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, December 15, 2017

Creation and — Formula One Racing?

Never thought I would do a post about motorsports. Some people are thrill about "man and machine". Even though I am a guy, motorsports are not something I prefer. But I grabbed the article featured below just to see why ICR wrote about Formula One (or, F1) racing, and I was pleasantly surprised. It's not so much about the sport as it is about the driver. I hope you will stay along for the ride (heh!) and maybe learn a few things like I did.

Physical and mental demands on a Formula One racer testify of the skill of the Master Engineer
Credit: Pixabay / Ádám Urvölgyi
The racing sport that seems to be the one most people hear about is NASCAR, but I reckon that it's on the wane. There are several auto racing sports in which well-heeled folks participate, and have some similarities. Those racing sports are popular, too. Here we'll focus on Formula One. Don't commence to thinking you'll be like one of the good ol' boys and use your own car in a Grand Prix race. That'll be the day! F1 autos are mighty expensive.

Let me take a side trail for a moment. Having done some bicycling, I know that there are many things of which a rider needs to be mindful. How the bike feels, its sounds, traffic (not just vehicular), weather, how the rider feels, proper equipment, handlebar and saddle adjustments, and much more. The mind is processing a great deal of input very quickly. The whole situation is intensified during a race.

There are similarities to what I just described to F1 racing. You may be tempted to think that anyone can get into an expensive car and go at high speeds around a track, but there are significant physical requirements. Making a turn, the driver may have to deal with five "gs" (g-force, the number of times the force of gravity; their effective body weight is five times greater). Astronauts on lift-off typically deal with three gs. The input for an F1 driver includes radio communications, as well as the feel of the track, the automobile, sounds (very loud), and much more. Then there's the challenge of keeping it under control when something unexpected happens.

The vehicles are carefully engineered by people using the minds the Master Engineer gave them. Doing the driving requires use of the engineered mind under stressful conditions and making rapid decisions. The brain is similar to a computer, but on a scale beyond the digital computer. More like a quantum computer! And we're supposed to believe all this came about by time, chance, natural selection, mutations, and luck? Oh, please.
Bright red with perfect details, a Ferrari Formula 1 F1 SF15-T diecast model race car would make a great present! Young boys around the world push their model Ferraris across the floor while making sounds of growling engines and squealing tires. They envision themselves seated behind the wheel, racing on winding tracks and reaching speeds over 200 miles per hour. A select few will become race drivers. Along the way they will be physically transformed into something they probably haven’t considered: a world-class competitive athlete.
Watching a Formula 1 (F1) car maneuver at high speeds is exciting. Seated in one during its performance is a different story altogether. Even riding as a passenger in dual-seated racing vehicles provides a whole set of sensations—mostly quite uncomfortable—that must be experienced to be appreciated. They are so unlike average driving that a realistic experience in one of these machines can’t be imagined. The physical strains demand that the drivers be in excellent physical shape.
I'd be much obliged if you'd read the rest, just click on "Beauty in Motion: Formula 1 Drivers".

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

Thursday, December 14, 2017

Feather Duster Birds and Other Mutations

A small species of parrot from 'Straya is known as the parakeet, budgie, and other names, but more formally as the budgerigar. Very popular as pets. Lovely plumage. The ability to mimic human speech is probably a factor in their popularity, but you need to train them properly. Also, the purchase price is much cheeper than that of full-sized parrots.

Most parakeets / budgies are normal, but the feather duster mutation is rare by very harmful
Freeimages / Julie Elliott-Abshire
We're used to the parakeets with their feathers under control, but there's a sad mutation that may look cute at first, but ruins their health and usually shortens their lifespans to a few months instead of years. It gives a feather duster effect because the feathers keep on growing, and is also indicative of other problems. The hands at the Darwin Ranch insist that natural selection and mutations brought about all the varieties of life on Earth, but the overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful, or neutral at best. Actually, life was created — Darwin was wrong.
Nora’s long, curly feathers seemed to lack some component of the normal barb, barbule and hook structures of standard feathers, and they greatly hampered her mobility. Although able to eat normal budgie fodder and shuffle around, Nora couldn’t climb, preen or fly like other budgies, and she could hardly chatter or squawk either. However, with Warren’s help she did eventually learn to perch on the low rung in her cage.
Nora’s parents were both descendants of English show budgies, the only birds known to produce ‘feather duster’ mutants, the first such case being reported in England in 1966. Breeders think a mutation (genetic copying mistake) in a recessive gene causes the problem.
To read the full article, click on "The mutant ‘feather-duster’ budgie". Also, there are a couple of very short videos below, one of which is a feather duster budgie.

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

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

The Work of Noah

The Genesis Flood (also called the Noachian Flood, among others) radically changed the earth's surface and send secular geologists on a goat rodeo to try and force-fit the observed data into their paradigm. Doesn't work too well. Creationary models explain data far better, as we have seen numerous times. What about Noah himself and the massive project?

