Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Friday, May 31, 2013

Want to Learn Camouflage? Study the Squid!

Behold the lowly squid. Yon sea beastie is able to rapidly blend in with its surroundings to escape predators — and it's colorblind. Since humans like to study the work of the Creator (but seldom give proper credit) and learn the secrets of their success, the United States Navy wants to know how squids can camouflage themselves so quickly.
Cephalopods—the group of mollusks that includes squid, octopus and cuttlefish—are famous for their amazing ability to blend quickly into their surroundings. Now the US Office of Naval Research is funding research in several universities into man-made materials that have the same instant camouflage properties.
On land, the chameleon has a most ingenious colour-changing system. But the colour changes are caused by hormones that travel through their blood system. Cephalopods change colour through their nervous system, so they adjust much faster—in only a second or two.
Their skin has the same sort of light-sensitive proteins as the eye—opsins—meaning that the skin itself can ‘see’ the surrounding colours and change colour accordingly.
You can read the rest of "Colourblind squid camouflage inspires Navy research", here.

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Science, Evolution and the New Golden Rules

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The "Golden Rule" that most of us learned is, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (derived from "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise", Luke 6.31). Another version has been said, "Know the Golden Rule? Whoever has the gold makes the rules".

There is something else that I would like to put forth, a kind of "Golden Rule" for debates and discussions: "The one that makes the definitions controls the argument".

Argument controlled through definitions

When entering debates or discussions, it is extremely helpful to define terms. Otherwise, you can be arguing about something that the other party understands differently. This is especially important when flexible words like "science" and "evolution" are being used. Some people mistakenly (and I believe some do this deliberately) will equivocate on the word "evolution"; they see change that has nothing to do with evolution, and then insist that it is evolution in action:

Bait-and-switch equivocation happens when people will say that natural selection or so-called "micro-evolution" validates goo-to-you macro-evolution. This is sometimes done as a mistake, but often to deceive and manipulate:

Someone insisted that both "science" and "evolution" are the same thing. This shows a terrible lack of comprehension of the natures of both science and evolution:
In addition to the abusive ad hominem, we have the fallacies of equivocation and assertion.
There are people who will make their own arbitrary definitions. This example is fallacious on several levels:
Again, erroneously equivocating "evolution" with "science", plus denigrating "creation" as "mythology".
I just heard this fine example of arbitrary and convoluted definitions to define reality on a podcast:
The supernatural, as far as I'm concerned, by definition, cannot exist, because if something exists within reality, no matter how strange the thing is that's existing within reality, it's part of reality and it's natural. To become supernatural, something has to be apart from reality, it has to be external to nature. As there is nothing that is external to nature, no matter how bizarre, then it's impossible in my mind for the supernatural to exist, it's illogical to believe it does... Alex Botten defines reality for his own purposes

Amazing. "Reality" is defined as naturalism. This makes atheism convenient for him because of his definition. He is also requiring "reality" to strictly adhere to what he is insisting to be "natural". By defining "reality" his own way, he is effectively creating his own reality to suit his atheistic worldview! That is not the sign of a healthy mind.

One reason I am not interested in debating is because people will rely on their own definitions, as well as changing their definitions. Also, I will not continue when someone is establishing their argument on obvious logical fallacies. I recommend that people define their terms before engaging in  debates or lengthy discussions with atheists and evolutionists. When you see that they are not interested in being rational, it's time to find something productive to do.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Evolution Gets Undue Credit for Changes

It's interesting how some evolutionists will claim that creationists "do not understand science". Well, when they act like "science" means, "Whatever excuses we can find to attribute to evolution", then we probably do not understand it. We prefer the proper definitions, and not the self-serving circular reasoning definitions that Darwin's Cheerleaders keep dreaming up at their convenience.

We frequently read some of these things as if evolution was some kind of intelligent entity or pantheistic religious view. To make matters worse, evolutionists will resort to a bait-and-switch on the meaning of the word "evolution". When change is observed, it will be erroneously called "evolution", but there was no evolution of any kind, under any legitimate definition. The sneaky part is where the word is equated with molecules-to-man evolution — and that is disingenuous at best.

