Welcome to the home of "The Question Evolution Project". There is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution. Evidence refuting evolution is suppressed by the scientific establishment, which is against the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Using an unregistered assault keyboard, articles and links to creation science resources are presented so people can obtain evidence that is not materialistic propaganda. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Channel Island Mammoth Puzzles Paleontologists

An article in The Washington Post discussed an excellent mammoth skull has been discovered on Santa Rosa of the Channel Islands, which doesn't fit. It's not a pygmy mammoth, which were native to the area, and it's not a Columbian. Is it a variation of the dozen or so currently known mammoth species, or something entirely new? And — how did it get there, anyway?


A newly discovered mammoth skull is playing mind games with evolutionists, and a newspaper enthusiastically spread inaccurate information.
Mammoth sculpture image cropped from Pixabay / hansbenn
The Post had some misstatements of facts, and included some obfuscation on the word evolution, using evidence and conclusions that biblical creationists agree with Darwinists about, but imply that molecules-to-mammoth is responsible. They also had some problems with the dating claims, and a few other alternative "facts". The time frame and the location of the beastie can be explained with the creation science model of the Genesis Flood and subsequent Ice Age.
According to a report recently published in The Washington Post, researchers have uncovered the cranial remains of an enigmatic mammoth. “I have seen a lot of mammoth skulls and this is one of the best preserved I have ever seen,” declared Don Morris, a retired archaeologist associated with the find. Discovered on Santa Rosa Island (one of the Channel Islands, approximately 106 miles from Los Angeles, California), it seems that this exceptional specimen has led to more questions than answers.

Something New?
The article states that the animal’s age at death, species, and relatedness to other varieties of mammoth are presently undetermined. The tusks of juvenile mammoths are short and mildly curved, while those of adults are typically long and coiled. This specimen features one of each tusk style—an unprecedented condition—the significance of which is still unknown. As the article points out, future dental studies may help us better pinpoint how old the animal was when it died.
To read the rest, click on "Mystery Mammoth Points to a Global Flood and Ice Age".

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

The Bad Complexion of the Secular Science Industry

Ever hear of having a relationship "warts and all"? Kind of ugly wording, but it makes the point that someone accepts both the good and the bad of the other party involved. The face of the secular science industry covers up its flaws, especially regarding common-ancestor evolution and global warming. It has a bad complexion, and tries to cover up numerous flaws, which causes trust issues.


The face of the secular science industry covers up its flaws, but its complexion needs a great deal of work.
Image credit: Pixabay / kinkate
There are methodological errors, such as poor estimates of wildlife, observer interference, publication bias canonizing "facts" in science, storytelling to influence acceptance of untrue evidence, terribly flawed peer review. From there, move to moral errors, including misconduct (and covering it up), scientific racism. Then we have a passel of logical errors: leaving self-defeating proposals that are laughable from the get-go remain unchallenged, a solvent involving gene transfer being promoted as evidence of evolution, a dreadful concept of galaxy formation with infinite regress. 

Yes, the science industry has a lot of covering up to do, but it would be far better for all if they'd just clean up their act, be honest, and have the scientists get some ethics from the Creator, then do their jobs proper-like instead of cranking out half-baked propaganda. Hope you can squeeze in some time to read the article that I'm going on about, just click on "Big Science Pops its Zits".


Tuesday, February 21, 2017

How Old are the Hawaiian Islands?

According to secular geologists, the Hawaiian islands are millions of years old. This figure is primarily reached through the highly suspect methods of radiometric dating. Biblical creationists have presented into evidence for the age of Earth controversy many items that are ignored by secularists and religious compromisers, such as "101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe".

Long-age assumptions regarding the formation and age of the Hawaiian islands works against secular scientists. More than that, biblical creation science has the best answers for those questions.
Image credit: NASA/GSFC/JPL, MISR Team (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Uniformitarianism, the belief that the slow, gradual processes observed today have been constant and unchanging, can work against secularists. Using their assumptions and methods, the observed rate of erosion for the Hawaiian islands shows that they cannot be millions of years old! In fact, recent creation and the Genesis Flood geology presented by biblical creationary scientists are by far the best answers to the age and formation of the islands.
Secular scientists claim the Hawaiian Islands are millions of years old based primarily on radioisotope dating. Yet, the landforms and measured erosion rates tell a far different story—a story that better matches the Bible.

The Hawaiian Islands are a chain of islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on the Pacific plate (Figure 1). The conventional explanation is they formed as a result of volcanic activity as the plate passed over a “hot spot” in the mantle at a rate of inches per year (Figure 2). As the islands moved off the hot spot and their volcanoes became inactive, they left a trail of progressively older volcanic islands in the northwesterly direction of plate motion (Figure 1).
To see the illustrations mentioned above and read the rest of the article simply click on "Minuscule Erosion Points to Hawaii's Youth". For another article on how secularists reject data in favor of radiometric dating, click on "Caves and Age — How radioactive dating confuses the situation".

 

Monday, February 20, 2017

Creation, Evolution, and Knowing the Opposition

Every once in a while, the hands at the Darwin Ranch at Deception Pass get a mite ornery and go looking for someone to slap leather with. Those of us in creation science ministries will, to varying degrees, encounter "debate" challenges from fundamentalist evolutionists. These come from people who are vituperative atheists, bullies, cyberstalkers, and those who simply want to try and make fools of creationists. I have seen many who express purile rage at God and his people, but are woefully uninformed as to what biblical creationists actually believe and teach. Instead, their primary sources are atheopath Websites who present biased disinformation.