Noah's Ark was a massive project, but not impossible
The Animals Entering Noah' Ark, Jacopo Bassano, 1570s
Scoffers argue from ignorance and incredulity based on their naturalistic presuppositions, saying that the Flood was fictitious, such as this bigot. There are no miracles — because atheism. They refuse to even consider the possibilities of Noah doing his work, preferring prejudicial conjecture to learning our side of the story. Two reasons scoffers hate recent creation is because Darwinism needs long ages, and it shows that God is our Creator. They also hate the Flood because not only does geology support creationary models, but Noah's Ark is a type (foreshadowing) of Christ.

Evolutionary presuppositions dictate that ancient man had not evolved a great deal of intelligence, which has been refuted by the skills of say, the Neanderthals and the dudes formerly known as Cro-Magnon. Noah and the people of his time, and afterward, were not the semi-sapient brutes that evolutionists would have us imagine.

Yes, the Flood was a miraculous event. However, it had natural effects that are studied. Otherwise, God could have simply lifted up Noah, his family, and animals, flooded the world, and then set them back down without having to deal with Ark building.

Don't disunderstand me, there's nothing wrong with asking honest questions. We have reasonable, biblical speculations and inferences. For instance, who can reasonably say that Noah did not hire local labor? They didn't have to agree with his views (I do not agree with the views of my own employer, but I work anyway). There are several other items worth considering. Intelligent people, with God's help, were able to make things work. And it was work. Obviously, it wasn't a pleasure cruise!

From here, I'm going to send y'all sailing to a series of three articles. Each has an audio version (but obviously you'd miss out of the graphics):

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

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Silliness in Searching for Aliens

Things are getting silly with the hands at the Darwin Ranch, down Deception Pass way. They are so certain of their presuppositions about evolution, they assume that it happened both on Earth and way out yonder, thataway. (Worse, they assume that the origin of life began in space as well.) But they're used to believing in things without evidence, such as the Oort cloud (some think the fantastical death star "Nemesis" stirs up the mythical Oort cloud), and believing fish-to-fish farmer evolution itself. So, betting on the odds of their own fantasies that some intelligent life must be out there, some folks keep looking.

Credit: Pixabay / Stefan Keller
Some scientists want us to keep mum about our presence, as bad things could happen. Others are determined to go ahead and broadcast into space, even setting dates by which we would be contacted — but those speculators would be long gone so they don't have to own up to their errors. The following link has several interesting items about just how weird and desperate the creation-deniers are getting.
Believers in space aliens, or even space bacteria, have cast all restraint to the wind. SETI today is indistinguishable from a cult, and so is its stepchild, astrobiology.
NASA has been studying space for 60 years, Space.com reminds us. The search for life beyond earth has gone on even longer. In all this time, with close observations of every planet and remote observations of many stars, not one shred of evidence for life beyond earth has ever been found. And yet secular scientists and the mainstream media speak as if extraterrestrial life is a virtual certainty.
To read the rest and several reports, click on "Nuts for Aliens".

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

Monday, December 11, 2017

Secular Geologists Mystified by Sheet Sands

In studies of origins, a great deal of attention is given to the historical sciences of geology and paleontology. Most of the fossils are in six megasequences, which present strong evidence for the Genesis Flood. Other aspects of geology are of interest, especially since secular geologists are unable to furnish plausible uniformitarian models and explanations for what is observed.

Sheet sands are a constant problem for secular geology models, but the Genesis Flood models provide a superior explanation for their existence.
Detail of the wind and water-weathered sandstone that forms the
Beehive Formation in the Valley of Fire Nevada State Park
Credit: Alex Demas / US Geological Survey
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
One of the many aspects of geology that mystifies secularists is sheet sands. It may be possible to occasionally write off something unusual, but not these things. They extend over vast areas, and defy uniformitarian explanations. (They cling to their deep time notions, and refuse to acknowledge scientific evidence that the earth is actually much younger than in their philosophies.) Uniformitarian geologists lasso some vague terms to blind us with science, but it's just expensive wording that means, "We ain't got a clue". Once again, biblical creation science Flood models give far more plausible explanations.
Sheet sands are widespread, thin sandstones that blanket large regions of the continents. Most are composed of extremely pure quartz of uniform, well-rounded grains that contain almost no shale. Secular geologists have tried to explain their presence for decades and have failed to develop a satisfactory answer. Their best models invoke “atypical depositional conditions unique to shallow epeiric seas” and “are viewed as sufficiently different from other modern and ancient sedimentary successions that some textbooks treat them as a separate category of stratigraphic unit.”
In other words, not only are the sands hard to explain, they fail to follow uniformitarian expectations. Many of these sheet sandstones extend for hundreds of miles and are just a few tens of feet thick.
To finish reading, click on "Resolving the Sheet Sand Enigma".

