Evolutionists Thinking Like Apes

Something that presuppositional apologists point out that, for the sake of discussion, if God did not exist, then we are just bundles of chemicals responding to our impulses. In a similar fashion, if we have orangutans as our evolutionary cousins, why should we trust our brains and their chemical impulses? Papa Darwin himself had some doubts. Some of the material postulated by evolutionists makes me cognate that they have mighty apish minds, and wonder why they haven't been naturally selected away.

Credit: Morguefile / kakisky

One thing that has not evolved is the ability to reason, and this is evident by the abominable reasoning presented by evolutionists as "science". Seaweed was partially responsible for our upward evolution, the octopus and squid lost their shells (loss of characteristics is downward, not upward evolution, old son), changes in precipitation affected evolution, and more. 

Used under "Fair Use" provisions for educational purposes:
Atheistic "reasoning" using question-begging epithets

Darwinists don't make a lick of sense even in their own fundamentally flawed, Creator-denying worldview. To read about the items mentioned above, and more, click on "Natural Selection Favors Illogic". For additional bafflers, click on "Evolutionary Explanations Add Illogic to Speculation".
 



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

Alienated Over Extraterrestrials

People have an odd fascination for space aliens. While there have been some documented UFO sightings, there has been no solid evidence that extraterrestrials are using the things. Aliens are frequent subjects in New Age buffet-style religious prattling, where people claim to receive messages from them that promise great things for humanity. Of course, they're more "highly evolved" and much older than humanity, and reject God.

Credit: Pixabay / JavierRodrigues

Mixed with the fascination and hope is fear. The presupposition is that evolution happened on Earth, there must be multitudes of highly-advanced and more evolved alien civilizations out yonder — and they may not cotton to having us sharing the universe with them. Stephen Hawking is a famous physicist, but he's also an unbeliever and an evolutionist. He assumes that they are more evolved than us, and may be dangerous. Keep a low profile, humanity, and cool it with that SETI stuff, you savvy? War of the Worlds and Independence Day were almost documentaries, you know.

Here is a contradiction in evolutionary thinking: as we've evolved, so has morality; some say that we get morality from evolution. From a secular view, does Hawking have a valid point? He is implying that evolution does not give people better morals, and is also implying the history of evolution, which is violence and "survival of the fittest". Hawking's concern is that aliens may be so far above us, we are to them like bacteria are to us, and can be eliminated without a second thought. Quite a bit of cogitating on "what if" stuff, based on the assumptions of deep time and evolution. Not only is there no substantial evidence for the existence of extraterrestrials, there is no real evidence of atoms-to-alien evolution, either. Everything was created by God, and that is the logical conclusion. No inference, no surmising.

Time and again I am confronted with the view from young people that “Of course there are aliens out there. We can’t be the only ones.” This is a surprise to many of the older church folk in my acquaintance. However, CMI’s UFO authority, Gary Bates, indicates that in his experience belief in aliens can be found across all age groups—including churchgoers. Surveys estimate that more than 80% of Western peoples believe that ET is ‘out there somewhere’ which presumably encapsulates a lot of believers also.1 But many young folk in particular have been influenced by science fiction notions of aliens traversing the galaxy in their faster-than-light spaceships and advanced weaponry. And older folk are especially surprised to see that young people’s belief in extra-terrestrials often goes hand-in-hand with a morbid fear of what aliens will do to them.

To read the rest of this very interesting article, click on "Hawking fear of aliens". You may also like a similar article that I wrote some time back, "A SETI-back for Evolution".



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

Plant Disperal After the Genesis Flood

There are many questions raised about the Genesis Flood, and one of those is about plant survival. Well, they floated. Okay, too short. Many plants are surprisingly versatile and can deal with harsh conditions. The island of Surtsey was formed by a volcanic eruption in 1963, and within a short time, flowering plants were growing there, a fact that baffled Darwinists.

Horse chestnut image credit: Freeimages / alesia17

Seeds come in many sizes, and can be tough. Little seeds can give big plants. (Interestingly, we often eat seeds, even from plants that we do not consume in their mature forms, such as various nuts.) Seeds can appear dead, but are actually just dormant, and may become active in the right conditions because the Creator programmed them in several ways. They can be dispersed in different ways, but seeds are not the only ways that plants reproduce and spread. These things may have been less baffling to evolutionists if they'd paid attention to the science started by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him).

Biblical creationists are often asked about plant dispersal and propagation after a worldwide, devastating Flood. How many plants and seeds were brought aboard the Ark by Noah? Did some plants and seeds survive the Flood by means of riding atop vegetative mats, or by simply floating along? If so, how were these survivors able to propagate or re-seed after the Flood? Could some plants have survived as airborne seeds or spores? Or were they carried to the different continents around the world by human or animal vectors? The purpose of this paper is to address these and other questions regarding post-Flood plant survival and dispersal, and consider mechanisms by which this may have occurred.