Creationists receive "debate" challenges and engage in discussions with people who have not bothered to do any decent research, but want to attack positions they do not understand.
Image credit: Pixabay / janeb13
Although I do not engage in actual debates, I have learned quite a bit about them in recent years. A basic concept that I agree with, whether for a formal debate or an intelligent discussion, is to be respectful toward your opponent. Another concept is that debates and discussions should be approached with the purpose of presenting one's point of view, and the critic should deal with the strongest points of the opposing side. 

It is important to know what the other side actually believes, but too many people cannot be bothered to do any research. I've been told what I believe by people who don't have a clue what they're talking about, and that puts a burr under my saddle.

As for discussions and debates... what we see on the interwebs is typo pouncing, flagrant misrepresentation, copious errors in logic, attempts to play "Gotcha!" to score "points", and so on. This is not worth our time. To see my article on debating, click on "Debate Challenges".

It is often difficult to determine if a fundamentalist evolutionist who claims to be a Christian is a viperine atheist in disguise or a "Christian" who disbelieves the Bible.
In ideological debate, as with many areas of life, it is important to, in the words of Sun Tzu, ‘know thy enemy’, i.e. understand what one’s ideological opponents say. However, many skeptics of biblical creation fail to do this—they often rehearse the same fallacious arguments we have dealt with many times before. Today’s correspondent raises the old canard that abiogenesis and microbes-to-man evolution are separate issues. However, these instances can give us the opportunity to rehearse the strength of our responses, as well as introduce newer readers to the arguments and where to go to get fuller treatments of them. CMI’s Shaun Doyle carries us through these ‘old arguments’.

J.O. from the United States writes:
To see the venomous material from J.O. and Shaun Doyle's excellent response, click on "Know thy enemy". 

Sunday, February 19, 2017

"Is Genesis History?" and an Atheistic Well-Poisoning Effort

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Certain details of this post will be out of date in less than a week. However, the principles contained herein will remain relevant — especially the second part of this article.

Corrected 2-19-2017, I mistakenly wrote that the writer/director/producer was Del Tackett. Those credits belong to Thomas Purifoy, Jr. Dr. Tackett is the host of the movie.

Is Genesis History? is a 2-hour documentary film that is scheduled to appear in American cinemas on Thursday, February 23. That's all the time we have. I hope the DVD release date in April is correct, or perhaps it will be available online. My online search for Is Genesis History? yielded many results, including show times, praise, and enthusiastic reviews from Christians (such as this one from Eric Hovind). The movie is the product of a great deal of work and includes interviews with many experts in their fields, and the primary focus is to equip Christian parents and youth. Click here to find out more, and you may want to get the free e-book as well as examine the other materials on the site. I am unfamiliar with Del Tackett's work (doctorate in Business Management) and The Truth Project as a whole, but this film is highly recommended, and I want to see it.


"Is Genesis History?" is a new documentary to inform and equip Christian youth and parents. An atheist's preemptive attack on it gives us several examples of poisoning the well and other logical fallacies.

Atheists and evolutionists detest anything that portrays biblical creation science in a positive way. Material that does not easily lend itself to dismantling and ridicule seems to be hated most of all. Here is a furious atheist in the UK who has given me many examples of poor logic in the past, and this post illustrates several fallacies, many of which illustrate the poisoning the well fallacy. I used different colors to emphasize different areas, but I'll elaborate on certain aspects below the annotated screenshot (click for larger). The original post is here.



The title of the thread, "Online and movie attempted YEC indoctrination in America", is a strong indication that the writer is biased. He repeatedly uses the word indoctrination when referencing the fact that Christian parents educate their parents according to the Bible. The secular education systems are the ones who actually use indoctrination, but you'll be hard pressed to find instances of atheists objecting to this.

There are several snide comments that are actually well-poisoning opinions that are irrelevant to the subject. This one, "...director, producer and writer has NO relevant science background" is, in my opinion, a weak attempt to find something negative to say. It was also an ad hominem. If I was having a documentary made, I would want an experienced filmmaker who is would work the way Thomas Purifoy, Jr. and host Dr. Tackett did, including interviewing experts in their fields.

There was also a remark that Tackett's Weblog does not allow comments. Well, neither do Popular Science nor other major sites, so I consider it not only irrelevant, but another attempt to poison the well.

Finally, I'll address this:
As an aside, all 13 scientists or 'scientists' (and a couple of scholars) behind this religious indoctrination are middle aged white males (which I suspect is not deliberate but simply a fact of life). (Two YECs who normally are considered relatively honest in their statements - Wise and Wood - are among them.)
Last thing first, this commenter has a habit of referring to professing Christians who reject biblical creation as "reasonable", "rational", and so forth, so he inserted an opinion as a means of influence. But more than that, the previous section was egregious. I think of when a prosecuting attorney will make a prejudicial comment and the judge says, "The jury will disregard that comment", but they did hear it anyway. Also, when someone makes a hurtful remark and adds, "I'm just saying", as if that somehow makes the remark acceptable, or even truthful.