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

Saturday, December 9, 2017

Destroying Darwin Deniers

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Although disciples of Darwin pretend that there is no basis for reports that creationists and other Darwin deniers are fired from science and academia, facts show otherwise. Secularists may throw us an occasional "maybe" that there was substance to the dismissal claims of creationists and ID supporters, but they generally say that the wise and noble secular judges were right in dismissing claims.

Persecution and discrimination against those who deny Darwin is increasing
Click for full size (original graphic source unknown)
Persecution of Christians, Intelligent Design supporters, and biblical creationists is on the increase. One of the more famous cases is that of Dr. David Coppedge. Another high-profile case is that of Mark Armitage, who was fired after presenting facts in a peer-reviewed paper regarding dinosaur soft tissue. Armitage prevailed in his lawsuit, which is surprising.

Dr. Jerry Bergman was removed from Bowling Green State University for his creationary views. It happened again! He was asked to resign (effectively fired) as a professor from Northwest State College after 25 years. Those tinhorns make me wonder how they got their jobs, because Dr. Bergman is a prolific author and highly credentialed. What really takes the rag off the bush is that this brilliant and respected author, lecturer, and professor has also completed three weighty volumes in a projected series of five regarding how Darwin deniers are persecuted; they just gave someone with a high profile material for his books! You can listen to his story at this 42-minte podcast, and there are additional links. I have to add, though, that Bob Enyart (the show's host) promotes a heresy called "Open Theism", so I advise against clicking on his theology links.


In related news, Dr. Bergman wrote an article about Dr. Günter Bechly, who was forced to resign after leaving atheism and endorsing Intelligent Design. Darwin's Flying Monkeys© are intolerant of anyone leaving evolutionism or atheism. Their death cult needs to be protected from scrutiny, and anyone who does not ride for the brand with full devotion must be punished. The Intelligent Design movement is not even biblical creation science! Let's take a look at the article:
One recent case is that of the distinguished paleontologist, Dr. Günter Bechly, a world expert on fossil insects, who was forced to resign [a tactful way to say he was fired] as curator for the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany. Then, as a result, he was censored from Wikipedia.  The editors at Wikipedia attempted to cover up their censorship of Günter, a world-class expert on dragonflies, by claiming his heresy on ID had nothing to do with their decision. Instead, they proclaimed the censorship was because he is not “notable” enough to include in their free online encyclopedia.
To read the rest of this article, click on "Change Your Mind on Darwinism, Get Expelled". There are some additional comments below, I'd be much obliged if you'd keep reading.

A frequent propaganda tactic is ridicule. One sidewinder will use ridicule, ad hominem attacks, false thesis arguments, straw man arguments, and more — often in the same paragraph, or even the same sentence. Here, he plagiarized a post from Wikipedia and attempted to sound scientific with psychology, but that is a false thesis and has nothing to do with the reality of the persecution of Christians. He is doing the persecuting, then blaming those he persecutes for objecting, saying that they have a mental illness! A diagnosis of the mental disorder shown below is made by a qualified expert after dealing with a patient, not by an uneducated, anonymous atheopath who is trying to distract from his own wicked actions. (Mayhaps he needs to be examined for what appears to be projection.) His bigotry is given approval by others of his ilk:

Click for full size
Despite the denials of fundamentalist evolutionists and misotheists, persecution of those who doubt, deny, or even question the Bearded Buddha is increasing. For that matter, the persecution of Christians in general is increasing. Keep your heads down, those of you who reject evolutionism. Biblical creationists, y'all need to remember that God is in charge, and they will stand before him one day.

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

Friday, December 8, 2017

Amber and Vampire Hell Ants

Remember the Dracula movie with Bela Lugosi? If you looked into his eyes, he had hypnotic power. The lighting helped, too. Here, we look into the amber and see Linguamyrmex vladi. Scientists got a mite creative there, that last word vladi is based on Vlad Tepes, also known as Vlad Dracul and Vlad the Impaler. He had a nasty way of dealing with enemies, and became part of the inspiration for the Dracula novel and movies.

Although nobody has any idea what the thing called a vampire hell ant actually ate, it had some interesting vertical trap jaw mandibles that are similar to vertical mandibles of ants living today. Did they grab another insect as prey, tip it like Junior's sippy cup and drink bug juice? Not all that likely, really. It may have used it to impale fresh fruit and drink that stuff down like a forerunner of the juice box. I reckon the "vampire hell ant" moniker is just a trifle hyperbolic. Gets your attention, though.

