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

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

The Reformation of Peer Review

An organization can begin well, but lose its moorings and drift from its purpose. It happened 500 years ago when the Roman Catholic religious system became corrupt, and Martin Luther was the focal point of the Protestant Reformation. Similarly, the secular science industry's peer review process is due for a reformation.

The peer review process is in great need of a reformation
Credit: Modified from a picture at Freeimages by Arjun Kartha
Movements of any consequence seldom have a single point of origin. The Protestant Reformation had been growing for some time, and some of the seeds were planted by John Wycliffe. Martin Luther had a disquiet and realized that the Roman Catholic power system was not true to its original purpose, having become a corrupt power and money system. (I reckon that when unbelievers use the remark that religion is to control people, they could very well be thinking of the Catholic system, and generalizing that it is typical of all sects that have the tag "Christian".) That church had not become wicked overnight, nor did the Reformation occur in a short period. Indeed, the Reformation had a strong, positive influence in science.

There has been increasing frustration in the secular science industry with the corruption in the peer review process. Real peer review is important and necessary, but favoritism (emphasizing evolutionary "discoveries"), suppressing competition (especially creation science), ostracizing contrary views, and more have rendered the process almost worthless. Bad science and bad peer review ride for the same brand.

Secularists want to reform their system, but to what extent? The need to give the science industry an overhaul is admitted. They do not have a consistent moral foundation such as Christians have in the Bible, and many think that naturalism expressed in evolution is the source of morality and ethics. Having people like that in charge of reforming secular peer review seems akin to having a Christian reformation to which the Pope agrees — as long as he stays in charge.
The ostensible gold standard of scientific reliability, peer review, looks more like fool’s gold in many cases. Reforming it will require an overhaul, not just corrections.
Evolutionists sometimes hammer creationists with peer review. They sneer, ‘Point me to some of your peer-reviewed work and I might begin to take it seriously.” This attitude overlooks a number of flawed assumptions, among them: (1) that peer review elevates a paper to a higher plane of scientific reliability, (2) that creationists do not have peer review (they do, but most often in their own journals), (3) that evolutionary journals would treat creationist submissions fairly (which they do not; they are excluded a priori), and (4) that reviewers are unbiased saints without ulterior motives or flaws. Another faulty assumption is that peer review has always been a criterion of science, when in fact, many honored works, including Newton’s Principia and (ironically) Darwin’s Origin of Species (touted by atheists as the greatest scientific work ever penned), were not peer reviewed. Peer review has had a spotty history, only in recent decades following any kind of regular protocol.
To finish reading, click on "Corrupt Peer Review Needs a Reformation". ADDENDUM: Speaking of suppressing creation science, an anti-creationist bigot (who cannot even be bothered to read the material he mocks, since it's the secularists who are clamoring for change) is approving of bigotry in the secular science industry:

Click for larger. Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes.

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

Monday, October 30, 2017

Is Altruism Controlled by Microbes?

For the most part, the concept of vertical (molecules-to-microbiologist) evolution is naturalistic. This means there is no room for the Creator, purpose, or anything else. It also means that atheistic empiricism and materialism cannot explain the necessary preconditions of human experience. They cannot explain even the existence of love, compassion, anger, laws of logic, and other intangible things that people experience every day.

Evolutionists attempt to explain altruism through intestinal bacteria
Anaerobic bacteria image credit: Argonne National Laboratory
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Even though it's illogical, materialists attempt to explain the intangible through natural means, including evolution. You've probably remarks about someone being irritable because of digestive difficulties, which may indicate unpleasant microbe activities. It is also known that ants can be zombified in a way, taken over by a parasitic fungus. So, maybe our activities are affected to some extent by those tiny bugs inside us.

Altruism, like morality itself, is a big concept, and quite a bit different than being cranky due to stomach bacteria. Some evolutionists try to explain altruism as a desire to help the group. Of course, this is complicating the question, assuming evolution is true, and also assuming that there is an evolutionary desire to help the group — neither of which can be proven scientifically. However, they still have to try and deny that our Creator gave us things like altruism; they want it to be driven by the microbes inside us.

Altruism—selfless sacrificial behavior to help others—is a mystery to evolutionists. In a truly evolutionary worldview, there must be a naturalistic explanation for all that exists. So how did altruism evolve?
The evolutionist asserts that survival of the fittest—by selecting from an almost infinite array of randomly generated natural options—is responsible for all that exists, ever did, or ever will. And that includes not just the physical bodies of all living things but all of their abilities, instincts, intellects, and behaviors. Morality, in that worldview, is nothing more than the evolved preference of people for certain advantageous behaviors over others. Is morality a mere product of biology, perhaps even of the microbes that live inside us? A group of scientists at Tel Aviv University thinks so. They propose that bacteria in our intestines may be responsible for human altruism.
To read the rest, click on "Why We Help: Do Our Microbes Make Us Do It?"

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

Saturday, October 28, 2017

Science and Bible Interpretation

As Christians who believe the Bible and also use science, creationists are often challenged by mockers to explain biblical passages that appear to deny established scientific facts. Scripture does not contain anything that actually defies scientific facts, and it certainly does not call on us to deny observable science. Dishonest atheists often use the logical fallacy of conflation, saying that since we deny evolution, we deny science. Evolution is historical in nature, and has numerous flaws; it is not a scientific fact. Still, the question remains: how do we deal with apparent conflicts between science and the Bible? 