To read the rest of this admittedly long (but interesting) article, click on "How Did Plants Survive and Disperse after the Flood?"




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

Deep Time Fossils Cause Evolutionary Problems

You'd think that it would be just a matter of time that ancient fossils supporting abiogenesis would be found, what with all that searching for proof of evolution instead of doing useful science and all. Unfortunately for them, this fossil discovery causes some serious problems.

Credit: Image cropped from Pixabay / Couleur

One problem is that the fossilized microbes are pretty much the same as their living counterparts. Strange, I thought evolution was a kind of irresistible force and that everything has to evolve — especially over billions of Darwin years and environmental pressures. Sure, they can do plenty of hand waving and ignore the "stasis" problem, but there are more troubles: they have no idea how Earth got its oceans, and undocumented abiogensis is supposed to have happened almost instantly. Not scientific, old son. The evidence refutes evolution and supports recent special creation, but they continue to deny the truth.

Recently, evolutionists discovered “microfossils up to almost 4.3 billion years old” in Canada.1 Their article states:

“It shows that some microbes have not changed significantly” since Earth’s early times, Papineau said. Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago and the oceans appeared about 4.4 billion years ago. If the fossils are indeed 4.28 billion years old, that would suggest “an almost instantaneous emergence of life” after ocean formation, Dodd said.

It is significant that these fossil microbes apparently didn’t change after four billion years—but evolution implies many, many changes over millions of years. If evolution involves substantial change, then why are these ancient microfossils so similar to modern microbes?

It won't take up too much of your time to finish reading the article. Just click on "'Oldest Evidence' of Life?" 



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

Rearranging the Failed Dinosaur Family Tree

Things must have been slow around Deception Pass, since the hands at the Darwin Ranch have been keeping occupied by proving — nothing. While theories and models are expected to change in light of new evidence, it's just plain insipience to keep feeding mules that won't pull the wagon. Not only do they feed the evolution mule, but they also feed the cladistics mule. In this case, rearranging the dinosaur family tree.

Assembled from images at Clker clipart

In the evolutionary scheme, scientists have no idea where dinosaurs came from. But they have clades showing the alleged relationships between them and where they perch on the tree of life. (Evolutionists do this cladogram circular reasoning stuff, proving evolution by assuming evolution, in much broader ways as well.) Using new models, some evolutionists are mighty agitated, "Everything we know about dinosaurs is wrong! Textbooks have to be rewritten! Katie, bar the door!"

Take this branch here, put it over there, move that other one, then invoke a "previously unknown group and call it Ornithoscelida. Whoa there, Wilberforce! Previously unknown group? Kind of makes it sound as exciting as a new species of critter getting itself discovered in the Amazon rain forest. No. They're all man-made classifications, so they just haven't made this one up yet.  Others scientists are not worried, the nothing they already have is just fine, thanks, even though it was never right.

As to the "mystery" of where dinosaurs came from and the reason there is no decent way to classify them, it's simple: they were created, there was no common-ancestor evolution. Savvy?

Evolutionists seem to enjoy rearranging branches on the Darwin tree, not to find the truth, but to fool the public into thinking they’re getting warmer.

Alas, everything you were told about dinosaur evolution is wrong! That’s the impression from the headline hype. We’ll get to what’s actually happening below.

To finish reading (and get a couple of news items related to dinosaurs), click on "The Great Dinosaur Mix-up". 

 

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

Arming the Evolutionists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Biblical creation science is a branch of apologetics that presents not only evidence refuting evolution, defeating atheism, and upholding special creation (often referred to as young earth creationism), but includes defense of the Bible itself. There are many apologetics ministries that debunk atheism and give excellent reasons for believing the Bible. However, many of those are soft on recent creation, or worse, reject it altogether. Quite a few of those call themselves old earth creationists, and some OECs are theistic evolutionists. Not all OECs are TEs, but it appears that all TEs are also OECs. You savvy?

Credit: Morguefile / pedrojperez

These owlhoots are sending a conflicting message: we believe the Bible, but not the first eleven chapters of Genesis, which must be interpreted according to current atheistic views of science. Echoes of Satan's challenge in Genesis 3:1 NIV. Yet these people admit that they take Exodus as historical, how do they get around Exodus 20:11 and 31:17? I reckon that they haven't thought some things through, especially how compromise in Genesis continues through Revelation. For more on this, see "How Should We Interpret Genesis?" 

