whole universe starting not much more than 6000 years ago. This is based on the genealogies, the historical records of father and son, found written in chapters 5 and 11. Add these up and eventually you get to a point in history that is well-known and then you have an estimate of the time that has passed since creation. This exercise will only result in a history of about 6000 years.

Deep time

Then why is this so hard for many people to accept? The answer does not really lie with science. It is because most people believe anything they are told if it comes with the stamp of approval of science. This is actually scientism not science. It is a belief system, a worldview; a worldview that man’s knowledge through science has all the answers or that science ultimately will find all the answers.
You would do well to read and consider the rest of "Why is a 6000-year-old universe so hard to believe?".

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Mythical Critters and Scoffers

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

An interesting and timely question prompted this article. Earlier, I wrote again about how facts alone can be incomplete. Giving information and evidence is good, but addressing worldviews and presuppositions are very important, and can give a more complete answer to a question or challenge.

To briefly recap, everyone has a worldview based on presuppositions (things they assume to be true). When presented with evidence, we naturally use our worldviews to interpret it. When someone has an anti-Bible bias, he or she can easily reject evidence supporting the Bible (and especially biblical creation science).


Some people think they are clever by mocking archaic words in old Bible translations. Their mockery shows their own lack of research, integrity and intellectual honesty. Worldviews color our perceptions.

Cockatrice drawing by Oliver Herford, 1912 at Reusable Art
Here is the question that I was given this morning (writing this the day before I publish it) at The Question Evolution Project on Facebook:


If you can't make out the text in the picture, he wrote, "Hey again. Question for you. In Isaiah when it mentions cocktracies and satyrs what do you think it is referring too. Probably not two legged dragons and goat men."

Well, this question made me work, it wasn't a quick answer that I could look up and crank out.

When looking these things up, I saw that there are several anti-theist sites that were taking ancient words like unicorn, cockatrice and satyr, and assigning modern conceptions to those words. Those tinhorns had the assumption that not only was the Bible worthless, but deserved mockery. Posts with the tone of, "You gotta believe in satyrs, unicorns and cockatrices because the Bible sez so, haw haw haw!" are plentiful. If they had bothered to do some research instead of indulging in prejudicial conjecture, they would not have been making such foolish utterances.

One thing that should embarrass these people is that in 1860, Samuel Wilberforce wrote a review of Darwin's Origin of Species. In this, he quoted Henry More's remarks, "And of a truth, vile epicurism and sensuality will make the soul of man so degenerate and blind, that he will not only be content to slide into brutish immorality, but please himself in this very opinion that he is a real brute already, an ape, satyr, or baboon..." To be consistent, these Christophobes should be mocking other authors who used some of these same words, yes?

Unlike the unicorn, which was a real animal (basically, it's a sort of extinct rhinoceros), the cockatrice is completely mythical. Cockatrice appears in the King James version, and the original word is translated correctly in modern Bible versions. Translators did not quite understand the word that was in the original manuscripts.

Similarly, the word dragon appears in the King James version more often than in other translations. It is usually rendered as "snake", "cobra", "adder" and so on, except in places like Revelation where dragon means Satan. If you want a biblical creationist view of dragons as dinosaurs (and remember, "dragon" was a known word, and dinosaur had not been coined until Richard Owen did that around 1842), you can read "Dragons — Fact or Fable?" and the additional information linked on that page.

The satyr (and this is being published on Satyrday...oh, that was bad) is a bit more difficult to deal with. Again, this is found in older Bible versions. (The KJV copied from earlier Bibles.) Modern translations and commentaries differ on the meaning of satyr. Some use "hairy beast", others refer to a kind of desert demon in which the neighbors of the Jews believed. Because of demonic and goat-like associations with the word, "satyr" may actually be a good representation of demonic worship. Just like when God said not to bother with idols who are not gods, who do not walk, speak or anything, but worshiping them was still evil, I think this means for Hebrews not to fear or deal with the demons that others worshiped. Anyway, the original word seems uncertain, and the desert demon interpretation may be the most reasonable.


Again, it is not just a matter of evidence, but of worldviews and presuppositions. If someone has an irrational worldview like materialism or evolutionism, and especially when it is dominated by negative emotions rather than reason, he or she is prone to giving ridicule and making excuses rather than accepting the evidence. The atheist worldview is incoherent, lacking the necessary preconditions of human experience. Only biblical Christianity can do this, and can make proper sense of evidence and the human condition.

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Why Didn't They Just Use Evidence about Camels and the Bible?

Edit: I fouled up and did Friday's post on Thursday night. Oh, well.

