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

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. EDIT: Consider the comment made by this anti-creationist when he shared the post to his own Page that exists for the purpose of ridicule. He does not read the material he attacks.
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!

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Lunar Collision Origin All Wet

One of the popular speculations about the origin of Earth's moon is that a celestial body was unable to stay in its traffic lane, lost control, and smacked into Earth way back when. This would explain the absence of lunar water to the satisfaction of naturalists who deny the truth of recent creation.

Impact hypothesis of moon origin refuted by water on moon
The Harvest Moon, Samuel Palmer, 1833
Even a cursory consideration of this idea shows that it is ridiculous. After all, the moon is the perfect size to obscure the sun during a total eclipse, and the moon is necessary for keeping life on Earth working efficiently. It has that almost-circular orbit and all. Rocks that Apollo astronauts brought back were tested in 2008 and found to have water, but that didn't seem to make an impression. Now that the moon can be studied from a distance, scientists learn that there is indeed water in the rocks. But it shouldn't be there according to proponents of the impact hypothesis.
New clues confirm that the moon looks created.

In stark contrast to Genesis 1, secular scientists claim that a collision between a planet-sized rocky object and an ancient Earth somehow crafted the moon billions of years ago. This supposed collision was so violent and hot that it would have burned off all the original moon water— assuming there was any. So why do researchers keep finding evidence of water inside the moon?
To read the rest, click on "Lunar Water Douses Collision Origin".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Secularists Devalue Dinosaur Soft Tissues

Advocates of deep time and dust-to-dinosaur evolution presuppose that dinosaurs died off 65 million Darwin years ago, and biblical creationists presuppose that Earth is much, much younger. With incontrovertible evidence of soft tissues in dinosaur bones, evolutionists had to circle the wagons and open fire on facts (and people presenting those facts) that threaten their belief systems.

Dinosaur soft tissue discoveries are a problem for evolutionists that will not go away
Credit: Freeimages / jim daly
Some people tried to say that there were errors in lab testing, and Darwinoids on the web called the creationists who knew more about science than they did "liars". Other folks tried to get dismissive about this massive problem for deep time and evolution, hoping that their bad news would go away and things would be peachy keen if they pulled the covers over their heads and got a good night's sleep. Didn't happen. People at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (who are also fond of advancing the bad science promoting evolutionism) cannot make the problem go away, so they try to make it seem unimportant. The facts are extremely important, since they indicate that biblical creationists are right: Earth is not billions of years old, and life was created, not evolved.
The biggest bombshell of the century in paleontology threatens evolutionary time. It’s not surprising that the AAAS would want to put out the fire.

Dinosaur soft tissue pulls the rug out from millions of years. Most people get that. Tell them that blood vessels, blood cells and original proteins have been found in dinosaur fossils, and a light bulb will go off in their heads: ‘then they can’t be that old’ is the logical conclusion. With few exceptions, fossils are supposed to be remains of organisms that have turned to stone. But when Mary Schweitzer went on 60 Minutes in 2010 (see YouTube) showing stretchy material she found inside a T. rex bone, it elicited gasps from host Lesley Stahl. Nobody on that show could believe it. And her mentor, dinosaurologist Jack Horner, had no explanation. Schweitzer’s “unorthodox approach”, the narrator stated, “may be changing the whole dino ball game”.
To read the rest of the article, click on "AAAS Tries to Downplay Dinosaur Soft Tissue".

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

Monday, October 9, 2017

The Taste of Water

Everybody knows that water has no taste, right? That's a good thing when riding the long, hot trail and you need a good draw from your canteen that doesn't taste fruity or bitter. Well, I don't want flavor when I'm all hottened up. Don't be so sure there's no taste. A study indicates that mice are able to taste — more likely, maybe distinguish or discern that they are actually drinking water. Mice, critters, and people are designed to have many things in common, so it's likely that we can "taste" water as well.

New study shows that the tongue can "taste" water, in a way.
Credit: Pixabay / Capri23auto
The Big Box Chain Store sells its own brand of water, and I think it tastes mighty find. But on the label, it lists the ingredients as purified water (as I wanted), some chemicals, and minerals to enhance flavor. Strikes me as odd that they're enhancing something that has no flavor, but that's just marketing. People have subjected brands of bottled water to taste tests as well. My speculation is that the testers were responding to the additives, not the water itself. Interestingly, two hours south of me, New York City tap water won a taste competition.

Being able to "taste" water is helpful so we can know that we're actually drinking the stuff and not something that looks very similar. Like other things we taste, this appears to be built into the tongue itself. This helps illustrate that our Creator cares about even seemingly little details.
Our tongues can sense five basic tastes with specialized nerve cells for each: salty, sour, sweet, bitter, and umami (savory). But a new study suggests our tongues can detect another “taste”—tasteless water. A paper published in the journal Nature Neuroscience details this fascinating new research, which uses mice as the test subjects.
To lap up the rest of this short article, click on "Study: Tongues Can 'Taste' Tasteless Water". Of course, they don't know about the living water that all men and women need.