In like manner, the comment implied racism on the part of the filmmakers (and possibly the experts themselves), but then the weak, "...which I suspect is not deliberate..." section seems to be an attempt at defaming the people, but not coming out and saying something. His "aside" did not need to be written at all, as he backpedaled on it. This is an extremely sneaky, manipulative attempt to poison the well.

The examples of several logical fallacies that work together to poison the well are examples of how extreme emotions, especially hatred and bigotry, will cloud the mind and bypass reasoning abilities. Many biblical creationists seek to encourage logical thinking and examination of evidence, as well as identifying logical fallacies. This not only assists us in avoiding duplicity and manipulation, but helps us keep our own apologetics efforts accurate and glorifying to God.

I hope Is Genesis History? will prove fruitful, and will educate many to stand up for the truth of Genesis and biblical creation science.


/

Saturday, February 18, 2017

Fake Evolutionary Science Affects Morality

Although not graphic, the following post and the link featured contain mature content. 

When discussing Darwinian evolution and its variations, the topics often include the end result of evolutionary thinking. Some people try to avoid these subjects, and disingenuously say that evolution is just biology, nothing more. We have seen how Darwin has permeated society, including "scientific" racism, abortion, euthanasia, laissez-faire capitalism, evolutionary psychology, and more.


Mature content. Darwinian ideas have permeated our culture and been used to justify promiscuous sex. Other myths are also discussed.
Image credit: Freeimages / deafstar
Evolution has been used to justify male promiscuity, since a man can produce a large quantity of sperm cells and fertilize many women, and that is supposed to give him an advantage. Women are supposedly careful, shy, alluring, and very selective so they can mate with the best possible man she can obtain. Interesting that our Bible-based morality involves commitment, and the emotional reactions to unfaithfulness support biblical morality and not evolution — except when it's convenient for someone looking for more sex. God created marriage between one man and one woman, and requires fidelity.


That myth of promiscuous males and selective females was based on an old study of fruit flies by botanist Angus Bateman, then extrapolated to other creatures including humans. While I have no beef with Angus, his work is hardly the basis for scientific conclusions and such far-reaching applications and get tagged with "Bateman's Principle".

Recently, the myth was soundly discredited. Women can be promiscuous (just ask Henrietta Harlot in the apartment above me), and men can be choosy. Of course, the evolutionists still clung to Darwin's ideas, spreading the other myth: humans are just animals. Evolutionary thinking has a negative impact on culture.

There are other areas that are shadowed by Darwin as well, including racism toward Neanderthals and others that were fully human. Evolution affects culture affects science regarding homosexual, transsexual, and other behaviors that are being scientifically justified (without actual science, somehow forgetting simple biology and those pesky XY chromosomes).

Many scientists fallaciously assume that empirical, naturalistic science is the only path to truth. We have seen many times that this is not only self-refuting, but has led to numerous false conclusions. Meanwhile, the public is both suspicious and fawning over science and scientists. Stay suspicious, my friends. To read about the topics mentioned above and more, click on "Darwinism Still Corrupts Culture".


Friday, February 17, 2017

Research Fails to Identify Causal Mechanism

A recent study of the Great Chinese Famine resulted in faulty conclusions and incomplete research on famine effects passed on to offspring, especially because the paper did not identify a causal mechanism. Researchers claimed that metabolism causes altered metabolism, but it only discussed a relationship between famine and metabolism.

A recent study of the Great Chinese Famine resulted in faulty conclusions and incomplete research on famine effects passed on to offspring, especially because the paper did not identify a causal mechanism. But it did inadvertently support biblical creation.
Image credit: Pixabay / TusitaStudio
Before we continue with the research, a bit of history. The Great Chinese Famine of about 1958-1961 had several causes. Most egregious was Chairman Mousie Dung's incompetence. He was told that sparrows eat grain seeds, so he ordered sparrows killed — by the millions. Without the chirpie birdies around, locusts and other insects they ate went on a crop-eating rampage. People were starving, and Mao didn't release food in warehouses. The drought of 1960 made things even worse.

Now, back to our research paper. Like the famine was not the result of a single cause, neither is the result presented. In addition to not identifying a causal mechanism for the change in metabolism for later generations, researchers failed to understand that mothers did not necessarily pass along famine conditions to their unborn children. The child is in a safe environment, and our Creator enabled signals that the expectant mother passed along to her child so it could adapt. This is something supports biblical creation science.
A Chinese famine was so severe that 35 million lives perished between 1958 and 1962 due to the state's agricultural mistakes.1 Interestingly, this tragedy highlights an unseen biological relationship between organisms and their environment over multiple generations.

A large study recently published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition focuses on one Chinese city immersed in the famine.2 It compared the adult health status of residents between those who had prenatal (before birth) exposure to famine and those who were not exposed. Researchers wanted to see if famine exposure in parents correlated to the development of a high blood sugar concentration (hyperglycemia) and type 2 diabetes in their children and grandchildren.

Prenatal exposures in offspring were classified as having 1) no parent exposed to famine, 2) only a mother exposed to famine, 3) only a father exposed to famine, or 4) both parents exposed to famine. The researchers used standard diagnostic criteria for hyperglycemia and type 2 diabetes.
To finish reading, click on "Pregnant Mom Transfers Famine Info to Baby". 