Many times, Christians and creationists will point out that the evidence supporting the Bible and creation is on our side. However, we cannot just "out evidence" scoffers because for every fact, every bit of evidence, there is an equal and opposite rescuing device. That is, if someone does not want to accept the evidence, they will find a way to reject it.

Everyone has a worldview built by their presuppositions, and their presuppositions are composed of beliefs, opinions and things that they consider self-evident truths. The "truths" of materialists are actually self-refuting because they are comprised of unsupported assumptions. (Often, they do not even realize that the things they take for granted as being true are unfounded.) Also, people will cling to their worldviews in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary. These will find excuses to avoid examining the evidence that supports biblical matters and even call Christians "liars" because our interpretations of the evidence does not comport with their belief systems. Further, some will use logical fallacies to avoid unpleasant truths, such as the genetic fallacy ("I won't read that creationist site, it's not science!") and so on.

When refuting assertions made by anti-biblical sources, their biases need to be addressed as well as the errors in their claims. Also, the proper evidence needs to be presented. Someone wrote a disparaging letter to Answers In Genesis, upset that an article refuting a claim that archaeology disproved the Bible's record of domesticated camels at the time of Abraham. The writer fired off a number of possible facts from history and archaeology that may or may not have been accurate, but many were also irrelevant, and would have been an incomplete answer to the issue. Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell explained why simply citing facts are not enough in "Feedback: Does Archaeology Prove the Bible Is Right about Camels?" I recommend that you read it.

A Moon of Saturn, A Possible Ocean, Wild Speculation

Evolutionary speculation does wonders for the mind — it makes one wonder if some people can think productively. They are so locked into their billions of years and "deep time" presuppositions that contrary evidence is ignored, dismissed and even rewritten through blatant deception. (Yet, when we point out their logical fallacies and point out errors in the science, we are called liars.) Saturn's moon Enceladus is an example of cold reality being given the "spin", and problems with the speculations are ignored. Especially how the planets and satellites fit the creationist models and defy evolutionary cosmology.

NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute
Far too often, evolutionists present unsupportable assumptions as facts, and will give speculations that are actually laughable. Unfortunately, Darwin Drones believe that stuff. Some of the science reports about the possibility of an ocean of water on Enceladus started off with reasonable extrapolations based on real science. Then it got weird, even to the point of assuming that the water had life, therefore, the entire universe is full of life. Oh, please. While much of the blame is on the press, the scientists are not exactly helping matters.
News media are jumping over an announcement that Saturn’s moon Enceladus may have a large body of water under its icy crust, but what does it mean?
Cassini scientists, publishing in Science Magazine, announced indirect evidence (via Doppler measurements of gravity anomalies during flybys) that Saturn’s little geysering moon Enceladus probably has a sub-surface ocean of liquid.  The data cannot resolve whether the ocean is regional or global, but is probably regional: “Although the gravity data cannot rule out a global ocean, a regional sea is consistent with the gravity, topography, and high local heat fluxes and does not suffer from the thermal problems that a global ocean encounters,” they said.  That’s because keeping water liquid requires a suitable heat source – the more water, the more heat required:
You can set your jets to finish reading "Enceladus Ocean Means Dating Trouble, Not Life".

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Evolution and the Origin of Life Problem

Proselytizers of evolutionism are divided on the issue of the origin of life. Many know that life could not originate on this planet. Period. One option is to distance themselves and say, "Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, it's only about the development of existing life". Untrue, as anyone who reads an evolution textbook or watches a documentary on it, or even checks Wikipedia, one of their sacred texts, will clearly see. To further distance themselves from abiogenesis (chemical evolution), some evolutionists push the problem out into space — maybe aliens did it.


Credit: Image * After
Of course, it is also easy to simply ignore the problem and make assertions, expecting people who want to believe evolutionary theories on the origin of life to simply accept them because "scientists say so". (Unfortunately, to many people are unable to think critically.) Watch for when they redefine terms to suit their own purposes, or make false statements such as "Evolutionist is not a real word".

Worse that this, however, is when the Evo Sith will not only misrepresent creation science, but spin yarns that are completely untrue. (And they call us liars!) It appears that for some people, the end justifies the means, and the end is to get people to believe in materialistic evolutionism at all costs. Biblical creationists do not have to resort to dishonesty, we leave that to Darwinists.
We have reported that the chances of life arising from non-life naturalistically are so low that ‘0’ is for all practical purposes the actual probability. Are such numbers too low? K.T. from Australia writes:
I hope you can respond to the attack that the number (and many other numbers) you used in one of the articles about the probability of a cell coming to being by chance (1058000) is (are) rejected on the grounds of error, according to R.C. Carrier’s 2004 journal article “The argument from biogenesis: Probabilities against a natural origin of life”
CMI’s Dr Don Batten responds:
You can read the response and analysis of a liar for Darwin at "Origin of Life: Not So Hard After All?"

