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 6, 2015

Further Analysis of H. Naledi, and Refuting an Anti-Creationist

Edited 11-20-2015

A few weeks ago, I posted a link to an article on Homo naledi that had some good information. At that time, the Institute for Creation Research had a short response, and Creation Ministries International had one as well. EDIT: A more in-depth article from CMI can be found here. Since then, ICR has published three articles (don't fret yourself, they're not huge or overly technical) that are worth your time. The research that muck-to-machinist evolutionists are passing off should have real scientists embarrassed, especially since the deceptive nature and shoddy work are blatantly obvious.

Creationists have ideas that are somewhat differing from each other, which is not surprising given the nature of the disjointed information that the evolutionists published. But then, scientists do that; creationists do not need to be in lockstep. Evolutionists disagree on the classifications of our alleged human ancestors.

The alleged evolutionary link, H. naledi, has some serious flaws in the research. Bonus: anti-creationist hate mail examined and refuted.
You tell 'em, Captain Hindsight!
But before we get to that, here is something from an anti-creationist (that does not need to be identified) who is on a seek-and-destroy mission: he must eradicate biblical creation science and keep the world safe for evolutionary indoctrination:
A Christian fundamentalist with a PhD reacting to Homo naledi lying and basically asserting that black is white (or was it the other way round) from his fifth paragraph onwards; I counted around eight whoppers: http://www.icr.org/article/8992 [The link to this appears below -CBB] Of course, it is impossible NOT to lie if you are determined to make ALL reality either 'biblical' or 'not unbiblical'. Most Christians I have met do not behave in this fashion.
I've dealt with this misotheist before.

This is just some of what those of us who think for ourselves have to deal with. Let's take a gander at some of the nuggets. First, the term "Christian fundamentalist" referring to the author, Dr. Tim Clarey. Whether or not he is a Fundamentalist is irrelevant. Also, when used this way, the term is a pejorative and an attempt to poison the well.

Second, the accusation of "lying". When making such an accusation, evidence must be shown that there is an effort to deceive. (I reckon that if someone has a proven record of lying, that's worthy of consideration.) This does not allow the possibility of mistakes on the author's part, or that the one making the accusation of "liar" is actually disagreeing with the science; if Dr. Clarey writes something he doesn't agree with, then Clarey is lying. Not hardly! In fact, such a casual, emotive accusation makes the accuser into the liar.

"...basically asserting that black is white (or was it the other way round)". This makes no sense.

"...from his fifth paragraph onwards; I counted around eight whoppers..." Again, what are these alleged lies, and where is the evidence? Making a simple-minded assertion is not evidence.

"Of course, it is impossible NOT to lie if you are determined to make ALL reality either 'biblical' or 'not unbiblical'." Relevance, please. Substantiation of the claim would be mighty nice, too. Also, we all argue from our worldviews. This misotheist also argues from his wordlview, which is evidenced in that short diatribe (and has said, "The Bible is plain wrong"), but he doesn't cotton to admitting the fact that he argues from his worldview.

"Most Christians I have met do not behave in this fashion." Relevance, again.

My conclusion is that he is so consumed with hatred of God, Christians, the Bible, and biblical creationists, that he is unable to think in a rational manner. Sin does that to the mind, and he needs to repent while he still can. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23, Romans 6:23).

Sidewinders like this are not driven by science, but by their worldviews. Sure, they say that they want to present the truth of science (equivocating science and evolution), but that is false. They seek to destroy the faith of Christians, and to convert us to atheistic evolutionism. I'll be blunt: they are evil.

Maybe another time I'll show you how this ideologue ignores content and supporting links, typo-pounces, and attacks people with straw man arguments wrapped in ad hominem attacks.

Fortunately, this kind of behavior is not typical of all evolutionists. Some may be reading this and thinking, "Wait...what? My friends, associates and I believe in evolution. It's all we've been taught, and we were not made aware of its numerous flaws. Creation science? All I know is what I've been told, and it's bad". Getting the other side of the story (that is, ours) from the sources instead of from friends and anti-creationist propagandists is a great start. I freely admit that I'd like people to realize that there is indeed a Creator who is revealed in the Bible, and we are accountable to him.

Now that this exercise in dismantling the "logic" of the comment above, let's get back on the trail and go to what you came here for: three articles from ICR on Homo naledi:

  • Homo naledi: Geology of a Claimed Missing Link
  • Homo naledi: Dating the Strange Ape
  • Homo naledi: Claims of a Transitional Ape

  • There's no need to monkey around with incomplete, sensationalistic evolutionary pronouncements. Conclusions based on complete, accuate research are most helpful, wouldn't you say?

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