 

Thursday, February 16, 2017

The "Obstetrical Dilemma" and False Evolution

Although cesarean sections (c-sections) for difficult childbirth was well-established in the 20th century, the practice of cutting open the womb to save a child has been around quite a spell. Difference is, it used to be done when the mother was dead or dying, whereas nowadays, all participants are likely to stay alive.


Borrowed from The Princess Bride, 1987
In their persistent quest to give Darwin credit for perceived changes, some scientists were presenting the idea that the so-called obstetrical dilemma. This is supposedly where a woman's pelvis needed to evolve to give birth to larger-brained babies, but also the apelike ancestor needed to evolve bipedalism. So, c-sections may be influencing natural selection. But this idea has serious difficulties, and ignores how our Creator brilliantly designed the human female pelvis for childbirth. Also, once again the Darwinoids are playing bait 'n' switch games, equivocating with the word evolution when none is in evidence.
Bigger newborn babies, statistically speaking, have a better chance of survival than tiny ones. So long as they can get out of their mothers’ bodies safely, that is! A study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the modern practice of Caesarean section is rapidly altering human evolution. Ever bigger babies carrying genes for ever smaller pelvic bones can now survive, the authors say, leading to bigger babies and more moms with small pelvic dimensions in the human population.

An estimated three to six percent of newborns around the world cannot negotiate their way through the birth canal. This mismatch of baby’s head and mother’s pelvis is called fetopelvic disproportion, or cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD). Before the advent of safe obstetrical intervention through Caesarean section in the 20th century, CPD was often a death sentence for these babies and their mothers, and those who managed to be born with great difficulty often suffered severe damage.
To read the rest, click on "Are Humans Evolving Through Caesarean Sections?", written by obstetrician Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Dinosaurs as Evolutionary Propaganda

Dinosaurs are a useful item for evolutionary propaganda. However, Christians can learn how to not only offset the claims, but even use dinosaurs to our advantage.
It seems that dinosaurs have always had had some popularity over the years, especially for children, but I reckon that their popularity has escalated in recent years. And why not? There's an element of mystery to them, and they've been the subject of many stories in movies, print, and so forth.

Dinosaurs have also been used as a tool for evolutionary propaganda to reach the young (to see how evolutionists are attempting to offset children's inborn belief in God, see "Accelerated Evolutionary Indoctrination of Children"). When handled properly, the subject can work in the favor of biblical creationists, a fact that sometimes causes rage among secularists. One thing I learned early on in my creation science studies is that too many parents do not know that answers for questions about Earth's age, evolution, creation, and dinosaurs can indeed be found if people will bother to look.

Parents cannot bluff their children. If you don't know, then admit it. Then saddle up and go a-looking. There are many biblical creation science sites that provide material, and the modest effort you're gazing upon right now points you to many of those sites as well. Just a few years ago, we didn't have the Internet to help us out, and had to find out who had good materials available, then purchase them, waiting for postal delivery. So, there's not much excuse today.
Dinosaurs have the power to captivate audiences, both young and old. They have fuelled people’s imaginations for generations. The veil of mystery surrounding them only adds to the intrigue. Where did the great beasts come from? Why did they go extinct? Such questions fuel the passion of a million would-be paleontologists still under the age of ten! It is no overstatement to say that almost every child, and adult for that matter, has heard of the fearsome Tyrannosaurus rex. Hollywood has cashed in on the public’s fascination with dinosaurs over the years, producing the Jurassic Park franchise. The most recent installment, Jurassic World, was released in 2015. In addition to this, multiple documentaries and cartoons exist making use of the best CGI to bring the message of these ‘Prehistoric Preachers’ to a new generation.
To read the rest, click on "‘Prehistoric’ Preachers: Dinosaurs as “the gateway drug to atheism”". 

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Earth's Ocean Formation Theory All Wet

Secular scientists have several theories about the formation of the solar system. That's because none of them explain all the data, so they settle on selling us a bill of goods with the "accretion theory". Everything's slow and gradual, and eventually, Earth formed. Then came the oceans.


Secular scientists are disputing the origin of Earth's oceans through assumptions and circular reasoning. A lot of work to ignore evidence that God created everything, and did it recently.
Sunset at Sea, Ivan Aivazovsky, 1899
The assumption was that Earth was a hot blob of stuff that cooled. How did the oceans get here? After all, this planet is seventy percent water, after all. Meteorites brought the water from outer space. Had to be a whole heap of them, too. This is another assumption based on deep time, slow cosmic evolution, and that meteorites have the most pure forms of the original contents of the solar system. Earth is somewhat contaminated by — something else that is assumed. Lots of circular reasoning here, folks.

However, secularists are tearing down the old concept because of meteorite analysis. More assumptions, but the established belief on the formation of oceans is being made to go away. Science as sleight of hand: now you sea it, now you don't. I reckon that it's a lot of effort to deny the evidence of recent creation. Wonder how they'll commence to explaining the possible water oceans on Pluto, way out yonder.
The divination experts see a new vision emerging from meteorites, portending disaster.

If there was ever a coherent theory of how the earth got its oceans, it’s gone. The new reading of meteorites forbids it. Now, inventors of solar system models have to go back to square one. Whatever they come up with is bound to take more heat.