Geocentric view not found in Bible
Planetary Orbits, Andreas Cellanius, 1660
The same owlhoots that call creationists "science deniers" for rejecting evolution also go to the stables and saddle up the old swayback of a falsehood that Christians persecuted Galileo because he taught true science (the heliocentric view, Earth moves around the sun), which supposedly conflicted with what the Bible teaches (the geocentric view that Earth is stationary). This claim about Galileo is false, his main conflicts were with the prevailing science of the day, as well as personal. 

It is possible to get a geocentric view from Scripture, but it requires reading into the text, ignoring the contexts of culture, time, linguistics, immediate context, genre, and so on. In reality, there is no biblical substance for a geocentric view.
Modern science was founded by Christians who believed that a reasonable and consistent Creator designed a world that was itself intelligible and reasonable. Apparent conflicts between operational science and scripture are rare. In those rare cases where there is a dispute, both our understanding of scripture and the scientific results must be reviewed. Since God is the author of scripture and nature, a harmonious understanding that aligns with both operational science and scripture without compromising the integrity of either must exist and can usually be found.
On the other hand there is historical or forensic science. Here we are usually dealing with unrepeatable past events like the creation of the universe, the origin of life, or Noah’s Flood. We are not able to experiment directly with the event in question. Hence this type of science gathers all the relevant information in the present and then makes an inference to the best explanation. This type of science is not as reliable as operational science in discerning truth. This is especially true when the scientist involved disallows the best data available, the historical record of the Bible.
To read the entire article, click on "Creation Hermeneutics: The Role of Science".

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

Friday, October 27, 2017

The Controversial Angkor Wat Stegosaurus Carving

This is a difficult article for me to present. Not because I have a problem with it, but I got all het up about the article and want to talk about it too much and spoil the main thing for you. So, a bit of restraint on my part is in order.

Angkor Wat stegosaurus carving is examined

Way over yonder down Cambodia way is a cluster of ancient Buddhist temples and monasteries. Some of them are huge. One of the most famous is the Angkor Wat, and it warrants our attention because of some carvings that look like a stegosaurus. It is understandable for people to say some thing like, "What is that doing there?"

According to deep time presuppositions, it cannot be a stegosaurus because evolution. That is, those critters supposedly died off about 65 million Darwin years ago, long before humans roamed the earth. Because of their assumptions, the carving is dismissed out of hand; the secularistically biased Wikipedia wrote them off, "...however the carving does not represent a living stegosaur but instead either a rhinoceros or a boar and the supposed plates are believed to be a leafy background." Oh, please! Did you people even look at the pictures? Wikipedia and elsewhere, excuses are abundant.

Biblical creationists have a much different interpretation, believing that dinosaurs and humans shared this here planet for a spell, such as described in the Bible and historical accounts. Remember, before the word dinosaur was invented, they were called dragons.

Creationist David Woetzel got himself a look-see at the temple. He considers some of the history, culture, artistic sylings, and other contexts related to the images. Some of the objections by skeptics are refuted as well.
Bas-relief artwork at Cambodia’s Angkor Wat temple, Ta Prohm, appears to depict a dinosaur. Though the engraving is readily recognizable as “stegosaur-like,” this dinosaurian interpretation of the engraving has been criticized because of the unrealistically large head and the absence of tail spikes. Moreover, it has been suggested that the “plates” are merely decorative flourishes or background foliage. I personally examined the Ta Prohm artwork, took depth measurements and compared the dinosaurian depiction to the many other temple engravings. I came away satisfied that the objections can be adequately answered. Moreover, I believe there is a second stegosaurus carving in the portico of the temple. My hypothesis is that the ancient artists were seeking to model domesticated stegosaurids, dinosaurs that were still living and known at the time of the temple construction.
I'd be much obliged if y'all would read the rest of this heavily illustrated article by clicking on "The Stegosaur Engravings at Ta Prohm". Some nice images in this video:

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

Thursday, October 26, 2017

Argonauts on the Fast Shell

There are two very similar mollusks, the chambered nautilus and the argonaut (which is often called the "paper nautilus" because of the female's paper-thin eggcase). In ancient Greek legends, Jason took fifty men to find the golden fleece on a ship called the Argo, so they were argonauts. This relative of the octopus was thought to sail in its own way. See how that works? People thought they stole the shells, the wicked little pirates, but no, they own the shells.

Argonauta argo, Comingio Merculiano, 1896
People have been baffled by the argonaut for a long time, but gradually, many of its secrets have been revealed. It uses a form of jet propulsion, and actively scoops air to control buoyancy. I should have said she, because only the females have the shells. Males were unknown until the 19th century, and being exceptionally small is a contributing factor to their lack of discovery. Reproduction is something that is quite unique. The argonaut is yet another example of the Master Engineer's skill, and frustrating to evolutionists.
The delicate shell of the argonaut, also known as the ‘paper nautilus’, has long featured in art, architecture, pottery and jewellery. Finding them washed up on the shore, sometimes with the octopus-like resident still inside, people since the ancient Greeks have speculated about what the shell might be for.
Aristotle proposed that the shell functioned as a boat, allowing the argonaut to sail on the water surface. ‘Argonaut’ means sailor (Greek ‘nautilus’, ναυτίλος) on the Argo (the ship of Greek mythology). The idea that argonauts raise their flanged dorsal tentacles as sails to catch the wind was widely accepted for over 2,000 years. But no-one ever observed them doing it.
To read the rest, click on "Amazing argonauts — Scientists finally discover how the female argonaut really uses its shell".