Worse, OECs and TEs attack biblical creationists [1], often misrepresenting and even lying about us. And we're supposed to believe that they're really Christians? I have serous doubts about some of them, since they have such a low view of Scripture and act like atheists [2].

In his message "The Primacy of Truth" [3], Dr. John MacArthur said, 

The church of Christ upholds the truth; it doesn't tear the truth down; it doesn't destroy the truth. It doesn't mock the Scripture, nor does it substitute something else for it. It doesn't negotiate divine revelation. The true church has always clung to the truth, always. In the midst of every storm, in the midst of all persecution, in the midst of rejection--whether its enemies attack from the inside or attack from the outside--the true church has always clung to the truth. And thousands through its history have paid the price for the truth rather than compromise it or abandon it. 

For that matter, TEs and OECs often saddle up with atheists to ride for the Darwin brand. Suddenly, those compromising Christians who promote evolution are suddenly brilliant in the minds of atheists — and evolution is a foundation for the deadly religion of atheism [4]. François de Larochefoucauld ("Frankie the Rock", as I call him) said, "We hardly find any persons of good sense save those who agree with us". For anti-creationists this can read, "Religious people show some smarts when they believe in evolution, yes siree!" Then they commence to ridiculing us for believing in the virgin birth, the parting of the Red Sea, changing water to wine, the bodily Resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and so on. See what happens? To atheists, compromisers are useful idiots! [5]

Many times, anti-creationists will browbeat biblical creationists by saying, essentially, "These religious people believe in evolution, so you should, too!" That'll be the day. Agreement on something does not in itself establish truth, and attempts at shaming and bullying are transparent attempts to manipulate us. I even had someone invoke the Pope, and he was astonished that I reject the Pope's authority.

Two of the professing groups that attack biblical creationists are BioLogos and Hugh Ross' Reasons to Believe. Here are two of the many articles available that confute the "evolutionary creation" of BioLogos and the "progressive creation" of Hugh Ross, respectively: "''Evolutionary creation', round squares, and other nonsense" [6] and "The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross" [7]. For further analysis of Ross, including both theology and young Earth-affirming science, I recommend Refuting Compromise by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati [8]. Also, I don't cotton to the demeanor of Dr. William Lane Craig [9], either.

On a side note, professing Christian and musician Michael Gungor was in the midst of controversy because of his statements rejecting literal creation. Guess who likes him? Biologos [10]!  Also, this venomous TE also used the Gungor controversy for his own anti-creationist attacks (note the comments from atheists as well) [11]. The TE's screed fueled the fire for an atheist tinhorn who is somehow an expert on theology as well as science [12]. Unfortunately, it gets worse. After denying the foundation for the gospel in Genesis, Gungor has progressed to denying the gospel message itself by ridiculing substitutionary atonement and calling it "murder" [13]. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Gungor declares himself an atheist. After all, evolution makes atheists out of people [14]. Is his decline based on his low view of Scripture, beginning in Genesis? Quite possibly.

Biblical creationists believe that the Bible means what it says, and don't feel the need to get the bit in our teeth and gallop to get excuses and shove in millions of years. The only way to get long ages out of the Bible is to first put them into it. Atheists adore the compromisers, and will use them against Bible-believing Christians. For example, notice how this thread was hijacked by atheists [15] and BioLogos was used against creationists (Ross is mentioned as well), and the thing went entirely off-topic. Interesting that I was named in a later comment, but I have been posting against compromisers for years. Note that there was a complaint, "I note that EVERY expert consulted by the makers of the film already believes in a 'young Earth'". So? It was made to present a biblical creationist point of view. We get the long-age view foisted upon us at every turn. For that matter, we do not see biblical creationists consulted to give an alternative view in evolutionary films. Also, I was given this angry retort on one of my other weblogs:

Note that he used a bit of chronological snobbery by rejecting an older article that was linked [16]. However, the information it contained is still valid, and he ignored the "Further Reading" links at the end of the older article.

Compromisers are passing the ammunition to unbelievers, and acting in a very unchristian manner toward biblical creationists. They need to seriously examine and repent of their disdain for the Word of God that they claim to believe, and for providing arms, aid, and comfort to the enemies of God. The rest of us should not be ashamed of believing and standing for the truth. We have Scripture and science going for us, pard.




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

Evolutionists Still Mystified by Appendix

Many people have heard that they have appendicitis, so they need to have their appendix surgically removed. Fortunately, it's a common procedure and complications are rare. The thought of emergency surgery of any kind is rather alarming, though, I know the feeling. Darwinists had long designated the appendix as vestigial, a useless remnant from our alleged evolutionary past. This has been a major folly, especially since this very useful organ has been removed for no valid reason.