Because the early earth was pictured to be molten with volcanoes going off and meteors hitting repeatedly, cosmogonists were forced into thinking that water arrived later. The ‘late veneer’ theory (which we call the ‘water balloon’ theory) claimed that the oceans were late arrivals, the water being delivered by comets and meteorites after things cooled down a bit.
To finish reading, click on "Secular Ocean Theory Evaporates". 

Monday, February 13, 2017

Neanderthals and Evolutionary Skulduggery

While there are honest evolutionary scientists who seek to find and promote evidence of all live evolving from a common ancestor, their militant comrades use skulduggery to promote their worldview. In this instance, the Neanderthal was fully human (as affirmed by archaeology, DNA, anthropology, and more, presented on this site several times), but some insist on portraying Neanderthals as less-than-human brutes. For example, this tinhorn wants to save scientists from themselves and protect the false narrative. Things get worse, as we shall see.


Although the evidence is conclusive that Neanderthals were fully human, sneaky evolutionists want to continue the myth that they were not quite human.
Image enhanced, credit: Pixabay / Efraimstochter
Why do some folks continue to believe that Neanderthals were not quite human and a link to our evolutionary ancestry despite the evidence? They want to. It fits their paradigm, and they are adverse to admitting that the evidence refutes evolution and supports special creation, and that is anathema to them. Portrayals of Neanderthals have been based on presumptions of evolution and on chimerical visions, but not on evidence. Science isn't supposed to work that way, old son. Even in recent times using scientific evidence, the stupid brute look is promulgated.
“So easy, a caveman could do it” is the witty slogan of a company hoping to lure customers to switch car insurance. The humorous catch to the commercial was the brutish-looking, yet endearing, Neanderthals living among us who found the slogan stereotyping them as dimwits to be “not cool” or “hurtful.” The fact that viewers could readily spot the standard view of Neanderthals shows how pervasive it is and how it dominates the popular perception.

Evolutionary beliefs—not known facts about Neanderthals—forced this misleading subhumanized caricature of them. Evolutionary imagination conjured up the ape-like, hairy, club-wielding, mentally underdeveloped savage because it fit their expectations of a missing link between an ape-like ancestor and humans, as seen in Figure 1. Rather than liberating scientific research, for decades this major evolutionary blunder has sidetracked an accurate understanding of Neanderthals.
To read the rest, click on "Major Evolutionary Blunders: Neanderthals Were Subhuman in Imagination Only".




Sunday, February 12, 2017

Question Evolution Day and the Anti-Heroes

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Today is both Question Evolution Day and Creation Sunday, a convergence that will not happen again until 2023. This causes excitement for some people, while others are annoyed. Interestingly, the postmodernism that permeates Western society is self-contradictory: people who hate such events need them. I'll 'splain later.

There was a time when movies and television had, for the most part, distinct good and evil characters. (In old Western movies, the stereotype portrayed good guys in white hats, bad guys in black hats.) Later, characters were introduced that were more believable because they were flawed — the anti-hero. One Western character was played by Clint Eastwood, referred to as The Man With No Name. He was not "good" by any stretch of the imagination, but he was our focus as someone to favor. Lines between good and evil were blurred, and audiences were occasionally bemused when the bad guy had more relative goodness than the good guy. These flawed characters seemed more relatable to viewers.


Today is both Question Evolution Day and Creation Sunday. This causes anger in some people. Interestingly, people who hate such events need them.
Background image furnished by Why?Outreach
In the late 20th century, the philosophy of postmodernism began to dominate Western civilization. The view is cynical and nihilistic, where moral absolutes and truth are viewed with suspicion or even outright rejection, and every "truth" is relative. This is compatible with the anti-hero motif, since good and evil are subjective.

The 1983 movie Scarface (a remake of a 1932 movie of the same name, and another remake is in the works). In the 1983 version, drunken cocaine dealer Tony Montana tells off restaurant patrons. Since the iconic scene from the iconic movie with the iconic character has iconic profanity, I had to do some edits:
You're all [jerks]. You know why? 'Cause none of you got the guts to be what you want to be. You need people like me so you can point your fingers and say, "Hey, there's the bad guy!" So what does that make you? Good guys? Don't kid yourselves. You're no better'n me. You just know how to hide — and how to lie. Me, I don't have that problem. I always tell the truth — even when I lie. So say good night to the bad guy... You're never gonna see a bad guy like me again.
That's from the script, but the movie clip had a couple of f-words (218 of those were in the regular version, and 226 in the "platinum" DVD version). It held the record for a while, but has since been surpassed. Why not? Truth and morality are relative in this culture.

Tony is pointing out that his fellow restaurant patrons are judging him from their standard, whatever it is (and implying that many of them use cocaine as well as doing various immoral acts while maintaining a veneer of community respectability). They can look down on him and build themselves up, they're not as bad as him, right? Never killed someone, doing discreet adultery, alcoholism is not out of control. Goodness is relative, as is truth. When Job was on the prod, God asked him, "Would you condemn me to justify yourself?" (Job 40:8 NIV)

Let's ride a side trail for a spell.

Atheists and other anti-creationists have antipathy toward Bible-believing Christians and biblical creationists. We are not succumbing to post-modernism, but are standing on the truth and authority of God's Word. Theistic evolutionists and many old Earth creationists will team up with atheists and Deists, riding for the materialism brand and slapping leather with those who have the temerity to say, "God's Word is true, and evidence supports recent, special creation".