Cockroaches avoiding glucose bait traps? Call it evolution. Flowers that close at night? They're more highly evolved. Turtle embryonic development? Give credit to evolution. But that is not science. It is, however, incompetent and perhaps even dishonest. And their stories are self-contradictory.
Evolution is one of the most carelessly-used words in science, as several recent articles show.  Not all change is evolution the way Darwin meant it.
Roaches check in, and they also check out:  Those omnivorous pests have outsmarted engineers again.  Even though they like sugar in the wild, they have learned to avoid sugary-tasting poison in roach traps.  Sure enough, you can watch the smarter bugs in a video clip on Live Science.  Stephanie Pappas headlined the story, “Yikes!  Cockroaches Evolved to Avoid Sugary Baits.”  The authors of the paper in Science claimed that the German cockroaches “rapidly evolved an adaptive behavioral aversion to glucose.”  They spoke of glucose aversion as a “gain of function adaptation” that “emerged” in their study population.
You can finish reading by clicking on "Roach Bait Story Highlights Abuse of Word 'Evolution'".

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

More Evolution in Medical Science — Bad Idea

One of the religious tenets of evolutionism is that “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”. But this is patently false because biology makes more sense without evolution. Worse, evolution has been detrimental to medicine, as well as to science and society.

Yet some people are pushing evolution (under the guise of "science") to have more emphasis in medical schooling. Educators do not have time for that, because they not only have their time taken up with observable, practical science, but the historical speculations of evolutionism have no value. The Evo Sith will do whatever it takes to indoctrinate people into their false belief system, n'est pas?
Should medical educators clutter the busy course schedule that medical students must master with additional instruction in evolution? The clamor to do so is not new. While many physicians surely believe in evolutionary claims, most don’t find that those beliefs enhance their day-to-day ability to care for sick people in any practical sort of way. Recently there has been some media attention directed to those who crusade to make medical students learn not only how everything in the human body works but also the evolutionary history of how each human innovation evolved through the ages. Will teaching medical students more evolutionary beliefs, if it ever catches on, produce better physicians?
Evolution is not emphasized in most medical schools. Medical educators have a great deal to teach to budding physicians in a short time. (The time spent in actual instruction upon entering medical school is a bit of a shock to many students fresh from their college undergraduate programs.) Therefore, in the packed curricula of medical schools, the most expendable item is evolution.
You do not need an appointment to finish reading "Do Medical Schools Need To Teach More Evolution?"

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Audio Extra — Atheism, Evolution and Science

It has been well-established here and elsewhere that evolution is a foundation for atheism. Since atheists and humanists (humanism is the more blatant form of religious atheism) cannot account for the origins and development of life without God, they rely on naturalistic presuppositions. When the science fails, they make stuff up to keep the faith.

Creationist ministries and organizations (as well as the Intelligent Design movement) are growing. (And why not? The science is on our side!) Some Christians are putting some serious effort into learning about science, philosophy, logic, theology and so on to be able to present the truth.

Atheists hate that.

The days of the "live and let live" atheists seem to be gone. At least, those atheists do not spend time on the Interweb, and the so-called "New Atheists" are the ones that we encounter. There has been an increase in vituperative attacks, defamation, libel and more. They show their intolerance of Christianity with totalitarian attitudes. But atheopaths have not learned to use logic and reason (which they claim to embrace), relying instead on bad thinking, emotionalism and manipulation.

Here are three recordings, the first two are about twelve minutes each. First, a segment of a CARM broadcast from "Matt Slick Live" (entire April 30, 2013 broadcast here), where "Tom from Georgia" as asking about the increasing anger and irrationality of atheists.

A few days after I heard that podcast, I called Matt myself and wanted to compare notes and share some of my experiences on the subject. Entire May 10, 2013 broadcast here.

On Thursday, May 23, I contacted Mike Shoesmith of PPSIMMONS to follow up on a comment that he had made back in February about having me on PPSIMMONS Radio. His response was enthusiastic, "Maybe this weekend". Great! On Saturday at 18:15, his e-mail arrived, asking if I could do it that day. I was a bit startled and my mind was elsewhere, working on a post for the following week. But sure, why not? 

We were connected on Skype just after 18:30. Hey, no time for me to panic and over-prepare like I've done in the past, so that's good. The show is 43 minutes, but our call was twice that, since we hit it off and talked before and after the recording. It sounds more like a conversation than a formal interview. I did stammer a bit, trying to regain my derailed train of thought (it happens to me sometimes). Once I distracted myself by looking for a file while I was talking, and won't do that again.

Anyway, here's the link to the recording. Not my most concise presentation, but we covered some valuable material, including science, logic, definitions, theistic evolution, biblical authority and more. Hope you like it.

John Anster Fitzgerald's work modified into "The Fairyland of Darwinism"

Saturday, May 25, 2013

Audio Saturday: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

Some people are not keeping up with science, and yet try to defend evolutionism. When told that soft tissues have been found, some will say that it's a trick by lying creationists trying to get you to believe in a holy God that hates lying (makes perfect sense). Others say that it's just plain wrong, from an outdated study that lying or over-enthusiastic but uninformed creationists are using — you get the idea. Soft tissues should not even exist if they were as old as evolutionists want to believe.  Denial is natural when your evolutionary presuppositions are shown to be radically wrong.