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

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Beetle Baffles Evolutionists

According to proponents of vertical (universal common ancestor) evolution, the simplest life forms are in the oldest rock layers, and then things became more advanced. This story is built on assumptions, and paleontologists are constantly finding fossils in the wrong order, and critters that "astonish" them. Happens a lot, really.

Beetle fossil astonishes evolutionists by looking "modern"
Credit: Clker clip art
Papa Darwin called things that appeared to be extinct but are doing right well in the here and now "living fossils". Seems like we have something that may qualify. A beetle that is 300 million Darwin years old shows all sorts of features that its fully modern counterparts exhibit. So, evolutionists are amazed. They wouldn't be having these problems if they realized that God's Word is true, evolution is false, and the world was created recently. Fossils like this happened quickly in the Genesis Flood, not gradually over zillions of years. Then all the evidence would line up nicely for them. Unfortunately, materialists would rather believe lies rather than the truth. It's their nature.
A newly discovered bug—a beetle—has really bugged some Darwinists. As explained in a report based on a study by Friedrich-Schiller-Universitaet scientists in Jena Germany, the half centimeter-long beetle that closely resembles a modern beetle is “currently causing astonishment among both entomologists and paleontologists.” The beetle, one of the oldest known beetles ever discovered, “is throwing a completely new light on the earliest developments in this group of insects.” The report, published in the current issue of the leading scientific journal titled the Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, is about a fossilized beetle found in a former marshland in Belmont, Australia.
To read the entire article, click on "A 300 Million-Year-Old Fully Modern Beetle Causes Astonishment".

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

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Getting Behind in a Facial Recognition Study

Looks like the hands at the Darwin Ranch have been overworked, moonlighting at the new propaganda mill over near Fort Defiance. I say that because they seem to have been gnawing on a mess of peyote buttons again. And I say that because of the outlandish "research" being conducted using the ever-present circular reasoning: to prove evolution, you assume it's true. Then they mix in some more strange assumptions and bad logic. Ain't working, Pilgrim.

Chimps recognize rear ends, nutty evolutionists think this means human facial recognition evolved
Credit: Pixabay / 1447441
Just a moment for a side note. Proponents of molecules-to-monkey evolution get on the prod when someone says that they believe we evolved from apes. To get into semantics, they believe we evolved from a common ancestor, the lineages for apes and humans having diverged way back when. Then they prop up the idol of failed transitional form Lucy, an Australopithecus afarensis (Latin for "Southern ape from Afar", because scientists like dead languages out of tradition). Proposed missing links look mighty apelike, and chimpanzees are presumed to be our close evolutionary cousins, so Darwin's disciples can pull in their claws a mite when dealing with inexact phrasing, okey dokey?

Assuming vertical (universal common ancestor) evolution to be true, and chimps are our cousins, they commenced to doing a facial recognition study. In involves studying the way chimpanzees recognize each others' sit bones.

"Sit bones, Cowboy Bob?"

You know. Keister. Fanny. Hindquarters. Tokus. Backside. So, a study of chimp buttock recognition was used to try and explain how humans evolved the ability to recognize faces. Make silly claims, claim evolution, and get paid grant money. Doesn't need to be demonstrable science, either, and the nonsense even gets reported in news media. That's how it works. The truth is really what makes sense: we were created fully operational and mature from the beginning.
Human brains come specially wired to recognize faces. Where did that innate wiring come from? Two psychologists finagled a fantasy answer that shows how crazy evolution-based reasoning can get. Their conclusion, oddly enough, involves chimpanzee rear ends.
We perceive faces quite differently from how we see other objects. We process the individual features of most items to recognize what they are and what they mean, but we recognize a face all at once. That way we can quickly gather subtle communication clues from facial expressions during conversations and other interactions.
Don't fall behind. To read the rest, click on "Facial Recognition Study Misses the Bottom Line".

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

Monday, October 23, 2017

Silicon Plays Well with Others

As carbon is to living things, silicon is to rocks. Silicate minerals comprise most of the rocks on Earth, and silicon is extremely compliant. Carbon wanted to have a party and invited other elements. The noble gasses remained aloof, what with being noble and all. The fun started when silicon showed up, since it mixes well with a passel of other minerals.

Garnet is one of many silicate minerals our Creator provided for our use
The garnet gemstone has silica in its composition. Credit: Morguefile / arien
Silicon is plentiful, and its ability to combine with other elements gives us a tremendous variety of shapes and colors in rocks. More than that, our Creator engineered silicon so we could use it in many applications and improve our earthly lives. Not just function, but our viewing pleasure.
So why do minerals have so many different shapes and colors? The answer tells us a lot about God’s love and care for us. He created a small set of basic building blocks, out of which the earth could provide the amazing variety of minerals we need to build places to live and grace our lives with beautiful gems.
The marvelous stability and interlocking properties of minerals, which have such an amazing variety of applications—from the yellow paint on our kitchen walls to the glass in our windows—point clearly to the handiwork of the Creator, who “formed the earth . . . to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18 ESV).
To read the rest of the article (and get a lesson in basic chemistry), click on "Shape-Shifting Silicon".

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

Saturday, October 21, 2017

How Biblical Creationists Are Refuted

Or, "How Do I Refute Thee? Let Me Count the Ways..." 

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

As we have seen numerous time on this site alone, anti-creationists want to debunk what we have to say. These self-appointed social justice warriors go on search-and-destroy missions, attacking creationary sites in their efforts to protect "science". In reality, they are attempting to protect evolutionism from rational scrutiny. We get a boatload of them at The Question Evolution Project. What follows involves my own observations as well as material that I recommend for your edification.