Those folks look for excuses to hate Christians and creationists, but what they are doing is distracting themselves from the fact that they know God exists (Rom. 1:18-23) and will have to stand before him at the Judgement (2 Cor. 5:10, Rom. 20:12, Heb. 9:27). In fact, the Genesis Flood is God's judgement on the world at that time, which is supported by the geological evidence. Atheists and compromisers hate this. They hate us. Not so much for who we are, but whose we are — they hate God who is in us, and our testimony of unwavering truth.

I see we've come back to the main trail again.

Atheists and anti-creationists claim a high moral ground. In doing so, they constantly misrepresent the Bible, Christians, creationists. Their "truth" is relative, and yet, they are absolutely certain that we are wrong. They need us as objects of hatred and scorn in their attempts to justify themselves in their own eyes — like Tony Montana claimed about the people who looked down on him in that restaurant. To the haters of Question Evolution Day and biblical creation science, we are anti-heroes of sorts, and we are authentic. They seldom admit that we have any good qualities, however. As people (and even aspects of ministries themselves), biblical creationists are flawed. We know that, and those who oppose us seek to exploit those flaws as if they negated the truth of what we are saying. They also appear to be building up their egos at the expense of others, but never mind about that now.

This anti-creationist presented a graphic that was made by another fool of his ilk. (Yes, they are fools, do a Bible word search and you'll see why, especially about mockery.) It is about how scientists do great things, but creationists do nothing for science. Atheopaths are giddy with joy when "Christians" attack biblical creationists. The pernicious lie of the graphic leaves out the fact that there are creationists in many scientific fields, doing research, publishing in journals, contributing to society, and so on. No sense going to biased blackguards to find out the truth about creationists, you savvy?

Question Evolution Day has many layers, but one simple feature is that we are hoping to prompt honest inquirers to see the profuse evidence that evolution has intractable problems, and the evidence is instead upholding special creation. From there, they may be open to the ultimate message that God is the Creator, he makes the rules, we are accountable to him, and we'd better find out what he has to say. Those honest seekers are not going to learn the truth about what creationists believe and teach from atheists and anti-creationists, and that's a natural fact! We can hope and pray that sincere seekers will want to find out what we have to say from creationary sources, and not what they are told to think from those who love to hate us.

This article was strongly influenced by "Donald Trump Is The First President To Turn Postmodernism Against Itself", but obviously I left out the political material. You may want to take a look, it's really quite interesting.


Saturday, February 11, 2017

Inconvenient Facts about Earth's Magnetic Field

Those of us who know that Earth has a magnetic field probably don't think about it every day. Why would you? Out of sight, out of mind. Unless you're a scientist that's paid to do that kind of thing. But it's up there, protecting our joyous wet oblate spheriod from many unpleasant things including cosmic rays, solar flares, carnivorous squid from the planet Kootulu, and more.

"There are no carnivorous squid in space, Cowboy Bob!"

No? Thought I read that somewhere. Oh, well.

Secularists insist that Earth is ancient, but cannot solve the young-Earth-affirming problems of the magnetic field that protects us.
Image credit: NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center Conceptual Image Lab
Purveyors of the "deep time" mythology are beleaguered by the numerous difficulties in keeping their ideas plausible. Creationists have shown for a long time that Earth's magnetic field cannot be as old as secularists desire, and a number of rescuing devices have been considered. They still don't work, partly because scientists don't understand the field in the first place, but the biggest part is that Earth was created recently, and not the product of cosmic evolution from billions of years ago. You can read about the field difficulties and weep for the secularists by clicking on "What You Are Not Being Told About Earth’s Magnetic Field". To see an article from 2015 on this subject with the same name, click on "What You’re Not Being Told About Earth’s Magnetic Field".

Friday, February 10, 2017

Free Speech and Question Evolution Day

Question Evolution Day is very timely. Not only can people spread the word about the truth of creation and the fake science used to prop up evolution, but it is also a stand for free speech!

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

As I have stated in articles, interviews, and so on, Question Evolution Day has many layers. Ultimately, it's about proclaiming the gospel and removing a huge naturalistic stumbling block. While we're hoping to prompt honest evolutionists to question their indoctrination and see that fish-to-fish packer evolution is abundant in storytelling but sparse in evidence, QED has some other aspects on which I need to focus.

QED is an effort to encourage people to take a stand for creation (and more so in 2017, because the event coincides with Creation Sunday). Participation ranges from having events, sharing a post with a #questionevolutionday and/or #qed2017 hashtag on social media, Sunday services, or other ideas. A reason for this event is because of censorship, censure, discrimination, and bigotry against those who oppose Darwin. If you study on it a spell, you should see that there's no legitimate reason for someone to oppose our freedom of speech, as well as the intellectual and academic freedoms of those who have the audacity to think for themselves and speak out. Indeed,  consensus does not guarantee accurate science, pilgrim. Far from it, in fact, since the establishment seeks to protect its views instead of investigating challenges and rejecting inferior science.

When I said there's no legitimate reason to oppose our freedom of speech, there are atheists and other anti-creationists who want creationists shut down. Free speech only exists in the minds of people like that when they agree with what you have to say.