Credit: Pixabay / sasint

Evolutionists had written off the appendix as useless, so understanding of its usefulness to medical science was hindered by evolutionary thinking. Even so, they have wondered where it came from, and why so many different creatures have one, and why they are not all the same. Predictions from evolutionists have failed many times in this are and others, and the evidence actually shows that living things were designed by the Creator, and are not the product of evolution.

Some mammals have an appendix connected to their cecum—the first section of the large intestine—but others don't. How and when did that once-mysterious organ originate?

Midwestern University Anatomist Heather Smith led an extensive study of 533 mammal species, looking for clues to appendix evolution. Three of the team's scientific observations contradict evolutionary expectations.

This body part bears a wrong reputation as a useless leftover from supposed evolutionary ancestors that once used it. Now science has revealed plenty of valuable activities the appendix performs. It harbors microbes that help the gut recover after traumatic times. Lymphoid tissue also lives there, showing the appendix's integration with the immune system.

To learn more, you can finish reading the article at "Solving Appendix Mysteries". 



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

Plants Resistant to Evolutionary Concepts

Charles Darwin had a wagon train-load of ideas that he presented but did not have supporting evidence. As time goes on and science develops, evolution has many scientists offering conjectures, but are not offering credible reasons to accept such concepts. They believe by faith in science of the gaps, that maybe someday evidence will be found. That's not science, pilgrim.

Welwitchia credit: Wikimedia Commons / Muriel Gottrop (CC BY-SA 3.0)

One of Papa Darwin's biggest annoyances was the origin of flowering plants. Some evolutionists think they've partially solved the mystery by using circular reasoning and assumptions involving "a rather original gymnosperm called Welwitschia mirabilis". The plant lives in desert conditions and can survive for a thousand years. So, why evolve? Well, maybe to stop being so ugly, but that's just my opinion. Still, no sign of evolution. That's because plants were created and not the product of Darwinian hallucinations.

Another article proves the DAM Law, as evolutionists try to make the best of a bad situation.

The DAM Law states, “any article or paper on the evolution of flowering plants will be accompanied by the phrase, ‘Darwin’s Abominable Mystery’ (DAM).” Science Daily once again proves this law, not only in the body of an article, but in the headline, “Where do flowers come from? Shedding light on Darwin’s ‘abominable mystery’.”

In addition to bad science and circular reasoning, the dubious research raises more questions. You can read about this and other botanical bafflers for evolution, by clicking on "Plants Fight Darwin". 
 



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

Humans Show Design

Clinton Richard Dawkins claimed in The Blind Watchmaker that “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”. You don't need your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™ to see that this is nonsensical. (My ring even has a one-note whistle on it. It annoys Basement Cat.) Anyway, notice that he inserted his own opinion in the way he defined biology, and believes that even though things appear designed, that is not the case. Livescience does not seem to share that opinion, but they do pay homage to Darwin, what with being a secular site and all. In the movie Duck Soup, Chicolini asked Mrs. Teasdale, "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" That makes me want to ask who you're going to believe, the pronouncements of evolutionists, or your own sensibilities?

Credit: Pixabay / HeatherPaque

We see a great deal of science supporting creation and refuting slime-to-slumlord evolution, and how both creationists and evolutionists interpret evidence according to their worldviews and presuppositions. Let's step back a mite and look at things in a simpler way, but still acknowledging how we see things with our own eyes.

I once designed a small knife which consisted of a slender rod with a tiny razor-sharp blade at the end. One of my students came across the knife and started using it to cut up cards.

I explained to him that the knife was for something far more important—for carrying out life-saving operations on newly born boys who have a blocked bladder valve. If the student had looked closely at the intricate design of the knife, he would have known it was no ordinary knife.

Many today make the same mistake concerning the purpose of human life.

To finish reading, click on "Humans: Purposely Designed". 



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

Varying Speed of Light to Rescue the Big Bang

Interesting how believers in deep time have shallow standards — two of them. It was a joke when creationists suggested that one means animals used to spread around the world was through "rafts", but it was all right when evolutionists saddled up and rode along. The disputed research of Barry Setterfield into the slower speed of light received ridicule from secularists, but when Big Bang proponents postulate a varying speed of light, that's science. See? Just two examples of their double standards.

Credits: Modified from Pixabay / CandaceHunter with NASA/ESA

The Big Bang concept has never worked. Whenever a "yeah, but..." objection was raised, a rescuing device was sewn on, such as inflation, dark matter, dark energy, dark lady, dark whatever, other odd things; the original Big Bang has little resemblance to the patchwork quilt that is presented as cosmological "science" today. Much of this has to do with the horizon problem, which continually proves to be insurmountable for deep time Big Bang speculators. A new concept is that the speed of light was much faster back at the beginning of the universe, and this is playing with the speed of sound and the speed of gravity as well. Testable, like real science requires? They say it is, but not yet. That's unscientific and contradictory, old son. But then, cosmology itself and cosmic evolution are not really science. Should we be surprised at the lengths and self-deception in which people will indulge for the sake of admitting that the universe was created recently?