The fact is, there are many reports of soft tissues being found and analyzed. Today's audio feature also has some impressive documentation. Click here to download the audio and see the article.

Friday, May 24, 2013

Penguins, Evolution and Tall Tales

A while ago, I posted an article about the amazing design of penguins' ability to swim. Now there's something even more amazing: Stories about how they evolved. There are claims that the puzzle of penguin evolution are "solved".

There is a great deal of conjecture and outright guesswork, but nothing that resembles actual science. It makes much more sense to believe that penguins were actually designed the way they are, instead of making up tall tales to fit evolutionary presuppositions. After all, the fossil record is still a hostile witness to evolution.
Penguins are superb swimmers, well adapted to their Antarctic climate.  They use their wings to “fly” in a different fluid—water, not air.  The sight of a swarm of penguins darting through the water under the ice with speed and grace makes for dramatic film footage.  Most of the major science news sites (e.g., BBC News, National Geographic, Science Now, Nature News, New Scientist) are claiming that the “puzzle” of penguin flightlessness has been “solved” in a new study published in PNAS.  Earlier theories suggested that the lack of predators led to flightlessness, or that evolution had a hard time producing a wing that was good at both flying and swimming.
An international team took a different approach.  They measured the energy demands of flight.  There’s no question that maintaining flight in the air is costly.  Some birds, like cormorants and penguins, are good at both.  But if aerial flight is not required for successful feeding, a bird could focus its wings, feet, and other body parts on just the swimming.
You can read the rest of "The Evolution of Penguins", here.

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Continental Erosion Observations and the Global Flood Model

Actualist and uniformitarian geologists are having to deal with more and more evidence for the global Flood. Current geology does not adequately explain observational evidence, which fits some creationist models.
Tibetan Plateau - Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC
Actualist and uniformitarian geologists are having to deal with more and more evidence for the global Flood. Current geology does not adequately explain observational evidence, including the coarse gravel sheets in south-central Asia. Rapid continental erosion and uplifts of mountains fit some creationist models.
Tall erosional remnants indicate rapid, continent-wide erosion, which is consistent with the Retreating Stage of the Flood. While the floodwaters were retreating and eroding the continents, resistant rocks were transported long distances, as has been documented for the United States. A similar pattern of coarse gravel transport is evident in the mountains of south-central Asia. These areas are south of the Himalayas, north of the Tibetan Plateau, all around the Tian Shan Mountains, southwest of the Zagros Mountains, and east of the Tibetan Plateau on the west edge of the Sichuan basin. The character of the coarse gravel shed from the rising south-central Asian mountains is best interpreted within the Retreating Stage of the Flood, which also implies that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is in the very ‘late Cenozoic’ in this area, assuming the uniformitarian timescale.
During the Retreating Stage of the Flood, continents and mountains rose above the floodwaters while the ocean basins and valleys sank, causing the waters to flow off the continents (Psalm 104:6–9). During the Retreating Stage, the runoff first caused sheet erosion as the continents rose, which transformed progressively, starting at higher altitudes first, into channelized flow. The channels were probably relatively wide at first (c. 75 km wide), and by the end of the Flood they were relatively narrow (c. 2 km wide). There is abundant geomorphological evidence for this runoff event, which occurred between Day 150 and 371 of the Flood, but the evidence is very difficult for uniformitarian scientists to explain.
Mounting evidence is increasingly portraying the Retreating Stage of the Flood as a period of continental erosion, so most of the sedimentary rocks left behind were likely deposited during the early part of the Flood, before Day 150.
To finish reading, rock on over to "Retreating Stage formation of gravel sheets in south-central Asia".

Monday, May 20, 2013

Who Owns the Rights to Science?

Count the fallacies!
Also, Twitter "Tweets" are public. They said so.
People have a serious misunderstanding of the nature, origin and purpose of science. It is a method, a tool for acquiring knowledge. The definition of science cannot be determined by science, nor can any of the scientific methods. These definitions are philosophical in nature. When there are arbitrary, self-serving assertions such as, "You must be an atheist to use science", the entire process is misunderstood. Many people cannot differentiate between operational science and historical science. Further, many will equivocate "science" with "evolution", leading to the fabrication that evolution is science and misleading people who do not know the difference. 