Secularists hate creation, and they want creationists (and Intelligent Design proponents) silenced because their origins mythology is threatened. The well-heeled atheists will attempt legislation in many cases. When Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis built the full-sized Noah's Ark, atheist organizations had conniption fits, but lost their legal challenges. Even after the project was up and running, Americans United for Separation of Church and State is still lying about it. In the UK, creation is pretty much banned from UK schools, so that propaganda machine has electrodes firmly ensconced in the heads of children. See "Evidence for Creation now banned from UK religious education classes", scroll down past the large white space patch at the top.

If anti-creationists (and let's face it, all who are opposed to our free speech) cannot prevail through the courts, they attempt to defame their targets, primarily with misrepresentation, nonexistent "facts", appeals to emotion (teaching creation is "child abuse"), and so on. (Take a gander at this narcissistic jasper who criminally cyberstalks me for emotionally-laden libel and assertions of opinions as facts.) The Internet, forums, social media, Weblogs, and so on are hotbeds of false information. Unfortunately, people seldom go to the source to find out what is really taught, said, believed, preached, since it's easy for people to find someone who agrees with their preconceptions instead. 

The most recent flagitious example of defamation is when Betsy DeVos was being confirmed as the Secretary of Education in the United States. She has connections to groups that funded Intelligent Design (gasp, shudder), and leftists (most atheists are politically and morally liberal) were afraid that she would bring in "junk science" (note the loaded negative terminology), and the liberals in the anti-creation National Education Association got on the prod.. Worse than that, Propublica states,
At a confirmation hearing earlier this month, Betsy DeVos, President Trump’s pick for education secretary, responded to a question about whether she would promote “junk science” by saying she supports science teaching that “allows students to exercise critical thinking.”
Critical thinking is something that other creationists and I have been encouraging for many years. We don't want to be like evolutionary educators and evolution industry press that tell people what to think, but equip people with tools of science, logic, and so forth so they can learn how to think. And these people are opposed to thinking skills! I'd like to recommend Albert Mohler's The Briefing, "History made in Senate as Vice President joins in confirmation vote for Betsy DeVos" for some insightful analysis. Free to download, or read the transcript.

My primary examples are based in the United States, where I live. (For my politically-oriented article on the intolerant left, see "Snowflakes Burning with Hate" and one on how the secular science industry is not only biased but promotes leftist views, see "Blind Bias in the Secular Science Industry".) When this hits the Fazebook Page for The Question Evolution Project (or if you share it to your own social media for a conversation starter), there will probably be comments regarding anti-creationist roguishness around the world. It happens. I've seen reports.

Question Evolution Day is a way to make ourselves heard. Not just for creation science or to prod thinking in the minds of honest but uninformed evolutionists, but also for free speech. I urge people to use it while we still can; don't take your freedoms for granted. This is probably my last year spearheading this effort. To find out more and how you can be involved (no cost, no registration), click on Question Evolution Day. Don't forget the hashtags, people seem to like those. #qed2017 and #questionevolutionday . 


Thursday, February 9, 2017

When Creationists Do Not Have Answers

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The question of what creationists need to do when asked a question about something we cannot answer, or a question in an area that appears weak to creationists, seems like a good topic to consider, what with Question Evolution Day coming up on February 12 and all. I hope this material will be helpful in everyday dealings.

Evolutionists, atheists, anti-creationists, and others seem to have the notion that biblical creationists claim to have all the answers. It may come as a shock to some people (including underinformed creationists), but we do not have all the answers. We may be asked a question about something for which we do not have an answer, and must deal with the situation correctly. In addition, some areas are underdeveloped by biblical creationists.

There are questions that creationists are unable to readily answer, and some areas that are underdeveloped by biblical creationists. How do we respond?
Generated at Add Letters
I'll allow that there are many sidewinders, especially online, that like to play, "Gotcha!" if someone has a problem answering a question. (Some even go as far as equivocating lying with disagreement, typo pouncing, ridiculing words that are beyond their ken, and more.) Their "logic" can even resemble this: creationist cannot answer question, creation science is false in its entirety, there is no God. Folks like that, well, no need to expend a great deal of time or intellectual energy with them, since they only want to score points for evolutionism. You'll need to discern if people are being sincere, and if they're not, mayhaps a question is worth answering anyway.

Science covers many disciplines, and even ventures into philosophy. It is unreasonable and irrational to expect an individual creationist to know everything about all areas, although some indulge in verbal automatic weapons by assaulting us with a variety of subjects. 

Problem Areas
One area of contention that comes readily to mind is the light travel or distant starlight question, which basically says that we are seeing some celestial objects that are millions of light years distant, so how can that be if God created the universe just a few thousand years ago? Creationary scientists have four basic models and are discussing it. Keep in mind, though, that the critic is often unaware that the light travel problem applies to the Big Bang as well, called the horizon problem. In addition, there is an assumption that scientists fully understand the nature of light, the cosmos, gravitational waves, and the like. They don't.

Dr. Ben Scripture mentioned some problem areas in a recent podcast, "What! Creationists don't have all the answers?" (look for that title in the 1/28/17 time slot). One of his concerns was about marsupials found primarily in Australia, with very few elsewhere. How can we explain that? Dr. Scripture had not heard any good explanations from a creationist perspective. It is interesting that the same day I heard his podcast, the Institute for Creation Research released an article by Brian Thomas dealing with the same subject. He pointed out that Marsupials in 'Straya are a problem for evolutionists as well, and that the fossil record is actually hostile to their conjectures. As we saw with the light travel problem, this objection from secularists is not only our puzzle. The biblical creationist speculations are far more plausible, which include the Genesis Flood and the Ice Age. To see this, click on "Why Do Kangaroos Live Only in Australia?"