A recent paper by Niayesh Afshordi and João Magueijo asserts that they have discovered a testable cosmology wherein during a “critical” cosmological phase of the early universe the maximal speed of propagation of matter (and hence light) was enormously much faster than the current speed of light (c) and faster than the speed of gravity, which in Einstein’s theory is the canonical speed c.

They revisit what has become to be known as varying speed of light (VSL) models, in contrast to the now popular cosmic inflation models. They believe light traveled much faster just after the big bang than it does now and have developed a mathematical model of a big bang universe only a miniscule fraction of a second after the alleged hot beginning of the universe.

To finish reading, click on "Does the new much-faster-speed-of-light theory fix the big bang’s problems?" 



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

Bird Identity Theft and Passwords

Seems a mite interesting that some words have fallen by the wayside to some extent, then became somewhat reinvented for use in modern technology. F'rinstance, the first time I came across the word browser, I associated it with going shopping: "Can I help you?"..."No, just browsing". For that matter, the concept of identity theft existed since way back when (think of the pseudepigrapha), but the actual phrase is fairly recent.

A password is something you type for certain kinds of computer access, but was spoken for access to a Prohibition-era speakeasy, and back even further in the olden days. The word hijack may have originated during Prohibition as well. Someone driving a load of illegal hooch has someone come up and say, "Hi, Jack", shove a smoke wagon in his face, then make off with the booze for his own speakeasy. Later, hijacking was associated with taking over airlines, and also what Darwinists do to science.

"Have you been drinking, Cowboy Bob?"

No thanks, it's too early. Cash me later, howbow dah? Actually, I'm having a bit of fun with word history.

"Get on with it!"

It may be a surprise to learn that Horsfeld's bronze cuckoo can be a real jerk
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Aviceda (CC BY-SA 3.0)

We can use contemporary words and phrases to describe something observed in nature. In the Land Down Under, sneaky Horsfeld's bronze cuckoos lay their eggs in the nests of "the least faithful birds in the world", superb fairywrens (also called blue wrens), and the interlopers hijack the nests. But the fairywrens have a way of teaching passwords for feeding to their offspring even before they're hatched to deter avian identity theft. Some owlhoots are likely to say that this is an example of evolution. Not hardly! Adaptation, maybe. Or even a design feature given by our Creator. Calling it "evolution" is an illegitimate description.

In this fallen world, even bird households have troubles. One family problem encountered by many bird parents is the nest-security issue of brood parasites, a sneaky form of fowl “home invasion.”

Brood parasitism does not involve parasitic worms or bugs. Rather, it features a different kind of parasite—a freeloading bird family that imposes its baby upon a “host” family. The host family is thereafter burdened with the costs of nurturing the uninvited freeloader. Worse, the invasive guest often competes aggressively with legitimate nestlings for food and shelter.

To finish reading, click on "Pushy Parasites and Parental Passwords". 




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

Musings on the Ken Ham - Bill Nye Unofficial "Second Debate"

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

First of all, I'll allow that I'm biased regarding Bill Nye the Scientism Guy (like so), because of his atheistic anti-creation activism, abuse of logic, and militant advocacy for his version of global climate change. Even so, I shall endeavor to be as objective as I can in this article about the unofficial "second debate" between Nye and Ken Ham at the Ark Encounter [1]. I was annoyed while watching it, and one time, a Nye fallacy actually made me LOL.

A bit of background is in order. Bill Nye made vituperous attacks on creationism, and against Answers in Genesis in particular. Two AiG scientists challenged him to a debate [2], especially Dr. Georgia Purdom. He ignored them. Is it because "the Science Guy" is not an actual scientist? He earned a Bachelor of Science, but went no further in his formal education. [3] Eventually, the formal Ham-Nye debate was established [4]. I wrote an article about it, which included several links to reviews and commentaries [5]. In the more recent engagement, he called AiG scientists, including Dr. Purdom, "incompetent". If that is so, why dodge her debate challenge? He should have been able to easily put her away if that was so. Also, he's in no position to call a scientist "incompetent".

I'd like to emphasize something about the first debate: it had a dreadful format. Many debates nowadays have "cross examination" or "interrogation" rounds where there is more interaction between the debaters, and the Ham-Nye debate had none. In addition, the format allowed Bill Nye to engage in the elephant hurling fallacy [6] and employ other disingenuous tactics, such as asking questions of Ken Ham that could not be answered in the two-minute response time allowed at that point in the debate.