Like the silly assertion above, I have had people say that Christians cannot do science because of their worldview. A scientist's belief in creation does not negate his or her ability to perform actual science. One of the most baffling remarks I ever encountered was when I pointed out that there are creationists involved in space missions. The comment was along the lines of, "If I was 200 miles above the Earth, I wouldn't want my fate in the hands of someone who believes in a Bronze Age book". Aside from the bigotry, it was also prejudicial conjecture and a circumstantial ad hominem

Other people have made silly assertions such as, "You hate science, so you have no right to use a computer, which was made by atheists!" Uh, right, Buttercup. Except it's fallacious. And no, we do not hate science, we just will not allow you to equivocate science with evolution.


When returning from an appointment with Steve the auto mechanic, I realized that he is a scientist! Think about it. He observes a phenomenon (my "brake" light was on), relies on his training, experience, skills, intelligence and integrity (he could have used his superior knowledge to cheat me, others have done this in the past). He has solved problems for both my wife and me, and even found ways to avoid charging our belabored bank accounts unnecessary amounts. Steve is a Christian, and I do not think he believes in evolution. I do not know for sure. Why? Because his belief in origins does not affect his ability to perform the science of being a mechanic!

Despite the painfully obvious facts, secularists insist that atheism belongs to them, and that Christians are unable to do science stuff. (Atheists even seem to think that
they "own" dinosaurs!) They have a woefully inadequate understanding of science and its history.
Many people today insist that science can only be done by people who have a secular worldview—or at least by those who are willing to leave their religious views at the door as they enter the science lab. Several popular atheists and evolutionists have contended that people who reject the big bang and the evolution of living things are so backward that they cannot even be involved in developing new technologies. But is this really the case, or are these opponents of a biblical worldview simply making assertions that cannot be supported with facts and substantial arguments, having an incorrect understanding of true science?
A friend of the ministry was recently challenged by the comment that science can only be done through a purely secular evolutionary framework. We have decided to publish a response for the sake of teaching. Such statements are blatantly absurd and are a type of arbitrary fallacy called an “ignorant conjecture.” In other words, these people simply do not know the past, nor are they familiar with what science really is.
I fully believe that you would do well to read the rest of "Is Science Secular?"

Friday, May 17, 2013

Dinosaur Tracks Support Creationist Model

For many years, uniformitarian geologists claimed that fossils were formed over long periods of time. Something died, sank, was buried by sediment and so forth, and became a fossil. Some seem to still believe this, but it defies common sense and the most basic observations.

One killer for the idea that fossils happen slowly is the very existence of their tracks. Yes, dinosaurs left tracks in mud. And it is apparent that different ones were attempting to deal with flood waters. This supports creationist models for the Noachian Flood.
One killer for the idea that fossils happen slowly is the very existence of their tracks. Yes, dinosaurs left tracks in mud. And it is apparent that different ones were attempting to deal with flood waters. This supports creationist models for the Noachian Flood.
What's so fascinating about dinosaur tracks? Maybe it's because their many mysteries beg for solutions. For instance, because tracks in mud are so short-lived today, how did dinosaur tracks ever preserve in the first place? Newly described prints bolster biblical creation's explanation of dinosaur footprints. 
Researchers working in China's Sichuan Province recently reported their discovery in the Chinese Science Bulletin. Their article documents several different types of dinosaur trackways, including two theropods (bipedal “lizard-hipped”), one sauropod (long-neck), and four ornithopods (duck-billed) all traveling in the same direction at about the same time.
You can wade over and finish reading, "Dinosaurs Swimming out of Necessity".


Thursday, May 16, 2013

Life on Mars? Not Even on Saturday Night!

 Gale Crater on Mars
NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona (slightly modified) 
Evolutionists are desperate to find signs of life elsewhere in the universe. They insist that evolution is true here, so it must have happened out there. Finding some kind of life would (to them) prove evolution. But then, we're used to circular reasoning from them.

Actual observations are constantly wrecking their hypotheses and dreams. Water on Mars would be a good chance of finding life on Mars. Bzzzzz! Wrong answer, Hans! What appeared to be signs of water are actually signs of wind. The more we learn about Mars, the more we learn that it is downright toxic, and even colonizing Mars is probably a bad idea.
Evidence disputes Mars water, let alone life.  It’s looking like a toxic place.  Besides, where would the water come from? 
The big mound in Gale Crater, site of the Mars Curiosity Rover, looked like a tantalizing place to look for habitability.  Mt. Sharp, as it is called, appeared to be a mountain laid down by water.  Now, however, it looks more likely it was built by wind.  Astrobiology Magazine shared the bad news from Princeton: “If correct, the research could dilute expectations that the mound holds evidence of a large body of water, which would have important implications for understanding Mars’ past habitability.” 
Where would the water have come from, anyway?  Live Science proclaimed that Mars and the core of Jupiter formed from “large space crashes.”  The energy of impacts would seem to obliterate volatile compounds (including water).  That’s why cosmogonists try to find other sources for Earth’s oceans, assuming it crashed into existence similarly.  The highly speculative theory proposed by U of Chicago scientists, given credence in the article, relies on numerous improbabilities, among them: (1) dust particles sticking together to make  planetestimals, (2) sufficient numbers of planetesimals colliding and accreting together instead of breaking up into fine particles, and (3) sufficient time before all the planet-forming ingredients are expelled from the system.
You can read the rest of "Trouble for Mars Lifers", here.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Part of the Problem with Evolutionists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Edited 6-21-2016