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

Saturday, October 7, 2017

Fossils Unfriendly to Evolution

Supporters of universal common ancestor evolution claim that the fossil record contains some of the strongest evidence for their belief system. Evolution requires huge amounts of time so things can go about the business of changing into other things, so there should be a multitude of transitional forms. Ain't happening, Zeke. 

"But we've got excuses because you're wrong because evolution!"

The hands at the Darwin Ranch have worked overtime down at the propaganda mill to cover the fact that there are no undisputed transitional forms. Sure, they cite propaganda mills like Wikipedia, propaganda.talk.origins, and so forth that state what they want to believe, but those shnooks are at odds with the experts.

The fossil record is hostile to evolution and supports the Genesis Flood
I'd like to see trilobites do a coelacanth trick and suddenly get discovered alive
Credit: Freeimages / Dave Dyet
Doesn't a proper scientific attitude require evidence before a hypothesis is formed? Darwin admitted in Origin of Species, "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” He expected the evidence to be found. That's not science, that's wishful thinking, Chuck.

There are numerous citations from evolutionists who have admitted over the years that there are still no transitional forms. They also admit that evolutionary paleontologists engage in circular reasoning. At this point, someone will get on the prod and want to slap leather, saying, "That there's quote mining, Mister! I'm calling you out!" But he's shooting blanks because we're not quote mining. As it was then, so it is today: paucity of transitional forms, and circular reasoning. The missing links will remain missing, and the transitional forms do not exist, because evolution did not happen. The evidence actually supports the global Genesis Flood.
How many of us have heard that evolution is supported by the evidence of the fossil record or that millions of fossils prove evolution had to have occurred? It has been assumed that as more research accumulated and more fossils were discovered, there would be increasing evidence to support the thesis of Darwin that evolution of species has occurred. In fact, it now seems to be popular to think that this has indeed occurred, and that new fossil evidence - including evidence of whale evolution, etc. - now has lent increased support to the theory of evolution. We will look at the results of the research in the years following Darwin. We will also examine claims or statements from scientists, including evolutionists, about this fossil evidence. Let’s look at this and see what the actual fossil evidence tells us!
To learn some interesting things about fossils, the absence of what evolutionists need, and evidence for the Flood, click on "Fossils"

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

Friday, October 6, 2017

Hilarity Ensues in Tardigrade Research

There is an ultra-small critter known as the tardigrade —

"Is this going to be about astronomy, Cowboy Bob?"

Not hardly! You're thinking of retrograde, going in a reverse or worsening state or having retrogression. The astronomy part is where planets we observe from Earth appear to move backward over a period of time in the night sky. Also, most of the planets in the solar system rotate in one fashion, but Venus goes the opposite, so it's orbit is retrograde. A few moons out there do that, too. Makes problems for the accretion theory. Oh, thanks a lot! Now I gotta turn this horsie around and get back on the right trail.

As I was saying, the tiny tardigrade is very small, and is classified with over a thousand species. Most eat plants, but some are carnivorous, and live in many environments. They are considered to be relatives of arthropods, and have eight legs. Something even more interesting about tardigrades is that they are very difficult to make deceased. Research was conducted and crazy conclusions were reached.

Evolutionary scientists have conclusions that are thoroughly mad
Mad Scientist image from Clker clipart
Using a prairie schooner-full of circular reasoning (assuming something is true in order to argue for it), scientists decided that tardigrades must have evolved, and they're mighty hardy, so if life was wiped out on a planet, they'd probably keep on going. (Wonder what they'd have as a food source?) Since there are no decent candidate planets for life in space, this proves that life can happen even under the harshest conditions. What the things evolved from, or would evolve into, and how, remain unstated. Pretty goofy stuff, isn't it? Also, seems like even more desperation from materialists to avoid dealing with the fact that life was created, not evolved.
Tardigrades, also known as water bears, are smaller than a millimeter, live in water, and can endure all kinds of harsh environments. A recent research project found that asteroid impacts and nearby supernovae and gamma-ray bursts would wreck humanity but leave tardigrades unscathed. Does this mean we should expect to find tardigrade-like life on other planets and moons?
Oxford physicists David Sloan and Rafael Batista joined Harvard astronomer Abraham Loeb to publish in the online journal Scientific Reports.
To read the rest of their embarrassingly dreadful reasoning and wishful thinking, click on "Wacky Conclusion from Tardigrade Research".
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Express Delivery to Chromosome Two

According to some outdated versions of minerals-to-microbiologist evolution, the human genome was examined. Using outdated technology, evolutionary assumptions, and a whole heap of hubris, some DNA ("noncoding") was considered "junk". That is, containing material that was important in the past but we evolved and don't need it anymore. Not a good idea to slap a branding iron on something you don't rightly understand and herd it into the Settled Science Corral, because the "junk" is constantly being found useful

Direct delivery to Chromosome 2 is another example of creation
Generated at RedKid.net
The extreme specified complexity of the molecular world, including DNA, RNA, cells, and so forth, cannot be explained by evolutionary ideas. In this case, a kind of package is sent from one chromosome, takes a ride on a protein, and makes a delivery to the exact location on another chromosome. Over a billion possibilities, and the package ends up where it's needed. Time, chance, random processes — with no evolutionary model or mechanism? That'll be the day! No, this is yet another of many evidences indicating that God engineered his creation. Creation deniers need to give some serious thought to their epistemology.
Think of the difficulty of sending a package from one location to another when there are a billion possible destinations. To make this process efficient it requires infrastructure and machines that can propel themselves and navigate. It’s even more amazing if this happens in an ever changing soup of molecules within a cell.