Screenshot from Nye/Ham The Second Debate, courtesy of Answers in Genesis

The "second debate" was not an actual debate, but rather a discussion from opposing viewpoints. Here, we had interaction between Ham and Nye without any kind of formal structure or moderator. The encounter was later streamed, and is available on Ken Ham's Facebook Page and YouTube [7].

Here, we have to hold the reigns loosely on what we expect from each participant. Although both parties probably prepared themselves with what they wanted to say, the whole shooting match was done "on the fly": planned remarks can be forgotten, and there were distractions galore. One minor quibble I have with Ken is that he said "one creation museum". Incorrect, since there are several creation museums, but I reckon that he was meaning that there is one creation museum with a full-sized Noah's Ark. Another small problem I have is the use of the term born again. Yes, many (if not most) Christians use it, but the more accurate translation is born from above. My last item against Ken is that he left out something that he knows: Noah could have hired help to construct his Ark, it wasn't necessarily only eight people building it. I'm sure both Ham and Nye thought of things that they meant to say after everything was said and done.

I've read comments where people wanted Ken to throw down on Bill and give him so many facts that Nye would fall on his knees and repent. Doesn't work that way, old son. As was evident in the formal debate, this engagement demonstrated that the origins controversy is not so much about facts and evidence, but the worldviews used by which they are interpreted. Ham would attempt to explain things many times, and Nye was not willing to listen. In fact, he would do something that gets many people banned from The Question Evolution Project: change the subject and attack.

My impression is that from the get-go, it was easy to see that Bill Nye was fastuous, on the prod, and looking to score points in a "Gotcha!" game against Ken Ham by giving him a verbal slap down. Several times, Nye turned to onlookers to preach about the glories of science, even though he admitted that it was a philosophy. Then he'd contradict himself. He would say that we know, speaking for scientists in general. ("We"? He is not a scientist, but a sciolist who played like a scientist on a children's television show [8].) He disagreed with Ham on almost everything, and did not even want to admit that the Ark Encounter was well crafted. Ken made it clear that AE was not intended to be seaworthy, nor was it constructed with tools of the era (which would be speculative), but Nye kept gnawing on the bone that AE had concrete and steel, and was not seaworthy.

Bill Nye was insisting that his version of climate change was of paramount importance, even though he does not understand it himself [9]. He endorses criminal prosecution of "climate change dissenters" [10] — I disremember if this is Stalinist or fascistic. He gets mighty cranky when confronted on his weaknesses on that climate change thing [11]. Regarding biblical creation, Nye said to Ham, "I would prefer that you weren't indoctrinating young people with anti-science", yet Nye is the one indoctrinating children, especially with falsehoods about climate change [12]. He kept saying that he is "skeptical", but that is disingenuous, because he has his mind made up that the Bible is untrue and that biblical creation science is false, even though he has insufficient knowledge.

Nye is opposed to teaching children about creation science, calling it "indoctrination". (This can be called "playing the children card", which is similar to playing the fascist card [13]; both are ways to manipulate emotions.) He also encouraged children to attend universities and secular museums — which are strongholds of materialistic indoctrination based on opinions and interpretations of evidence. Nye calls them "facts". Not hardly!  Mayhaps he wants secular education systems to have free rein with indoctrination. Essentially, creationists are wrong and Nye's view is right because science.

We're all descendants from Martians, said Nye. No evidence for this, but his science of the gaps philosophy insists that his view on this is valid because someday it will be proven. That's not science. He had the nerve to tell a Christian girl, "You have a simplistic worldview". In another instance in the last few minutes, a little girl asked Ham a question about how God did his creating. Nye interrupted for a moment, then after Ken finished his answer, Bill tried to override what Ham said with his naturalistic Scientism. Bill Nye is being fitted for a millstone even as you read this [14].

Bill had numerous logical fallacies, and I hope people who watch the video will keep an eye out for logical fallacies. Something that is extremely important in debates as well as other serious discussions is to know what the other side actually believes and teaches [15]. In both engagements, Bill did not do this, and engaged in straw man fallacies. In one notably low moment, Nye engaged in another ridicule, asking why the money spent on the Ark was not used in more productive ventures. That really puts a burr under my saddle, because not only is it a red herring, it is just plain vacuous [16]. 

Elsewhere, he used the fallacy of irrelevant thesis. When Ken asked about information and DNA coming from materialism, Nye used the false thesis fallacy that people are the proof that it happened. That really took the rag off the bush, and it's where I laughed. Yes, look for not only the aforementioned elephant hurling, but more red herrings, argument from incredulity, poisoning the well, circumstantial ad hominems, genetic fallacy, and more.