Responding Properly
As Christians and biblical creationists, we need to respond in an honest, God-honoring way.

  • No faking it. We know that God's Word is inerrant, but creationary models and conjectures are not. Also, keep in mind that there is no point in living in fear of those who want to score points for their side, since they cannot be pleased with anything you say anyway. If you don't know the answer, admit it. You're more likely to get respect by being honest. This is especially important when dealing with kids! If circumstances allow, offer to get back to the one asking a question.
  • Be clear when giving an opinion. This is not faking it, but you can still give a limited answer. Just be certain that you are not pretending to give anything more than what you think or believe. Making Stuff Up™ is the property of the hands at the Darwin Ranch, not Christians.
  • Avoid bad "science" and poor arguments. This point is kind of an aside for when joining in with a discussion or presenting a "fact". Some arguments are just plain bad, others are questionable. Here is a list of recommended arguments to avoid. While not exhaustive, and some areas need to be revisited for possible inclusion in yes, use these lists, it's mighty helpful.
  • Do some research. This site is searchable, and points you to several other sites that have far more material (some of which is highly technical), and they are searchable, too. You may need to retreat and return later because your search terms were not bringing up results, or perhaps a topic is quite new and still being considered by creationists.
  • Be logical. Not only do we need to present things rationally, we can also spot when someone is pulling a fast one on us. Learning to spot basic logical fallacies is extremely helpful, not just here, but in other areas.
  • Don't try to be a hero. While our ultimate goal is to show that Genesis is true and point people to Jesus, you and I are not the ones who save people. That's the work of the Holy Spirit. Our job is to give an answer (1 Peter 3:15), destroy arguments raised up against God (2 Cor. 4-5), and contend for the faith (Jude 1:3), these things are not in our human strength and wisdom (1 Cor. 2:1-5). There are some people, I'm ashamed to say, who are more interested in winning an argument than giving glory to God. They want to take on all challengers and answer all questions, but often end up looking foolish when at the receiving end of a verbal (or typed) barrage and trying to answer everything. One thing at a time, and it's fair to say, "Enough".
We need to deal with things honestly and humbly because we seek to glorify God and not ourselves. Nor should there be any desire to be kicking some atheist tail, as some seem to express. That's not our job. Can't answer the question, fine, keep calm, be honest, and do some research.
 

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Rapid Flight in the Animal Kingdom

If you commence to riding and take a turn too fast, you probably know what's going to happen, and it's none too good. People need specialized equipment to make quick movements at high speeds, and even then, we can only tolerate so much.


Two prime examples of God's design ability are in the way these creatures can focus on their activity and keep their focus while making fast changes at high speed.
Image credit: Freeimages / Rinske Blok-van Middendorp
More than just tolerating the stress of sudden, speedy movements, animals need to be able to see where they're going. Two prime examples of this are hummingbirds and bats. Hummingbirds see things a mite differently, and bats are using their sonar to decide how to catch two insects in different places in succession. Such characteristics are antithetical to evolutionary concepts because all the "components" must be in place and fully functional at once; there is no room for gradual evolution. These are examples of the amazing design skills of the Creator, and you can read about them by clicking on "Fast Flight Specializations in Birds and Bats".


Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Observing Unobservable Evolution?

Clinton Richard Dawkins received attention for a self-contradictory remark in 2004 that exhibited his blind faith, "Evolution has been observed, it’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening." That fits the atoms-to-atheist view that evolution is very slow, so we don't see it happening, we just infer what happened from what we see in the present. But it doesn't work, old son.


Evolution is supposed to be too slow to observe. Richard Dawkins gives us a contradictory remark. In fact, there's a bit of definition shenanigans happening.
Image credit: Pixabay / LoganArt
Some acolytes of Dawkins attempted to rescue his gaffe, but their efforts were ad hoc and nonsensical. Part of the problem is based on definitions. Yes, evolution happens, but that is based on one of several definitions of the word. We see rapid speciation, mutations, variations, and all sorts of things. We also see interpretations of data according to materialistic presuppositions; essentially, circular reasoning. We do not see anything that supports the concept of evolution from one common ancestor, savvy? Instead, the evidence clearly supports the brilliant design of our Creator.
Many evolutionists seem to live with a kind of ‘schizophrenic’ mindset. They often claim evolution is ‘science’ and creation is ‘faith’—by which they mean blind faith not the biblical faith that’s connected to logic and evidence. But when someone touts science as being on their side, one naturally thinks of someone describing something observable, repeatable, and testable etc. After all, isn’t that what we were told in school science is based upon—observation and testability?

I’ll believe it when I see it!

Obviously if you are performing repeated experiments on something, then you are observing and experiencing the results in real time. With so many people declaring evolution is a ‘fact’ one would expect that evolutionists should be able to give us numerous examples of having observed evolution ‘in action’. How many do they actually have? None, according to the most famous evolution (and atheopathy) promoter on the planet!
To finish reading, click on "Now you see it, now you don’t!" Note: I disagree with the use of the word schizophrenic in the opening sentence of the quoted material above.

 

Labels