Credit: Freeimages / gestoerte

Darwin's Crusaders

Science thrives on information and discussion, but anti-creationists not only oppose free speech, but free thought. Darwinism must be guarded, lest people see it for what it really is. Many of these folks fancy themselves as crusaders for science, falsely calling those who disagree with evolution "liars", egos telling them that they are vitally important to their cause. Most are not taken seriously, and are only making a small splash in a puddle, having no impact on the ocean of truth that biblical creationists present. 

Anti-creationists seldom merit interaction, since they present atheistic and evolutionary talking points, nor do they evince logical thinking. They do like bullying and intimidation, though. Sometimes, they slap leather with uninformed creationists, but Darwin's crusaders are seldom willing to engage credentialed creationary scientists on equal footing. Perhaps it is because the run-of-the-mill atheist on the internet is not all that well educated. More likely it is because they are suppressing the truth (Romans 1:18-23).

Bad Reasoning from Atheists and Evolutionists

Critics of both creation science and Christianity itself are known to use many logical fallacies, even combining several into one statement. Mockery is obligatory. Criticisms leveled at us are common at anti-creationist web sites and forums, and those are parroted by Darwin's disciples in comments on creationary Pages, forums, their own Pages and forums, and so on. Not a whole passel of original thought happening there.

One reason creationists emphasize critical thinking skills, which includes knowing how to play Spot the Fallacy®, is so we're not buffaloed by antagonists (who often have no credibility outside their own camp). Another reason to learn how to think properly is so we can be more exact and God-honoring in our own apologetic.

One of the most common is the stunningly fallacious claim that, because we oppose evolution or anthropogenic climate change, we are "science deniers". (Related to this is the manufactured "war between science and religion" — note the conflation between science and evolution or climate change). This is simply playing to their base and appealing to emotions. It is often the case that when something hateful is said, it is applauded by their fellow travelers, no matter how ridiculous, because being united in hate is important to them. Romans 1:32 comes to mind. If you study on it a spell, the "science deniers" claim is easily refuted. A very good response to this can be found by reading, "Is There Really a War on Science?"

Since I've detailed these examples of bad thinking elsewhere, we won't need to saddle up for a long ride down the trail. Instead, I'll give you some short forms of incoherent obloquies that we receive.
  • Ad hominem ("to the man"). For some reason, the Latin name is commonly used for this one, but not for most others. Ad hominem remarks can be simple insults and name calling ("You creotards"), or more subtle attacks on a person's intelligence or integrity. They are frequently combined with other examples of illogical thinking.
  • Straw man. It is easy to set up a straw man by building a position that your opponent does not hold, and then tearing it down. Much more difficult is intelligently addressing someone's actual position. This requires a good working knowledge of the opponent's position. (It is my considered opinion that they are afraid of learning what we have to say.) Putting words in someone's mouth is a form of the straw man fallacy. Some people claim to have "debunked" creationary articles, but the statements they made had nothing to do with the post in question. I saw one jasper humiliate himself on more than one occasion by attacking a position that he claimed creationists held, but the article he ignored refuted his claim! Another aspect of the straw man fallacy is misrepresentation. Many atheists and anti-creationists are very brazen about doing this. They are not only ignorant of what we teach and believe, but are often uninformed about the evolutionary beliefs that they try to defend.
  • Appeal to motive. This presumes to know what is in someone's heart and mind. It seems that just about everyone does this to some extent, but it has no place in a serious discussion. Essentially, "You're doing this because...".  I've been attacked along the lines of this: "You're afraid to debate me because you know your worldview won't withstand the criticism of one atheist, ever!" That critic is a proven liar, has been demonstrated to be unfamiliar with rational thought, and blasphemed God several times. The example included the bifurcation (either/or) fallacy. (I did say they combine fallacies, didn't I? Yes, yes I did.) He not only claims to know my motive, but ignored possible reasons that I refuse to debate him. Apparently, the fact that refusing to give him a significant expenditure of intellectual energy and my time was not considered as a possibility. Watch for some form of, "You're saying/doing this because...", they're being gratuitously fallacious and manipulative.
  • Arbitrary assertions. People will make statements based on their opinions, but many are unable to support them. This can can make the one making the assertions appear intelligent, but is often combined with other errors in thinking. Further, in their quest to pummel creationists into submission, do not be surprised if you are directly lied to — and lied about. It's who they are, and they act according to their nature. 
  • Prejudicial conjecture. Seems like everyone has an opinion to express, but many times, the opinion does not have a good working relationship with facts. Basically, someone does not have knowledge about a subject, but dislikes it and says something negative against it with biased wording. Atheists do this a lot. 
  • Genetic fallacy. Simply rejecting something because of its source. An outlandish example came from a professing atheist who wanted me to know that he is more intelligent than me. I furnished a link, and he rejected it because it came from creationists. I informed him that he used the genetic fallacy. This self-styled genius asked, "What does genetics have to do with this?" Also, I've seen a hater of creationists state that he had no need to read creationary material or attend a conference because he "knows that they're going to say". He managed to combine the genetic fallacy with appeal to motive — and having a godlike ability to know the future. However, be aware that it is not fallacious to reject material from sources that are proven untrustworthy.
  • Red herring. This is a distraction technique, and related to the irrelevant thesis fallacy. We can have, say, a post about how geological unconformities are evidence for the Genesis Flood. The mocker comes along and makes arbitrary, faith-based assertions, and is countered. Then he or she ignores the responses and hijacks the thread, demanding responses to his or her misunderstanding of genetic degradation. Huh? Sometimes, they do not even bother with the subject of a post or article in the first place, and ask questions (or make claims) that have nothing to do with the subject. They demonstrate that they are not interested in answers, and have no interest in learning the creationary perspective (Proverbs 18:2 ESV).
  • Redefinition. I touched on this before, when anti-creationists conflate on the word evolution and call us "science deniers". This also applies to redefining words to suit their own ends. It's not just in the creation-evolution controversy, either, and can apply to a casual discussion. It is very helpful to nail down what each person in a discussion means by a particular word or phrase, and watch for a change in definition.
  • Bonus contribution from Charlie Wolcott, which he calls Shifting the Spotlight. Anti-creationists try very hard to put and keep us on the defensive (as in "change the subject and attack"). The moment anyone dares to challenge or question the evidence, logic, and reasoning of anti-creationists, they get on the prod. Do not let them put you on the defensive. Instead, keep the spotlight on the creationist position, not their own. It shows how much faith they truly have in their worldview and how little confidence they actually have in it. It also show how little they know about their views and the science behind them (as well as the philosophy of their paradigm) and their inability to defend it.
Appeal to authority. I'm listing this one separately because it leads into some mighty important material. This fallacy has several facets. The most obvious is when people will cite someone who has no training in a field, such as when Krauss, Dawkins, and other atheists pontificate about the God they deny (Psalm 14:1). In a similar manner, I've been ridiculed for not mixing biblical truth with evolution because the Roman Catholic Pope believes in evolution. (No citation was given.) I don't care what the Pope says, I believe the Bible, you savvy?