Before I went ahead with this article, I checked with some other people about the content. Three hours before auto-publish, I removed the name of the evolution stormtrooper that I dealt with, even though they thought I should use it.
"Dr. Duncan, I forbid you from letting any student pass your class if they still believe in their imaginary friends by the end of the semester.  If you don’t make every student in there an atheist by the time they graduate, then you, sir, have failed as an educator!"
— Dr. Robert Farris, The Deception by Steven J. Wright, p. 68
We have seen that indoctrination is paramount in evolutionary education; students are not told how to think (critically, honestly examining the evidence), but what to think (presupposing that evolution is true, and then using circular reasoning to "prove" it). Although the "educator" in the example at the top is fictional, such antics are not. Teachers have actively ridiculed Christians and sought to destroy their faith, and those that are openly creationist are at the receiving end of blatant discrimination

It is imperative for the Evo Sith to protect their fundamentally flawed faith, resorting to deceiving the students, using faulty textbooks, bad thinking and more. So it is not a surprise that Darwin's Cheerleaders are bullies, attempting to silence creationists and pa-TROLL-ing the Web with bad attitudes and worse "science". (One atheopath tactic is to review books that they have not read simply because they disagree with the topic. This is a common trick, and one reason that the reviews at Amazon are no longer very credible.) They are also fond of derision as a means of attempting to silence the opposition.

I had a bit of an encounter with one of these "instructors". But first, some background.

One of the "occupational hazards" of taking a stand for our academic, intellectual and speech freedoms is that we gain stalkers. I learned about a particular stalker's rage about this post when I received a "reply to all" from one of his correspondents, a supposed professorThe message was amazingly vacuous. I did not ask to be on the reply-all list. He caught me at a bad time, and here is the exchange. He began:
I know that you are passionate about this, but take some pleasure in knowing that the trash projected by people like Tas Walker does not have any impact on the work or thinking of working scientists, the only people whose opinions matter on issues of science.
Look at the loaded terminology and ridicule. This guy is a scientist? They are supposed to use logic, you know. Such fallacies and arrogance! I couldn't let that go:
Thanks for including me in your reply to all. I can use your illogical, myopic and bigoted remarks in a Weblog.
To re-use one of my favorite quotes from Mark Levin, "That's right, I said it!" He replied:
Do I care?
Take note that I did not ask for this correspondence (he sent it to me and to five other people), and I did tell him that it was going to be put on a Weblog. He persisted.

I refrained from giving his name, telephone number, e-mail address and physical address that are in his e-mail signature (as well as his IP address). "Do I care?" His indication of unconcern was clearly the opposite of the truth. So, I gave him a bit more:
Obviously not. Just another bigot in action. Noted.
He could not let my remark go, and came back with:
Actually, just another scientist with enough knowledge to see that creationism is nonsense and that its proponents are dishonest. But hey, that's just me and the vast majority of scientists around the world.
Is this guy for real? He's appealing to his own authority and using sweeping generalizations as well as defaming thousands of people. It's a shame that people like this are "educating" people. I called him on some of it, not having the time or desire to go into an analysis of his logical fallacies:
Might makes right, huh, Skippy? Majority rules? Everyone believed in phlogiston at one time. Your false religion of evolutionism is the modern phlogiston theory. Trot on.
(If you want to know about phlogiston, click here.)

Yes, I'm not sugar-coating the fact of my irritation with this sidewinder.

Well, I knew his ego would not rest, but I was going to turn in for the night. Perhaps he did as well, because when I came home from work the next day, I found some more gems from the guy who said he did not care.
Science moves forward on the consensus of the experts in a particular field. Creationists do not operate in that environment. They never take their arguments to the scientific community. Therefore, creationist thinking can never impact science, Skippy.
He reminds me of Norman the Paranoid Troll. I named him "Norman". His response was to show his brilliance by calling me "Norman" right back. Now this "scientist" is showing the same lack of imagination by calling me "Skippy" in return.