"Vampire hell ant" in amber, no sign of evolution, just design
Linguamyrmex vladi in amber close-up credit: Phillip Barden for www.AntWeb.org
(usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Advocates of atoms-to-ant evolution assign the Burmese amber a date of 99 million years (it must have been on sale, it's usually 100 million years). Of course, dating is based on assumptions and presuppositions that fit the evolutionary narrative. There is evidence of the Master Engineer at work, but nothing resembling evolutionary evidence. That's because even ants were created, but Darwinists detest that fact.
Locked in amber around the world are countless tiny flowers and small animals ranging from insects to lizards. Among these are hell ants—extinct ants with scythe-like jaws that moved upward in a vertical plane rather than horizontally. However fearsome these sound, you might well wonder how such an ant could eat. Detailed images of a newly discovered species of hell ant in Burmese amber may hold the answer.
All living ants—and lots of fossilized ones—have pincer-like mandibles that converge in front of the face. Their mandibles serve many functions—cutting leaves, digging, carrying their young, and ripping off bits of food from either a plant or dead animal. Since no living ants have vertically oriented mandibles, scientists can’t be certain how hell ants used them, but now they have some good clues.
To read the rest, click on "Vampire Hell Ants Preserved in Burmese Amber". BONUS! While we're talking about critters trapped in amber, you can learn about lizards that surprised evolutionists by showing no signs of evolution. Click on "‘Surprising’ lizards in amber". 

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

Thursday, December 7, 2017

Scientism and Free Will

Every once in a while, an atheopath will claim that "an omniscient God negates free will". This shows a blatant special pleading fallacy: imposing a different standard on others than for oneself. Why is this special pleading? Because free will is impossible in a materialistic evolutionary worldview that atheists presuppose! It is also a ridiculous objection because the owhoot is fabricating a simplistic excuse to rebel against the God that he pretends does not exist (Romans 1:18-23, Psalm 14:1).

Why is free will impossible for an evolutionist? Because we are just bundles of chemicals responding to what electrochemical dictate, according to materialists. They are atheists because of their chemistry. The Japanese did not have free will when they bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. Chemistry also "explains" mass murderers, abortionists, faqirs, doctors, philanthropists, biblical creationists — we are all "born that way". So, an atheist has no right to complain about my promoting biblical creation science, if he is consistent in his worldview. If the atheist says something is "wrong", he or she is tacitly denying atheism and standing on the biblical worldview, which makes sense of the preconditions of human experience! For an atheist to object with his simplistic straw man argument about God denying free will, he or she is hypocritical.

Theologians have wrestled with ways of explaining free will for a mighty long time. Calvinists have their explanations, Arminians have their ideas, other groups answer the free will question differently as well. There is even dissent among the ranks of various groups. Since I refuse to identify as Calvinist or Arminian and simply identify myself as a Christian who is a biblical creationist, I am not going to tackle the question. It's too big and beyond the scope of this site, you savvy? Even so, I will say that God is sovereign, and he will not do wicked things because he is a loving God and our Redeemer. Here is a modern English section of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith on free will.

But I will give you some interesting material to read, even though the atheopath who made the complaint that started this discussion has an aversion to learning (Prov. 18:2 ESV), and I don't think he's read any article he's criticized. Learning the truth is frightening to some folks, I reckon. Secular scientists are being inconsistent by insisting against their worldview that free will exists, and then trying to find it. See "Can Scientists Find Free Will?" for more information. Also, I hope you'll read "No Free Will According to Evolution". 

Finally, we come to the article that is being featured here today. Atheists are promoting Scientism (an irrational emphasis on the scientific method as a way of life and a de facto religion). Their Scientism involves rejecting free will, and incorporating nature into our choices. This is a kind of pantheism, which is fitting, since evolution is an ancient pagan pantheistic/animistic religion before Darwin made it into a pseudoscience.
In their new book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow defend scientific determinism . . . They essentially argue that the laws of nature must hold true in all cases without being overridden by divine intervention. Scientific laws must operate without exceptions, except “under a stipulated set of conditions. ”
. . .

If a person begins with scientific determinism and a no-exceptions view of the laws of nature, then it makes sense that he would conclude that free will is illusory. However, this still causes many problems for the Hawking and Mlodinow argument. No doubt they would try to persuade people of the veracity of their view. Presumably this is at least one reason for writing this book. However, if free will is an illusion, what is the point of persuasion? If Hawking and Mlodinow are correct, then a person agrees or disagrees, is persuaded or not persuaded, only because he was scientifically determined to do so. Hawking and Mlodinow hold their view and wrote their book only because they were scientifically determined to do so.
To read the rest (you have a choice in the matter, you know), click on "The Grand Design and Free Will". Also, for an article on how evolutionary psychologists actively deny free will (which is consistent with evolutionism), click on "Evolutionary Psychologists Deny Their Own Minds". And an interesting parody by ApologetiX is below.

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

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Evolutionary Racism Against — Neanderthals?

Once again, I want to emphasize a couple of things. First, informed biblical creationists do not believe in "races", as evinced in Acts 17:26 and the fact that the Bible does not use the word "races". Also, we do not say that evolution causes racism. Racism has existed for millennia, but Darwinism has been used to make it scientifically respectable. If you study on it, the ones making the "science" thought darker-skinned people were of inferior evolution and Caucasians were superior. And before someone from Fallacy Central puts words in my mouth: no, being an evolutionist does not mean you're a racist.

The evolution narrative has been proven false, Neanderthals were fully human
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Zarateman
There are no races, but there are people groups. But since "people group-ism" is a mite awkward, I'll use the more widely understood and less syllabic word racist for the purpose of discussion.