I took several pages of notes, but I'm cognating that this article is plenty long enough. Ken Ham showed considerable patience and tolerance, far more than I could have. His overall goal in engaging Bill Nye (and all of the Answers in Genesis ministries) is to uphold the gospel message. This is the goal of other creation science ministries as well. He was not there to smack down Nye, and I know of some people who are disappointed that he did not use an evidential machine gun. But then, he'd be like Nye, wouldn't he?

EDIT 3-19-2017: I stopped looking at my notes too soon. Bill Nye said that he had never heard of historical science before he met Ken Ham. He should know his own evolutionary history, as the term historical science is not unique to Ham, nor did it originate with him. One notable example of its usage is by Ernst Mayr.

Bill Nye was arrogant and condescending, and it seemed to me that he expected people at the Ark Encounter to act like Donall and Conall, who said to Patrick, "Remember that we're simple people, without your fancy education and books and learning" [17]. Nye is not a "science guy", but is a propagandist for atheism, Scientism, evolutionism, anthropogenic climate change, abortion [18] (yes, I know, not supposed to bring new material into the conclusion, but I couldn't help myself), and other leftist interests. If people want science, logic, or to be heard, they should not be going to Bill Nye. Further, people who want to know what biblical creationists actually believe and teach (such as the "Debate Answers" [19]), they should go to the sources instead of to anti-creationists with agendas. Despite what Nye and others who ride for the Scientism brand want, some of us believe in offsetting the indoctrination of our children by secularists, teaching biblical truth to our children.

I'll conclude with a video I captioned after the formal debate:





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

Not Convinced by the Facts

In a January 2017 article, atheist Michael Shermer offered suggestions on dealing with people who are not convinced by the facts, preferring to cling to their worldviews. Interesting that owlhoots like Shermer consider atheism the embodiment of logic and reason, yet demonstrate disdain for actually using logic and reason. It's not a matter of facts, but of interpretations of facts.

Credit: Modified from Freeimages / Kenn Kiser

People can assert things they consider to be facts, such as, "St. Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland", or, "St. Patrick used the shamrock to illustrate the Trinity". Sorry, Seamus, those are legends that people consider factual.

Going further, someone can claim, "This fossil is fifty million years old, that's a fact." Nope. It's an interpretation of the evidence based on presuppositions. Atheists and evolutionists interpret evidence while wearing their Darwin spectacles that distort what they understand. People like Shermer have a starting point that presupposes their materialistic evolutionary worldview is "reality", and have no respect for others who have a different starting point. Those of us who are biblical creationists start with the truth of the Word of God, and interpret the evidence quite differently. They don't cotton to how observed evidence actually supports biblical creation, either. Let me flip this Shermer thing upside down: Why do atheists and evolutionists reject creation and the Bible despite evidence? Because they want to.

Used under Fair Use for educational purposes

In the article linked below, Shermer used several fallacies, including appeal to motive, straw man, and others. He not only ignores the underlying reasons that people are not convinced by facts, but also, atheists and evolutionists do not use the advice he offers. Of course not, they are in rebellions against the Creator!

An article recently appeared on Scientific American titled “How To Convince Someone When Facts Fail: Why Worldview Threats Undermine Evidence.” The author, Michael Shermer, writes,

Have you ever noticed that when you present people with facts that are contrary to their deepest held beliefs they always change their minds? Me neither. In fact, people seem to double down on their beliefs in the teeth of overwhelming evidence against them. The reason is related to the worldview perceived to be under threat by the conflicting data.

He provides several examples of what he means by this, including,

Creationists, for example, dispute the evidence for evolution in fossils and DNA because they are concerned about secular forces encroaching on religious faith.

He says “proponents' deepest held worldviews were perceived to be threatened by skeptics, making facts the enemy to be slayed.” But do creationists really view facts as the “enemy to be slayed”? Well, let’s turn this thinking around on him. What about those who hold to evolutionary ideas? Do evolutionists listen to facts when they are presented by creationists? Or do they “double down on their beliefs” and “dispute the evidence?” Of course they dispute the evidence because it goes against their deeply held worldview.

To finish reading why Mike is inconsistent and doesn't understand worldviews, click on "Why Aren’t People Convinced by Facts?"






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

More Conflicts in Snake Evolution Stories

Like so many other tales told by proponents of common-ancestor evolution, the lineage of the snake has been weak at best. For the most part, fossils of snakes have been quite a bit like snakes that are living today. A few fossils have been presented as transitional forms, but not without controversy among evolutionists.