More importantly, he is appealing to a kind of ruling elite about the absurd mob rule "consensus of the experts". I guess Einstein, Pasteur, Lister and many other scientists broke the rules then, huh? The claim that "creationists do not operate in that environment" is an outright lie. There are many scientists who are creationists and are working in their fields. "Therefore, creationist thinking can never impact science" is not only built on an untrue premise, it is based on his faulty biases.
By the way, phogiston theory was disproved by the methods of modern science over 250 years ago, in much the same way that Young Earth Creationism was disproved.  So, although you are right that old scientific ideas are sometimes replaced by new ideas on the power of the evidence, science always moves forward.  Never backward.  So you should not hold out hope of resurrecting your long-ago disproven biblical notions within the scientific arena.  Ain’t neva gonna happen, Skippy.
Ummm...Young Earth creationism has not been "disproved", except in the presuppositions of evolutionists using circular reasoning, as has been demonstrated here many times. And the biblical "notions" have not been disproved, sorry. This guy is full of assertions. I see where Darwin's Cheerleaders get this stuff. He wasn't done:
One more thing, Bob.  If you ever decide you want to start engaging the evidence honestly and learn some actual science from an actual scientist, I’d be happy to help.  Until then, I wish you the best of luck dealing with your cognitive dissonance.
Now we're on a first-name basis? Not only does this misotheist impugn thousands of creationist scientists and millions of Christians, he appeals to his own authority (and ego) by offering to edjamakate me, since he is an "actual scientist" by virtue of being an evolutionist.

In addition, not only did he call me dishonest because of my views, he is apparently able to practice psychology and make a diagnosis from just a few lines of correspondence. He was vituperative and irrational — why would anyone want to be taught by him?

So, here you have it: A prime example of the irrational attempting to educate the youth, but all they do is continue to indoctrinate. Some of us are true freethinkers and do not accept evolutionism just because we are told it is true, and we reject faith in Scientism. Hey, I wonder if this is one of those people who claim that we reject evolution because we do not understand it, but do not understand it themselves?

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Gettin' Down and Dirty with Science

It has been stated here several times before, but must be repeated: Scientists are not the impartial, objective bringers of knowledge that many people think. In reality, they are human. As such, they are subject to the same ambitions, lusts, greed, dishonesty and other vices that the rest of us face. And the competition to produce something is fierce.

"Why are you defaming scientists, Cowboy Bob?"

No, dispelling false images is not defamatory. In fact, it's a public service. People do not need to be accepting something as truth just because a scientist says so. We still have to use our minds. They might appreciate the chance to get off the pedestals, as they are not objects of worship — I doubt that many choose to be, either.

The peer review process is biased, discriminatory and unreliable. Papers are being recalled for serious errors, and some are outright plagiarized. Academic fraud does exist, I hate to tell you.
Being a scientist is a noble profession, but it has its darker side. From fierce competition to plagiarism to outright scientific fraud, scientists are far from immune to the sordid. 
A panel of experts discussed the slimy side of science at an event held here on April 30 at the New York Academy of Sciences and moderated by "Scientific American" Editor-in-Chief Mariette DiChristina. 
Dr. Morton Meyers, professor and emeritus chairman of the department of radiology at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Stony Brook, recounted historical conflicts over the Nobel Prize; Harold "Skip" Garner, a professor at Virginia Bioinformatics Institute at Virginia Tech, described wholesale plagiarism in scientific literature; and Dr. Ivan Oransky, executive editor of Reuters Health, delved into the slippery world of retracted studies.
You can read the rest of "Dark and Dirty: The Cutthroat Side of Science", here.

Monday, May 13, 2013

Chilling Effects of Uniformitarian Assumptions in the Arctic

Evolutionary geologists insist on using their failed models and presuppositions when doing their studies. Uniformitarianism, "the present is the key to the past", takes present processes and assumes that they have been constant.
If uniformitarian geologists would admit that their models did not work, and used the far more accurate biblical Noachian Flood models, they would have greatly improved results.
Image credit: NOAA 
These assumptions frequently prove embarrassing, inaccurate and contradictory within their own framework. If they would admit that their models did not work and used the far more accurate biblical Noachian Flood models, they would have greatly improved results.
An alarming headline on Science News reads, "Ice-Free Arctic May Be in Our Future, International Researchers Say". This report provides a classic example of how researchers’ flawed understanding of earth’s geological history leads them to to seriously wrong conclusions. Their conclusions actually fly in the face of the evidence they report, and in this case it could cause unnecessary panic about a situation that will not happen.
The report explains that researchers analysed a long continental drill core that coveres the period of the Pleistocene ice age.
You can chill while you finish reading "'Ice-free Arctic' wrong conclusion based on flawed geological history". Edit: Note the comments, where a rabid evolutionists wants to score cheap points by quibbling over a minor wording variance that does not change the validity of the article.