Despite evolutionary mythology, scientists have reluctantly admitted that Neanderthals were indeed fully human. (See the links at "Losing Face to Neanderthals" for more information.) Nonetheless, some evolutionists (like this atheopath) are still showing their racist tendencies — the same attitudes against people groups are reflected against Neanderthals, whose genes many of us share. Yep, those folks were created, not evolved. Just like you and me. So spare us the historical racism, old son.
The evidence shows that Neanderthals were fully human, having shared genetic information with us. Why, then, do Darwin Supremacists continue to treat them as “other” than human?

One clear case (among many) where paleoanthropologists have been totally wrong has been in the classification of Neanderthals as a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis. As pointed out before, this amounts to a case of historical racism. For years, there have been growing signs that these ancient humans were just as intelligent as modern humans. The clincher in the last few years, though, is that we all have Neanderthal genes in us. Clearly, any individual capable of interbreeding and carrying on fertile offspring over generations counts as a member of the same species.

The following headlines show, however, that evolutionists are reluctant to give up the iconic images of “Neanderthal Man” that have decorated evolutionary books for generations, portraying our brethren as dark-skinned subhumans not as bright as Europeans.
To read the startling information, click on "Neanderthal Racism Continues". Also, since skin color has been used for racism, y'all might be interested in some genetic research. For this, click on "Skin Color Research Confirms Biblical Narrative". While I'm at it, I'll offer up to you this post, "The Biblical Response to Racism".

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

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

Engineered Blind Cavefish

Some time ago, I posted about how Darwin's disciples are getting things backward. The dogma of universal common ancestor evolution holds that organisms develop vertically, becoming increasingly complex. Evolutionists claim that the loss of traits is an example of evolution, such as the loss of eyes in the blind cavefish. That'll be the day!

Blind cavefish epigenetics biology illustrates skill of the Master Engineer

Research and a bit of thinking shows that there is quite a bit involved in the loss of eyes in the cavefish. An epigenetic process is involved, which illustrates the skill of the Master Engineer in making adaptation possible. Unfortunately, materialists remain willingly blind to the Creator who will one day hold everyone accountable.
How do fish with normal eyes in well-lit surface-water environments transform into blind cavefish, and should this loss of structures and functionality really be labeled evolution? The sophisticated mechanism involved in this transformation has dismayed biologists who hoped this would somehow showcase evolution. New results deflate such hopes, and point to a more accurate and creation-friendly model of radical blind cavefish changes.

As it turns out, the repression of eye development in cavefish is simply part of an overall strategy to conserve energy in dark and nutrient-deficient caves. In blind cavefish, eye development gets repressed and chemical, pressure, and touch sense organs get enhanced.
To read the rest, click on "Blind Cavefish Illuminate Divine Engineering".

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

Monday, December 4, 2017

Geologists Puzzled by Planation Surfaces

When someone says mountain top, you probably picture a pointy thing, maybe with snow on top. Not all are like that. A feature that frustrates secular geologists is planation. This is where a mountain surface is flat for the most part and extends over a large area, and there are many of them worldwide. Using uniformitarian doctrine ("the present is the key to the past", processes we see today remain essentially unchanged from long ago), these geologists are unable to explain planation (no ex-planation). After all, it doesn't seem to be happening today, so that's not helpful for them.

Secular geologists have difficulty explaining planation surfaces, but creationary geologists have plausible models to explain them
Planation at Bayanul, Kazakhstan credit: Wikimedia Commons / Ekamaloff
Of course, secularists (and religious owlhoots who deny Genesis) reject creationary explanations out of hand. This is indeed unfortunate, since "science" today is made of people who want to protect their paychecks and paradigms rather than learn that the Genesis Flood models give reasonable explanations for much of what is observed in geology today, which further indicates a young earth.
Planation surfaces are a common feature across the earth. But secular researchers often find these surfaces perplexing because it is not unusual to find them at the top of rugged mountains (figure 1):
 “Extensive tracts of low-gradient topography in steep mountain ranges, either forming rangetop plateaus or terraced pediments on range flanks are widely distributed in mountain belts around the world.”
Calvet et al.’s survey of these flat-topped mountains establishes their frequency across the globe. Calvet et al. also point out that they are even found atop some of the most active and rapidly eroding mountains on the planet.
To finish reading, click on "The uniformitarian puzzle of mountaintop planation surfaces". You may also be interested in a related post, "Escarpments and the Genesis Flood".

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

Saturday, December 2, 2017

Dwarf Planet Haumea — It Has a Nice Ring to It

Our solar system has many oddities, and more are being discovered. Part of the problem for secular astronomers and cosmologists is that celestial objects are recalcitrant regarding speculations regarding the formation of the solar system. Today's instance involves a dwarf planet way out yonder, beyond the orbits of Neptune and Pluto.