Some people look to Bill Nye for scientific knowledge, and appeal to him as an authority on things for which an alleged "science guy" should be a source of knowledge. I've got some bad news for you, sunshine, but Nye does not have advanced science degrees. Worse, he is more interested in promoting leftist causes and atheism than actual science. Back in the old days, he did decent work performing observable science on television. Referring to Nye is not a guarantee of accurate scientific information, especially since he has been wrong many times. The lab coat maketh not the scientist.

Additional problems with appealing to authority include the simple fact that an expert can be wrong, may have modified views since a statement was made or a book was published, has views that other experts in the field consider outlandish (i.e., Erich von Daniken's ancient astronaut claims are rejected by archaeologists, and are shown to be lacking in facts, so he should not be cited), and so on.

Exercise: spot the fallacies in point (1) of this diatribe.

The Scientific American Bundle of Fallacies and False Science

Although written in 2002 by then editor-in-chief and non-scientist John Rennie, the article "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" still makes the rounds. In fact, it was recently posted again at The Question Evolution Project. You can tell it is biased and propagandistic by the loaded terminology in the title, and things go downhill from there. Using this article against creationists is a fallacious appeal to authority, as you'll discover down the trail. 

Now it's time to give you some resources. First, the article was refuted by Dr. Sarfati at Creation Ministries International. You can read it by clicking on "15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry: A point by point response to Scientific American". Something I have been saying for a long time is that I am convinced that activities by anti-creationists, including that propaganda piece, are efforts to silence creationists through ridicule, appealing to emotion, and by poisoning the well. In a more overt move stifle thought, Scientific American threatened CMI with a lawsuit! CMI was not willing to accept bullying by those secularists.

Some more material that I'd be much obliged if you'd read is a 3-part series by Dr. Jason Lisle. He discusses several logical fallacies in the SA article, and he also discusses some scientific facts that contradict Rennie's claims. To read this, begin with "15 Answers to Evolutionist Misconceptions (Part 1)". The second article is linked at the end of the first. Same with the second article linking to the third. I like it when things happen that way, nice and convenient.

The drawback is that these informative articles are much longer than the one they are refuting, so fill your canteen and load up your saddlebags. They are lengthy, but well worth your time. This here article before your very eyes, as well as those linked, can also help you see that many anti-creationists are uninformed about what we teach and believe. But their ignorance does not stop them from claiming that they are "debunking" creationists. To revisit my earlier analogy with water, what they are doing more closely resembles a gorilla splashing in a wading pool. With a bit of education and perseverance, we do not need to accept bullying and intimidation from anti-creationists. Oh, and the title, "How Biblical Creationists Are Refuted" — they're not.


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

Friday, October 20, 2017

Secular Miracles and the Origin of the Solar System

During a few hours of downtime, the hands at the Darwin Ranch were working with their Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Rings© (obtained by sending in UPC codes from Uncle Nabal's Primordial Soup© cans). They were trying to determine if they had evidence — real evidence — for the origin of the universe. They used a word they learned down Mexico way: nada. Or, zilch. Nil. So, they did what they saw in a cartoon and invoked a miracle for the origin of the solar system.

Secular cosmologists avoid science and invoke their version of miracles in solar system theories
Credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Atheists do believe in miracles, secular cosmologists and cosmogonists ignore inconvenient scientific truths to invoke their miracles. No, they do not give credit to the Creator. Instead, they give their puny gods of evolution and nature a kind of intelligence that makes things happen. Those owlhoots have an amazing amount of blind faith in nothing, don't they?
Skipping over a difficulty because it can’t be solved scientifically: that’s one giant backward leap for theory kind.
Finagle’s Rule #6 for scientists recommends, “Do not believe in miracles. Rely on them.” Secular materialists follow that rule implicitly when trying to account for the origin of the solar system. They know full well that the “building blocks” of small grains, thought to have condensed out of a primordial gas cloud, do not stick together. They bounce off each other or, worse, erode each other into smaller grains. Only when an accreting ball of grains grows to about a kilometer in diameter will the so-called “planetesimal” begin to accrete more material through gravity. That’s the problem; you have to start with small planets to get planets. But materialists need a theory from the bottom up: from molecules to planets. How can they deal with this giant hurdle? Two ways: (1) invoke miracles, and (2) use the Big Lie tactic while doing it to make it sound convincing. Need proof? Look right here.
To finish reading, click on "Miracles in Solar System Origin Theories"

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

Thursday, October 19, 2017

Unconformities Not Conforming to Secular Geological Views

So, when rock layers that have assigned ages are separated by non-depositional or erosional surface, that surface is called an unconformity. There are four of them, with words that are unlikely to be found in casual conversation: nonconformity, angular unconformity, disconformity, and paraconformity. The last is the most troubling for uniformitarian geologists.