Friday, May 10, 2013

That Bad Boy Can SWIM?

Squaring off against evolutionary conjecture is a strange critter called the boxfish. These toxic avengers look like they have the maneuverability of — well, a box. But that is the opposite of the truth.

Kind of cute, really.

But they have some surprises. In fact, they are so well designed that they are self-correcting, and even change the water flow. Auto manufactures have copied their design. They are being checked out as inspiration for undersea robots, too.
With their ‘boxy’ shape and rigid bony carapace that covers most of their body, boxfish look somewhat awkward compared to most other fish. As Science journal commented recently, ‘One look at the aptly named boxfish, and you might expect it to swim as well as a barn would fly.’ 

In reality, boxfish are able to swim extremely smoothly. This is even more remarkable considering where they live—reefs washed by highly turbulent and unpredictable waters. But even when continually buffeted by swirling currents, boxfish make only the slightest of deviations from their straight swimming paths, as they correct for unseen eddies and turbulence.
You really should read the rest of this short article, "How Does a Box Swim?"

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Book Review: "The Deception" by Steven J. Wright

Review by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
“To believe in creation, you have to believe in a God.  But what evidence is there for God anyway?  And if you were to find that evidence, how would you know which God was the correct one?  Doesn’t Hinduism have millions of gods?  Maybe one of them is the real god, and he or she created everything instead of the Judeo-Christian God.  Or what if it is the Christian God?  How would you know which of the thousands of denominations is the correct one to follow?  I might add that many ancient cultures and religions have similar myths on origins.  It goes to show that folklores get passed down and shared from culture to culture, but there is no scientific evidence to support them.  That’s why they are called myths. 
“Class, I’m not here to debate God.  I have my own beliefs, but this is a science class, and we only study the natural things—the things that can be tested and proven with experiments.  Let me go over some of the evidences we have of evolution that clearly disprove creationism.  The Bible states that the sun, moon, and stars were created after the earth.  But the Big Bang Theory shows strong evidence that the sun, moon, and stars were created before the earth.  Here is another one: The Bible says birds were created before the reptiles, but our fossil record shows that reptiles came first, and the birds evolved from them.  In fact, that is what happened to the dinosaurs: through natural selection and mutations, they evolved into birds.  Those little flying critters in your back yard are actually the ancestors of giant dinosaurs that roamed the earth sixty-five million years ago! 
“The fossil record we have is clear evidence that life has evolved from simple organisms to more advanced life forms.  You can’t argue with the bones!”  Some of the students laughed.  “This brings me to my next point.  Has everyone heard the story of Noah’s Flood?”  Many nodded in agreement.  “Well, for those who haven’t, it is also recorded in Genesis.  Simply put, the story is about a man named Noah.  God told Noah He was going to destroy the entire world, and He wanted Noah to build a big boat to put the animals on so they would be saved from a global flood.  There are so many problems with that story, but just like the creation myth, Christians believe in it despite the absurdity.  For example, where did Noah get the wood for the ark?  Didn’t he build it in the Middle East?  There aren’t too many trees over there, you know; it’s mostly desert.  And how could he fit all the animals on the ark?  There are millions of species in existence, and no boat could ever be big enough to hold them all and still survive a flood.  The story of Noah’s ark just doesn’t hold water. 
“Did you know there are over three-hundred other flood legends from cultures all across the globe?  Who is to say the legend recorded in the Bible is the right one?  Isn’t that kind of arrogant?  What if one of the other flood legends were the real one and the Bible copied from it?  Some historians say the Bible copied things from other religions.  Back then, it was a common practice to borrow ideas and customs from neighboring cultures.  It was a battle of the gods, I guess you could say.  Besides, there is no evidence of a worldwide flood anyway.  In the Bible, it was just a story about God not liking how people were acting, so He destroyed them. 
“Class, when you base your beliefs on some book supposedly written thousands of years ago, you have to sacrifice logic and reason for it to make sense; otherwise the entire basis for your faith is called into question.  Why not choose science?  It will never contradict itself!”
— Jeff Duncan, in The Deception, pp. 119-121

I am not very skilled at writing reviews, having done so few of them. So I will do what I have done before and just get to it. But I loathe the review system at Amazon, since people with an agenda attack books, reviews and reviewers, even though they did not read the book! Amazon needs to pay attention to what's going on there, as their review system has become a joke. So, I'm putting my review right here.