In 2007, John Rinn discovered a lncRNA (long non-coding RNA) transcribed from DNA on human Chromosome 12 that would somehow navigate and land at a specific location on human Chromosome 2 by riding a molecular “bus” known as the Suz12 protein. It was the first example of a transcript from one chromosome influencing the expression of a gene on another chromosome. This epigenetic action, he found, was a crucial part of cell signaling for differentiating skin cells in the body. It’s why the skin cells in the sole of the foot, for instance, have different qualities than skin cells in the lid of the eye.
To read the rest, shuttle yourself over to "Pinpoint Navigation and Propulsion in a Seemingly Random Soup".

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

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Seaweed Clogs Evolutionary Propellers

Imagine if you will being out in a motorboat on a fine, sunny day, ready to do some recreational activity. Maybe singing a happy song to yourself just over the sound of the outboard motor. Then, you hear that awful sound and the song dies on your lips as the motor stops running. Things were fine a moment ago. Checking the situation, you discover that you got into the seaweed, and that stuff got tangled into the propellers, bringing you to a halt. In a similar manner, a seaweed discovery clogged the works for Darwinists and their imaginary plant evolution timeline. 

Credit: Freeimages / Jacqueline Fouche
Ever hear of lignin? Looks like a misspelling, or an incomplete word, but it's actually a component in plant cell walls. It helps keep land plants standing up straight and looking mighty fine, and also helps water get from the from the roots to where it's needed in the far away regions of the plant. The story continues that lignin is not needed in aquatic plants, so it didn't evolve there.

Evolutionary storytelling (suitable for campfire entertainment on the trail, but not for serious science) gets complicated and collapses. Lignin was found in an alga. Specifically, a red seaweed. That's not supposed to happen! Not only does it confound Darwinists because of its "early" evolution, but it's in a kind of seaweed that allegedly diverged a few zillion Darwin years ago. Some have invoked the non-science magic of convergent evolution, a convenient story that actually explains nothing. But some evolutionists are honest enough to admit that lignin is exceptionally complex, and not just a simple cell modifier. Also, why would it evolve in the alga? It was doing fine getting water, and structural support wasn't exactly an issue. Seems self-contradictory to me. If they were more circumspect, Darwinists would realize that their evolutionary stories are meaningless, and the real scientific evidence indicates recent creation by the Master Engineer.
Lignin is a primary structural (strengthening) component of wood. It enables land plants to support themselves as they grow upward through the air, and is crucial to transporting water from roots up to the leaves. It has long been thought, and taught, that this feature is unique to land plants because aquatic plants, nicely bathed and supported by the surrounding water medium, do not have any lignin.

That textbook teaching is overturned now, however, by the discovery of lignin in marine algae.

Not a big deal, you might think, except that this discovery “has major evolutionary implications”. As the lead researcher, University of British Columbia Assistant Professor Patrick Martone, explained:
To find out what the professor explained and more about the implications of this discovery, click on "Overturnin’ the learnin’ about lignin". I wonder if you're eating that same seaweed in your sushi.

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

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Humans Are Not Causing Rapid Gecko Evolution

One of the favorite tricks of Darwinoids is to engage in equivocation, which is a logical fallacy. It is also called the bait-and-switch maneuver. For our purposes, we'll look at how the word evolution is used. This word actually has several definitions that involve change over time in one way or another. Humans were credited (or blamed, if you will) for "rapid evolution" involving geckos.

Credit: Pixabay / Skitterphoto
Geckos, those baffling little critters that can hang by one toe and inspired self-cleaning adhesive tape, were observed changing over time. Although the geckos remained geckos, disingenuous proponents of  universal common ancestor evolution called these minor changes "evolution", equivocating on the key word to deceive people into believing that Darwin was right after all. Ain't happening, Zeke. Those sidewinders were implying that big picture evolution happened, but no new genetic information was added, and the geckos conveniently evolved into — no, they remained geckos. They were created to adapt, which is what they did.
News reports are proclaiming that human actions, in this case the building of a hydroelectric dam in Brazil, are “messing with evolution” because of changes in a species of gecko.

Here’s what happened: a portion of the Brazilian countryside was flooded for this dam, isolating gecko populations from the mainland. When the larger lizard species that used to inhabit this part of the countryside died off, the geckos dominated. Within a mere 15 years, the geckos had bigger mouths and heads to eat the larger insects the other lizards would otherwise have snapped up. This change in the lizards, which happened independently on all five new islands, is being heralded as an example of “rapid evolution.”
To read the rest, click on "Are Humans Driving Rapid Lizard Evolution?"
Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!