Unconformities are explained by Genesis Flood models, not by uniformitarian geology
Angular conformity near Catskill, NY, about half an hour north of me (street view, I drove right by this)
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Michael C. Rygel (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Since geological activity happened in the past, it is history, and not strictly science, so there cannot be eyewitnesses. Scientists have speculations, reasoning, models, and so forth based on the presumption of an old earth. Errors are made, and some facts are neglected. What we really have is geology that is best explained by the rapidly-flowing water and catastrophic tectonics of the Genesis Flood.
What are unconformities and what do they mean to young-earth, biblical creationists? The simple definition is that they are surfaces, usually seen as a linear contact in a vertical rock outcrop or exposure, that separate younger overlying rock strata or layers from the older strata below. They are interpreted by uniformitarian (evolutionist and “old-earth creationist”) geologists as gaps in the record, each gap representing missing time and sediments. But is this interpretation warranted by the field evidence?
To read the rest, click on "Geological Unconformities: What Are They and How Much Time Do They Represent?"

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

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

That Star is Older Than It Should Be

According to Big Bang mythology, the numbering of "population" stars is backward. Population III stars are presumed to be the oldest, although none have been discovered. Population II stars are somewhat younger, and were brought into being by population II stars. These have more metals. (In astronomical terms, "metal" is defined as elements heavier than helium. Yeah, makes sense to me, too.) So, population I stars are the ones with even more metals, and are youngest.

Credit: Digitized Sky Survey (DSS), STScI/AURA, Palomar/Caltech, and UKSTU/AAO
Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents
Some factors in determining the ages of stars is first by presuming the Big Bang and stellar evolution in the first place, rejecting special creation, measuring brightness and metal content, and so forth. There's a star with the romantic name of HD 140283. (I'm going to write a song, "Kiss Me when HD 140283 Rises, Oh My Darling".) Using secular models, assumptions, and logic, this recalcitrant orb has been determined to be older than the universe itself. Secularists don't cotton to objects in the heavens that cannot fit their schemes, so a bit of adjustment can be done. But then it's too young to have even formed. Mayhaps they'll adjust the Hubble constant again or something. Looks like a model fail to me. Biblical creationists do not have these problems.
Author Howard E. Bond and his collaborators presented their work on the star HD 140283.2 From its high velocity and low metal content, astronomers had long thought HD 140283 was an extreme population II star and hence among the oldest stars. . . . Application of the most up-to-date models of how such stars evolve enabled the team to determine the age of HD 140283 to be 14.46 ± 0.8 billion years. The age of the universe currently is thought to be 13.77 ± 0.06 billion years.
To read the rest of the article (which is not all that lengthy and will not bombard you with numbers that make your eyes go crossed), click on "HD 140283: Older than the Universe?"

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

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Cavitation and the Genesis Flood

Never underestimate the power of water — especially when it is moving. People get hurt or killed when they think they can drive or walk through swiftly-moving flood waters, and storms on the ocean shore can fling huge boulders. Waterjets have been developed to direct the stuff at high velocity and cut through hard objects with precision. Another way that water can pack a punch is through cavitation.

Bubble cavitation fits Genesis Flood models of creationists
Credit: Pixabay / Tobias Dahlberg
Water commences a-churning from pumps, dams, propellers, and other sources. Bubbles are formed. Under the right conditions, they implode with sound and fury, signifying destruction. When your outboard motor's propeller has been pitted and possibly damaged, cavitation has happened. Tiny bubbles, but the energy in them is tremendous, and is also very hot. Interestingly, our Creator equipped a kind of shrimp with the ability to hunt by cavitation! On a large scale, dams have been dramatically damaged by cavitation, and this kind of power fits in mighty nicely with Genesis Flood models.
When Britain’s Royal Navy ships were suffering considerable and unexplained damage to their ships’ propellers in WWI, physicists worked out that violent ‘bubble cavitation’ was the cause. This happens because tiny bubbles grow and then collapse as a result of pressure variations in the turbulent water around a propeller. But nobody knew just how hot the bubbles could get before releasing their destructive energy.
However, in recent years researchers have found that temperatures inside the tiny bubbles can rise so high that the bubbles start to glow. In fact, there’s evidence that temperatures can rise as high as 15,000 Kelvin (~15,000ºC; 27,000ºF). This indicates that the collapsed bubble has a hot plasma core, i.e. “as hot as the surface of a bright star”.
I know you're bubbling with excitement to read the rest. To do so, click on "Beware the bubble’s burst".

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

Monday, October 16, 2017

Engineered by the Master Architect

Some rather deep articles have been linked from here regarding engineering causality as a response to Darwinism. The short form is that Darwin and most of his followers believe that external forces are responsible for changes, and they extrapolate horizontal changes into vertical evolution — of which there is no evidence. The answer for Darwinism's silly idea is that organisms were designed by the Master Engineer. It is interesting that many human inventions and structures reflect designs in living organisms.