Solar system objects defy deep time views, and Haumea is puzzling in several ways, including a ring
Illustration credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
This maverick was called 2003 EL61 for a spell, then was given the name of Haumea, after the Hawaiian goddess of childbirth. (No, I don't get it, either.) Its largest equatorial diameter is 1,960 miles (1,218 km).

"Why did you say largest, Cowboy Bob?"

Because Haumea is... well, elongated. Kind of like an egg.

It also has a very rapid rotation, each day lasting about four hours, and it has a couple of moons. There are a few artists' conceptions (such as this one), but a decent photo is hard to find. Haumea is a trans-Neptunian object, a classification also given to our former ninth planet, Pluto. It is also considered to be a part of the Kuiper belt, a disk-shaped region containing some rocks and ice objects, but nowhere near as many as been theorized.

The latest news about this happy, bashful dwarf planet is that is has a ring. Like so many other discoveries, that's not supposed to happen in an old solar system. Secular astronomers had enough problems with signs of youth at Saturn, now the ring thing. Some tinhorns are desperate to deny evidence of a young solar system, even saying that the interstellar object 1I ‘Oumuamua is the "death knell for young earth creationism" based on conjectures and assumptions that support their preconceptions. (Really? One thing can overturn the body of work, thousands of books, videos, articles, by biblical creation scientists and others, and destroy the Word of God? Learn to think, for crying out loud.) This denial of evidence for recent creation, and affirmation of nothing special, happens a great deal, and some can be seen from the supposed joy and excitement of the scientists over observations that refute their fundamentally flawed worldview in this article:
You can’t declare something old just because your worldview requires it to be old.

New Scientist declared in bold print, “Distant dwarf planet near Pluto has a ring that no one expected.” Reporter Ken Croswell, however, never explains why it was unexpected to find a prominent ring around the dwarf planet Haumea, located about 2 billion miles beyond the orbit of Pluto. When surprised by something that shouldn’t last for billions of years around a body smaller than Pluto, one strategy astronomers employ is to look excited:
To read the rest (and a few other items that put burrs under the saddles of secularists), click on "Ring Around the Dwarf Planet Says ‘I’m Young’".

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

Friday, December 1, 2017

Remembering the Cro-Magnon Folks

Seems that with all the attention given to the accumulation of evidence that Neanderthals were fully human, those folks called Cro-Magnon seemed to have fallen out of favor as members of the human cave man parade. They used to be in the textbooks. There are a few of reasons we don't hear much about those skilled hunters and artists much anymore.

Cro-Magnons, like Neanderthals, were fully human ancient people groups
Photo of Lascaux cave painting credit: Wikimedia Commons / Prof saxx
Cro-Magnons were named after an area in France where some of there skeletons were discovered. Sure, they were "cave men" at times. Let me ask you something. Does living in a cave make you "primitive"? Nope. Like other people, Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon people groups were resourceful and used the shelter caves provided. (You may want to give it a try yourself.) Since their times on Earth overlapped, mayhaps Cro-Magnons, Neanderthals, and "modern" humans shared some living spaces? I'm just speculating, though.

The hands at the Darwin Ranch lost interest in the Cro-Magnon people when it was realized that they were fully human. So, instead of playing the hand they were dealt, Darwinists essentially dealt from the bottom of the deck by referring to Cro-Magnons as "Early Modern Humans". Gotta keep some semblance of the evolutionary narrative, don'tcha know. These humans of long ago were created like us, but had some physical characteristics that would not set them apart in a crowd. Also, if bigger heads means greater intelligence, they were smarter than us.
Cro-Magnons lived in rock shelters and hunted wooly mammoths, but that doesn’t mean they were becoming human—they were fully human like us. These people were skilled artists and left exquisite carvings and paintings. Archaeologists haven’t found any hint of crude scratches or splashes from some imagined pre-human. Cro-Magnons made jewelry from teeth, shells, and tusks. They painted and carved colorful pictures of their prey, sometimes with graphic mortal wounds, on apparently sacred cave walls. They used earth minerals, charcoal, and animal fat to craft their paints, which they carefully applied as liquids or powders.
To read the full article, click on "Who Were Cro-Magnon People?"

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

Thursday, November 30, 2017

Logic and Definitions

Back in the olden days while studying contract law, one thing was frequently emphasized: for a contract to be valid, there has to be a meeting of the minds. That is, both parties need to understand the terms of the agreement. Ever sign a legal document or read the terms of service for many products online? Words and expressions are defined, often in excruciating detail. This is foundational to reduce confusion.

Defining terms is foundational in serious discussions and reduces logical fallacies such as conflation
Credit: Pixabay / PDPics
Ambiguity can be fun. Some owlhoot challenged me to a debate while I was stuffing feathers into a pillow. So, I threw down on him. "Throw down" can be literal, or the colloquialism for engaging in a challenge. It may have originated in days of old when knights were bold, and one would throw down the gauntlet when issuing a challenge. 