Monday, April 7, 2014

Genetic Clock Research Disputes Evolutionary Predictions

Your genetic clock is ticking. For every generation, DNA in a species is modified and becomes less similar to that found in the "parents". When using mathematical calculations from secular scientists and their assumptions, their DNA predictions fail.


Genetic clocks disagree with evolution
Derived from "Clock" and "Modified DNA" at Clker.com
Creation science researchers used the same mathematics and came up with preliminary results. These dispute evolutionists' results and affirm the calculations and predictions from a young earth biblical creationist model.
Ticking within every species is a “clock” of sorts that measures the length of time that a species has existed on the earth. Since DNA is passed on imperfectly from parent to offspring, each generation grows more genetically distant from prior generations. Consequently, with each successive generation reproductively isolated groups within species grow more and more genetically distant from each other. 
This is true for DNA found not only in the nucleus of the cell but also in the cellular energy factories termed mitochondria. Mitochondrial DNA is present in both males and females, but unlike nuclear DNA, it is inherited only from mothers. Thus, mitochondrial DNA differences among modern individuals within a created “kind” trace back to the maternal ancestor of the kind.
You should take time to read the rest of "New Genetic-Clock Research Challenges Millions of Years" in context. Don't forget to read the anticipated objections and answers!

Sunday, April 6, 2014

Getting a-Head of Neanderthal Skull Research

Real Science Radio had a two episodes on Neanderthals. Research continues to show that they are not very dissimilar to modern humans at all. But more than this, Bob Enyart and Fred Williams had a special guest who has done extensive first-hand research on the skulls, makes no bones about it.


Bob Enyart and Fred Williams from Real Science Radio, scene from promo video
Bob Enyart and Fred Williams from Real Science Radio, scene from promo video
Most scientists are only able to examine plaster casts instead of the actual bones. Not so with Dr. Cuozzo: "Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams get to incorporate the latest genetic research while interviewing Dr. Jack Cuozzo, the jaw and teeth expert who has studied firsthand and x-rayed more Neanderthal skulls than anyone else, ever."

You can listen to or download the audios at this link (both shows are on the same page), and there are several links that should keep the honest inquirer busy and informed.





Friday, April 4, 2014

Like I Said, Too Soon to Celebrate Big Bang Inflation Proof

When the "proof" of gravitational waves, the inflation theory and Big Bang was announced, some of us were unimpressed. Like so many other big deal announcements, we wanted to wait and let other analyze it before we either panicked or cheered. After all, various scientific evidences have been offered, Darwinoids (thanks to the commenter at The Question Evolution Project who used that word) were waving their proof du jour in everyone's faces. Then they get embarrassed when it is discovered to be bad science, a hoax, fraud or nonsense in some other way.



Regarding the tentative discovery of gravitational waves, materialists went wild and pulled the same antics. I was one of those who thought that the celebration was premature. Nobel Prize? Looks like that will have to wait for a while — maybe for forever. After all, assumptions can only take you so far, and also tend to prevent full examination of evidence and phenomena. (Ever notice that creation scientists are more cautious with their models and speculations?) Even some evolutionary scientists are saying that further investigation is in order.
Already the alleged discovery of not only primordial gravitational waves but also the big bang era of inflation (which I discussed in Has the ‘smoking gun’ of the ‘big bang’ been found? and also in this blog, only a little over a week ago) has been questioned in a paper by leading cosmologists. This is in a paper, submitted to the preprint archive (arXiv.org) on March 20th, 2014, just three days after the press release (on March 17th) of the “discovery” by the BICEP2 Collaboration team.
On March 25th a press item appeared on phys.org quoting these cosmologists and entitled ‘Cosmologists cast doubt on inflation evidence’, with a storyline saying
Some theorists are advising that we “put the champagne back in the fridge”… at least for now.
Researchers from the BICEP2 project at the South Pole Telescope had claimed unambiguous evidence of primordial gravitational waves in the cosmic microwave background, the residual rippling of space and time created by the sudden inflation of the Universe a quintillionth quintillionth of a second after the big bang. And there were even whispers of a Nobel prize nomination. The team’s findings were hailed as the best direct evidence yet of cosmic inflation, and even support for the existence of a multiverse—multiple universes outside our own.
It's time for you to read the rest of "Hey, Not So Fast with the Nobel Prize!"



...if ever...

Labels