Anyway, I must disclose two things: This book was obtained through a free Kindle promotion at Amazon (also available in paperback), and also, the author is one of my Facebook friends. Neither of these factors will change what I have to say, and author Steven Wright would expect no less of me.
Review and recommendation of a novel about a college professor dealing with creation science and realizing where the truth actually lies.
It is surprising to learn that this is the first novel by Wright (no relation to the comedian, I don't think). Let me start with some comments about the storytelling itself.

The Deception
 is not boring, and not difficult. It flows. I read it in one day.

One thing that I detest is a story that is predictable, especially for negative events. The suspense in those builds twice for me, once for the actual story suspense, and once for the disappointment that I was right.

Ain’t happenin’ here, Zeke. There were several times that I thought I had Mr. Wright’s plot lines all figured out, and I was pleased to be wrong. Except in one area, to be discussed later.

The characters had personality and were believable, including the cat, Samson. In fact, the main character, Jeff Duncan, was likable, then I didn't like him so much as the story progressed — he had flaws, and had to work on them. In addition, they made occasional wisecracks, which helped move the story along. We also see anger, frustration and sadness — some of these things hit too close to home, reminding me of people in my wife’s and my own experiences.

I’ll admit there were times that I was thinking, “What in the world are you doing, Steven?”, because I thought there was excessive drama and padding. Nope. I was selling the author short. Those things that provoked me to think, “Get on with it!” were there for a reason, but some reasons were not clear until later in the book.

I would like to call this kind of story “creation science fiction”, because it’s a novel that deals with creation science. Don’t expect to be preached at or think that part of the book is an essay from a creationist organization. While creation science is foundational to the plot, the human elements are prominent.

The excerpt at the top shows some of what creationists have to deal with constantly: Prejudicial conjecture and bigotry. Jeff was offering opinions based on ignorance that he obtained from anti-creationist Web sites that are heavily biased with materialistic presuppositions. The questions (actually, excuses to cling to disbelief) have answers for honest people who care to look for them. Jeff did not want answers. Instead, he wanted to please his boss and went ahead with uninformed arbitrary assertions.

The issue of academic freedom and student indoctrination is discussed. Not only are the rights of the students actively trampled, but the rights of teachers as well. And don't try to tell me that this doesn't happen.

When I said that there was one thing that was predictable, it was that Jeff Duncan would learn the truth about creation science. The book contains a section with an overview of creationism that would serve as a starting point for someone who wishes to investigate further (see the "Creation Links" tab at the top of this Weblog for further investigation).

The Deception is a Christian book, there is no mistaking it. You will have some direct gospel presentation, miracles, unnerving dreams and visions, Christian conversation, conversion and more. Even though I am a biblical creationist Christian, I do not like the content to be overbearing and distract from the content. I did not feel that way here.

Most of the problems that were brought up in the story were resolved, so there's none of that, "But what about...?" frustration.

EDIT: This may seem reminiscent of God's Not Dead, but that book and movie came out after The Deception.

I recommend The Deception to Christians and non-Christians alike. Are you planning a sequel, Mr. Wright? If you want to have a character as an obstreperous creationist, I have someone to suggest...

Monday, May 6, 2013

More On Evolutionists Not Understanding Evolution

Last week, I posted about some evolutionists being honest enough to admit that they do not really understand evolution. Today, you can read an article demonstrating that many scientists as well as Darwin's Cheerleaders do not understand their own belief system.
Science would be useless without logic and critical thinking. Circular reasoning, straw man fallacies, formal logical fallacies and outright deception are used to keep the faithful fundamentalist evolutionists in line and fool people who do not put forth the effort to check things for themselves. Giving credit to evolution as if it were an actual entity (Fallacy of Reification) is contrary to evolutionary dogma — but people do it anyway. This happens frequently. The following article has several examples that can cause people to wonder about how poorly scientists and their press actually understand evolution. But then again, if the public was told evolutionary dogma in a straightforward manner, people would plainly see that it has no substance.
If evolutionists and reporters stuck to the essence of neo-Darwinism, many of their claims would never reach the press. 
Darwin attempted to describe a natural mechanism (natural selection) that would generate the entire tree of life, with all its diversity.  Neo-Darwinism identifies the source of variation as mutations.  The essence of Darwinian theory is that the process is unguided, with no goals or purposes.  Many evolutionists and their press agents seem to forget this.
You can read the examples of false attribution and other flaws at "Evolutionists Don't Understand Their Own Theory".