Cathedrals and other architecture reflect our Creator's brilliant designs in living things.
Interior of Salisbury Cathedral, William Turner, 1805
Architects who engineered cathedrals built them to endure, and many have lasted many centuries. Some of the support structures are found in the skeletons of animals. Only took humans a few thousand years to catch on to that aspect of our Creator's design. For that matter, the box turtle's shell exhibits architectural engineering as well! Interestingly, some evolutionists give credit to nature (which is the fallacy of reification, making nature into a being that makes decisions), instead of where the credit rightfully belongs.
“Nature is a pretty impressive engineer,” states evolutionist Daniel Lieberman in an issue of Nature magazine. He notes:
The physical world poses many basic challenges, such as gravity, viscosity and pressure gradients, to all living creatures, which in turn have evolved an astonishing array of solutions. Many of these, such as paddles, valves and hydrostats, are so widespread that we rarely notice them. Others perform so well that we marvel at their superiority to human-made devices.
Creationists maintain it was God who addressed these basic challenges with astonishing solutions—not chance evolutionary processes working for millions of years. Indeed, even if we were to give more time than what the evolutionists would like, we would still never see “nature” producing animals and their multiple systems with such superior function and detail.
To read the rest of this fascinating article, click on "Architecture  and Engineering  in Created  Creatures".

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

Saturday, October 14, 2017

Evolutionary Thinking is Wrecking Society

Biblical creationists have pointed out for a long time that evolution is not just a campfire discussion topic for academics and scientists. It is far more than that, since it is a worldview that not only covers origins, but meaning, purpose, the future, and more. Materialists who control the science industry use atheism and evolution to affect Western society.

Evolutionists consider humans "just another animal", and are wrecking society
Credit: Pixabay / Herbert Aust
The biblical creationists present a message of hope:
  • We are created in God's image
  • There is a purpose in life
  • Our Creator has redeemed his people through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ
  • There is a final Judgment where people are recompensed according to their deeds, evil receives eternal punishment and God's adopted children are rewarded. 
Darwin's Flying Monkeys© on the internet want to destroy this, offering:
  • We are the products of time, chance, and random processes
  • There is no purpose in life
  • There is no ultimate justice, we're just worm food when we die
  • We're here to keep on spreading our genes around.
Evolution is foundational to atheism. No wonder they have such a high suicide rate!

Just stop and think about the foundation of morality for these people. In the real world, evolutionists not only agree with the dismal presentations of those on the internet, but also make things much worse on a large scale. They are portraying humans as just animals, nothing special. Evolution is being used to justify abortion and eugenics. Marx, a sidewinder who admired Darwin (and vice versa) is being brought out of mothballs, but his bloody legacy is being ignored by leftists and atheists. Read about these and more by clicking on "Evolutionary Ethics Ruins Families".

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

Friday, October 13, 2017

Conspiracy of Hidden Fossils?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

"I spy with my little eye...something beginning with F."


"Right. How did you guess so fast?"

"Because we're in the fossil section of the natural history museum, doofus. So which fossil?"

"That one — hey, it's gone! Those people are taking it away!"

"Bad luck, pal."

Hidden in the Museum

It is a fact that museums have much more in their collections than are visible to the public. This applies to archaeology, religious art, erotica, paleontology, and more [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. They are so secret, we can read about them on the web. Is there a conspiracy  here yet? Actually, some artifacts and such are hidden away for the safety of the items, additional research is needed, offensive nature of ancient art, to simply rotate the stock because they have so much to exhibit, and other reasons. In addition, some people who do not know how to handle things like fossils will ruin them or take them away to sell [9]. A few folks believe that evidence for giant humans, items refuting evolution, and the like are hidden away in museums because they don't want us to see them.

Inconvenient Photos

What about all those photos of giant humans? People saddle up, ride out, and lasso photos to put in their corral of "evidence" for huge ancient humans. Many are hoaxes manufactured by trimming away the credits from Photoshop contest sites [10] or other digital manipulations [11]. (I suspicion that some are so large, they would have to defy the laws of physics to move around.) Even so, fossil evidence clearly shows that many critters were much, much larger in those thrilling days of yesteryear. Were our ancestors supersized? Maybe some of those giant swords and stuff exist for novelty purposes or decorations instead of combat.

My wife obtained the giant fork and spoon at an archaeological dig and had to sneak them away.
Actually, she got them at a store in upstate New York for decorations.
Are they all fake? This gets me to cognating on UFO stories, videos, and photos. UFO researchers — believers and disbelievers alike — agree that the overwhelming majority are misidentified, photographic anomalies such as lens flares [12] [13] (I've seen videos of "spirit orbs" that were refuted as lens flares), and have other natural explanations.

Not all UFO images and stories are supposititious, leaving some objects that are genuinely unknown. Similarly, there are many stories, images, and so on about artifacts from paleontology and archaeology that seem to be inexplicable. It seems to me that they cannot all be fake or mistakes, and some need serious examination. Even if experts say, "We don't know what this is". Yeah, that'd be great.

Conspiracy Against Creationary Evidence?

It is true that creationary scientists are blackballed against presenting evidence for creation and against evolution in mainstream scientific journals [14]. Also, there is blatant discrimination against creationists [15], even when they are not actively promoting creation science, such as with Mark Armitage [16]. Further, there is abundant evidence that fraud is common in the promotion of Darwinian ideas [17], which is in keeping with their secular worldview [18]. Still, it's a mite too easy to say that the entire secular scientific community is suppressing physical evidence that conflicts with their views. But then, museums have used fake whale fossils [19].