We don't need confusion on terms when trying to understand or debate a subject. I disremember when and about what, but I was having an argument with a guy for parts of two days because we each had a different definition in mind. Turns out, we were actually in agreement!

When dealing with serious issues (including contracts), ambiguity is not fun. In discussions on origins, terms need to be defined to minimize uncertainty. More than once, this child has been told, "Such and so is the scientific definition of evolution", but those who made the declaration had differed on the scientific definition. Many words have multiple meanings, and evolution is one of those. For that matter, take a gander at the photo, above: the word definition shows parts of two very different meanings. 

Even the word Christian can be vague. I heard an atheist call in to a Christian radio program and say that he was a Christian because he liked some of the things Jesus said! You can have people from various religious sects, or none at all, identifying themselves as Christians but with different definitions of the word. Indeed, Richard Weikart wrote in Hitler's Religion: The Twisted Beliefs That Drove the Third Reich that the German religious landscape in the early days of the Nazi regime was disparate, often having little or nothing to do with established definitions of the word Christian.

Recently, Dr. Albert Mohler specified the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Marriage has been redefined by many to fit political and social sentiments, away from God's design as understood by people for millennia.

Some sidewinders get so intent on convincing others that molecules-to-musicologist evolution is true that they conflate (pull a bait-and-switch) on definitions. F'rinstance, a virus showed evolution, therefore, evolution is true. Not hardly! The "evolution" the virus exhibited was a variation, and that use of the word was conflated to confuse someone into accepting universal common ancestor evolution. See what I'm doing here? Distinguishing between the terms, that's what I'm doing. Conflation is a logical fallacy (as is it's close relative, equivocation). That, and other logical fallacies can occur when words are not properly defined. Also, keep an eye out for when atheists and anti-creationists conflate science with evolution. Those of us who reject Darwinism are called "science deniers" (which is a lie) because they loaded terms and did themselves some conflating.

As I've said before, creationists need to be aware of logical fallacies. One reason is to see when someone is being deceptive or manipulative, and the other is to honor Christ. After all, we need to present our best apologetic and use what God has given us.
One of the most important tools in logical reasoning is a dictionary.  Correct reasoning requires that we use words properly – according to their meaning.  Failure to use words correctly often results in miscommunication, but it can also result in errors in reasoning.  One of the most common logical errors in debates over origins concerns the definition of a single word.  And the error can be resolved by understanding how definitions work and by consulting a dictionary.

The definition of a word is a statement or series of statements that explains the word’s meaning.  There are four types of legitimate definitions.  And there is a fifth type of “definition” that is fallacious because it does not truly describe a word’s meaning.  It is critical to understand not only the definition of the words used in any argument, but also to know which type of definition is in use.  All of the four legitimate types of definitions have one thing in common: they explain the meaning of a word.
I'd be much obliged if you would read the rest of this important article. To do this, just click on "Logic: The Importance of Definitions".

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

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

C.S. Lewis and Evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

C.S. "Jack" Lewis was born on November 29, 1989. Originally baptized in the Church of Ireland, which is Anglican, he fell away from his faith and became an atheist. Lewis was reluctant to relinquish atheism, but realized that Christianity is true. Jack was (and is) highly regarded as a leading apologist for the Christian faith. He wrote many fiction and nonfiction books, and most are available today. There are also scores of biographies of this complex figure.

Radcliffe Camera, Oxford / William Leighton Leitch
While Lewis appealed to many people with his intellectual approaches to Christianity and his refutations of atheism, his theology was rather weak. Apparently, he did not want to offend anyone, and kept his scope broad — too broad, in my view. Like William Lane Craig, he did not argue from and for the Bible, but seemed to argue for theism in general. In addition, C.S. Lewis seemed to affirm the almost-Roman Catholic doctrines of the Anglican church (such as transubstantiationism), and did not take firm stands on doctrine. Weak theology tends to render apologetics impuissant. One can be intellectually persuaded to believe in the existence God, which is essentially Deism, but arguments without Scripture tend to produce a theist who is just as lost as any atheist. I fully believe that if he had given more consideration to being theologically accurate, and had learned presuppositional apologetics (his apologetics were more classical or evidential), this brilliant man would have been even more powerful in his presentations.

In a similar manner to his generic apologetic method, Jack was never a fan of Darwinism; he even had trouble with it before his conversion to Christianity. (Ironic, because theistic evolutionists and atheists sometimes use him as a kind of celebrity appeal to authority to promote evolutionism.) However, he confronted Scientism and naturalism, which were philosophical foundations for evolution. Lewis was unwilling to take on evolution directly because he thought it would detract from his main work in apologetics, and because he felt that he did not have the scientific qualifications. This is indeed unfortunate, since Genesis is the foundation of all major Christian doctrines, and you do not have to be a scientist to notice errors in reasoning. You need logic and facts, and he had those available. Unfortunately, Lewis did not have our advantage of many biblical creation science ministries available online, which is a tremendous blessing for us.

I found it intensely interesting that Jack made some remarks about Scientism and Darwinism, including the rabid following that those belief systems had back then. He described what is happening today, and almost predicted how intolerance for nay-sayers would increase. Evolutionary devotion and intolerance of contrary views has dramatically increased in the decades that passed since Lewis' time, and I think if he could see what is happening now, he would not be surprised.

Dr. Jerry Bergman has stated that C.S. Lewis would probably be a proponent of the Intelligent Design movement. ID itself is non-biblical and only seeks to refute atheistic evolution and has adherents from various religious and non-religious persuasions. Biblical creation science uses ID arguments, but does not divorce them from theology. For these reasons, I think Dr. Bergman was quite correct that Lewis would be an ID supporter.

Certain vagaries in his writings led many people to consider him a theistic evolutionist. Citing from various works (and some evolutionists blatantly misquoted him) could support such a contention. Like all people, his views developed over time. What could be considered his most devastating essay on Darwinism, "The Funeral of a Great Myth", was published posthumously in Christian Reflections. (He was a bit premature with a eulogy for Darwinism as a myth, as the social aspects have become increasingly standardized in business, culture, and even religion.) In this essay, as well as through a careful analysis of his writings, it is clear that C.S. Lewis was definitely not a theistic evolutionist.

Here are some resources for your edification:
I hope these resources will help you regarding the attitudes of C.S. Lewis about evolution. He was no friend of Darwinism.

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

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Secularist Laments Lagging Evolutionary Indoctrination

Although evolutionists have maintained a stranglehold on educational indoctrination in many Western countries for decades, some get on the prod that their conditioning is not yet complete. Contrary views of origins are actively suppressed, and even though secular educators claim to encourage critical thinking, only the sanitized versions of evolution are presented and inconvenient facts are omitted in government educational systems. That is one reason Question Evolution Day is important.

Despite the stranglehold that secularists have on educatioinal systems, some people reject evolutionism and think for themselves
Modified from a photo at Freeimages, original from Jeramey Jannene (click graphic for larger image)
In the United States and other Western countries, fascism is opposed in theory. Many people consider fascist a useful pejorative, projecting it on people they dislike (often without knowing the meaning of the word), and then employing fascistic philosophies and practices, including violence and leftist propaganda — sort of like when the Nazis burned down the Reichstag and blamed others for their own actions. You may be surprised to learn that atheism and evolutionism are strongly linked to fascist philosophies (see "Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism" for more). Any totalitarian leader worth his or her salt, whether fascist, further left communist, or others, knows the value of indoctrinating the young early in life.

On a related side note, in early November, 2017, Canada's Governor General mocked the beliefs of many people who do not hold to the pronouncements of what amounts to Scientism and the secular science industry. She equated those of us who reject origins by "natural processes" with believers in alternative healing methods, devotees of astrology, essentially all religious views, and so on. I recommend this analysis by Dr. Mohler on the November 15 edition of The Briefing.

One sneaky trick is to say that secular public education, which controls students for several hours each day and actively promotes evolutionism while opposing any hint of evidence for creation, is good and right. However, when Christian parents and others follow biblical commands to teach the young, we are "indoctrinating". If atheists didn't have double standards, they would have none at all. For example, the movie Genesis: Paradise Lost was attacked by a sneering atheist (click for larger image):

Click for larger
An important part of indoctrination is opposition to critical thinking — as we frequently see in evolutionism. Secularists don't cotton to anything even hinting of the  Master Engineer. This hatred includes the Intelligent Design movement, but especially biblical creation science.

Effective propaganda often relies on logical fallacies. These sidewinders commence to using equivocation (such as equating science and evolution, or science and anthropogenic climate change), arbitrary assertions of opinions as scientific facts, blatant lying (creationists, ID proponents, or those who reject anthropocentric climate change are "science deniers"), demonizing through deceptive misapplications of psychological terminology, redefining words, and more. 

Moving from those deceptions, they can make a common enemy based on fallacies and falsehoods, such as when Hitler called the Jews a common enemy of Germany to help unify the people under his demonic leadership. Now creationists are "science deniers", and hinder scientific advancement. Therefore, we are the common enemy, so they can persecute the opposition and pretend that we are mentally ill when we point it out. See how that works? That's who angry secularists are and how they operate, and then claim that they are concerned for the good of all. Not hardly!

Despite the uphill battle against propaganda and deception, apparently some people think for themselves. Das ist streng verboten!
Evolutionists have had complete domination of public school science for decades. They can’t believe that a sizable percentage still don’t accept evolution.

Ryan Dunk at Syracuse University is dumbfounded. He said on his blog last September,
Despite over a half century of education reforms aimed at better science instruction, nearly 40 percent of Americans reject the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution.
In both articles, Dunk commits numerous logical fallacies and propaganda tactics as if taken right out of the NCSE talking points:
To read the rest of this enlightening article, click on "Darwinians Baffled that Students Refuse To Be Indoctrinated".

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