Some items presented for creationary evidence are indeed questionable. How about the Ica stones of Peru? Those get scant mention in the major creation science sites, and I won't use them as evidence on my sites. While secular scientists dismiss them out of hand because some depict dinosaurs and humans living contemporaneously, there are other reasons to be suspicious: the originator says he faked them, no he didn't, yes he did out of fear of the authorities, and so on. Because of insufficient evidence, creationists should leave Ica stones alone [20]. I'd like to own a reproduction, though. Stones aside, there is a great deal of historical evidence that dinosaurs (dragons) lived with humans [21]. Is this evidence of a conspiracy? Well, it indicates bias against creationary evidence because of naturalistic presuppositions: there is no evidence that dinosaurs lived with humans, because evolution demands otherwise. That's how they work.

A frequent question asked of creationists is, "Where are the human fossils?" After all, there were many humans that existed before the Genesis Flood. The human skeletons and fossils seem to be post-Flood. According to biblical creation science models, we should not expect to find pre-Flood skeletons (including giants that may or may not represent the Nephilim). Biblical creation science models tell us why not [22].

Not Helping Our Own Cause

Creationists, like other Christians, need to have healthy skepticism. This applies not only to the latest "evidence" given for fish-to-faker evolution, but some "evidence" affirming the Bible, such as put forth by the late Ron Wyatt [23]. Like evolutionists, some creationists are incautious — and even gullible. Don't do that. Settle down, think, do some research, and wait for information that supports or refutes...whatever claims were made. 

Also, keep a balance. We can accept or reject evidence without being hyper-suspicious. An example of this is when someone foolishly uses a fallacious argument from silence to imply that, since no dinosaur fossils have been discovered at the Grand Canyon, the Genesis Flood is false [24]. Someone like that needs to do some research instead of showing his ignorance of both creation and secular models [25]. Same with us.

Like Creation Ministries International [26], I am not a fan of conspiracy theories. I especially detest the anti-vaccination, 9-11 GovernmentDidIt "truther", moon landing fake, flat Earth [27], and other claims. Like some of the spurious evidences presented for God's existence [28], we can get our healthy skepticism ready when we have anonymous sources, a friend of a cousin of someone who worked at NASA told a guy under conditions of secrecy, sources that cite other sources that are selling natural food supplements instead of crediting verifiable sources, a whole heap of emotional appeal, and so on. When those red flags get waved, I often move on because I have better things to do.

Christians and creationists need to be wary and keep with the strongest evidence for our position. More importantly, we must use proper reasoning and be biblical in our approach.

Submitted for Your Approval — Or Not

I could have ended this article with the above paragraph, but I have a couple of things to offer. First, a creationary organization has given me some excellent information in the short time I've been aware of them, so the article that I'm linking below was a bit startling. There are several things to consider, and I think of points raised as, "On the other hand...but on the other hand...still, on the other hand..." and so on. It is about the suppression of evidence in museums against evolution. Some of the material raises those red flags found on conspiracy theorist sites and in social media posts. However, there are points raised that, conspiracist-sounding or not, should not be rejected out of hand. After all that, I refer you to "Missing Fossils and Fake Fossils", by David Plaisted, Ph.D. As you can see, I'm not enthusiastically endorsing the article, just presenting it to give you some things to spark some thinking in y'all.

Second, the Greater Ancestors World Museum has material to consider. There are subjects that are clearly true, and others where the proprietor may have been fooled by hucksters. You'll probably find a mix of truth and unintentional error.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get ready for the next passage of the planet Nibiru [29].

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

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Reading Chemical Evolution Research Properly

There's nothing cowboys like more than riding into town for supplies and slipping off to the library to do some reading on abiogenesis. Good times, good times... Just kidding, science fiction is low on their list of priorities. Even so, some folks want to read secular materials to get a handle on how Darwinists are thinking, and how they try to deny the Creator.

Credit: Pixabay / StockSnap
First off, to tackle that kind of thing, it helps to have a strong background in science. Second (and this is the kind of thing creationists discuss frequently), a reader needs to understand the presuppositions of materialists and the assumptions upon which they base their research and conclusions. Third (one of my favorites), keep an eye out for bad logic — especially circular reasoning and affirming the consequent. Fourth, a good knowledge of creationary material is very important, since creationists are not likely to twist science to advance secular paradigms. There are some other things to consider as well, but I'll let the article give you a thorough briefing.
Learning how to read secular research literature with a careful eye is not easy to do. Discerning fact and interpretation can be tricky, since they are often weaved together so tightly that it can be hard to know where fact ends and interpretation begins. 

. . .
Part of the difficulty is that people often get so caught up in the particulars of a paper that they can get ‘swept along’ with the argument, producing doubt. Regarding the origin of life literature, they often address details of the chemistry of amino acids, or nucleotides, or the way they polymerize, that when read from the perspective of the researchers sound like they provide significant progress towards solving the problem of chemical evolution (‘abiogenesis’). Because they have gotten caught up in the flow of their argument, they end up asking questions that presuppose the framework of thought the papers adopt.
To read the rest, click on "Reading ‘origin of life’ research".

That's a Fact - Dumb Luck from Institute for Creation Research on Vimeo.
Feeling lucky? Scientists tell us that the building blocks of life are amazingly complex, and the chances for basic life to exist are 1 in trillions! And yet, we see the wonder of life all around us.

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