Credit: US National Park Service

The wild-eyed science press, in their ongoing quest for sensational stories (and to bolster the secular science industry), has been mighty unhelpful by leaving out pertinent details and presenting fake science images. Further, one of the fossils shows what appear to be hind legs. I can't rightly recollect a snake doing any strolling these days, just slithering. Yet some evolutionists insist that a loss of features is evidence of advancing upward evolution. Not hardly! That's devolution. The great irony for secularists is that the fossils actually affirm creation.

Until early 2015, the ‘earliest’ date reported for a fossil snake was less than 100 Ma old. In January, a team led by University of Alberta (Canada) paleontologist Professor Michael Caldwell described fossils of four new species, in Nature Communications, which they claimed extended the snake fossil record backwards by about 70 Ma to the Middle Jurassic.

‘Earliest’ snake fossils

The new species reported were:

• Parviraptor estesi (from Dorset, England)—145–140 Ma
• Diablophis gilmorei (from Colorado, USA)—155 Ma
• Portugalophis lignites (from Guimarota, Portugal)—157–152 Ma
• Eophis underwoodi (from Oxfordshire, England)—167 Ma.

The skull anatomy of all four of these ‘ancient’ snakes, they say, is similar to that of both modern snakes and other fossil snakes. Of course, this is unexpected. However, the skull structure of previously reported fossil snakes, Pachyrhachis problematicus and Haasiophis terrasanctus, also surprised evolutionary researchers, resembling that of modern boas and pythons (deemed ‘advanced’).

To read the rest, click on "Standard snake evolution story stymied by spate of fossil discoveries". 



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

Materialism, Evolutionism, and Morality

Today, we have a couple of related items for you. Materialists are unable to account for a sense of purpose, and have no ultimate foundation for morality. Some believe morality has its source in evolution, but that simply doesn't work. They have two minds, seeking a sense of purpose, but also claiming that "reality" dictates that when we die, that's it. Atheists agree to an arbitrary definition of "reality" as materialism with no God. This concept is based on their own presuppositions — as if they had some kind of right or moral imperative to define reality itself. Seems a mite ironic. Another irony is that anti-creationists need creationists to give them a false sense of purpose, as exhibited in their secularist jihads.

Made at Atom Smasher

Secularists have been doing some research on areas of the brain to see what lights up (so to speak), and are seeing that those who have a sense of purpose — a large-scale purpose — have happier lives. Biblically, materialism is inconsistent, incoherent, and irrational. Only the biblical worldview (beginning from the very first verse) makes sense of the human condition.

Studies show that having a sense of purpose enhances mental and physical health. The problem for materialists is how to conjure it up out of matter in motion.

New Scientist, the staunchly atheist rag in the UK, is no friend of creation, conservatism, or the Bible. Once in awhile, though, they do have to face reality. Reporter Teal Burrell recently contributed a piece to New Scientist about “A meaning to life: How a sense of purpose can keep you healthy.” Can she get from atoms to purpose?

To read the rest of this one, click on "Can Materialism Provide a Sense of Purpose?" Be sure y'all come back for the other item.

From the Irony Board, when secularists complain about lack of morality and ethics in their own ranks, they are appealing to the God they know is real, but are suppressing the truth (Rom. 1:18-23). When an evolutionist lies, cheats, steals, plagiarizes, or whatever else, he or she is being consistent with a professed worldview. After all, the fittest survive, right? They're just trying to survive better.

Using abundant question begging, materialists use their preconceptions of evolution and extrapolate what is seen in nature into applications for human behavior. That's mighty strange, but then, evolutionism is actually a pagan death cult that uses some scientific principles, so a pantheistic approach to the behaviors of critters and various organisms is in keeping with their worldview.

The Bible says that we have all sinned (Rom. 3:23), all deserve death (Rom. 6:23, John 3:18-29, James 1:15), and the remedy is salvation through Jesus Christ (John 3:16-17, Eph. 2:8-9). Those who reject God do not have this hope and ultimate purpose, and find excuses for sinful behaviors based on activities in nature, and the presumption of evolution.

Name a vice, and Darwinians will be there to rationalize it on evolutionary grounds. They claim proud ownership of the Seven Deadly Sins.

Timothy D. Clark preached a fiery sermon to the readers of Nature last week, warning about the alarming rise of dishonesty among scientists. “Too many researchers make up or massage their data,” he says. It’s not a small problem, either. You can almost hear the pounding on the pulpit:

I hope you'll read the rest of the article. Just click on "Evolutionary Materialism Promotes Deadly Sins". 



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

Language Itself Testifies of the Creator

Here is another article that I read with reluctance and ended up fascinated. I'll allow that
linguistics can seem dreadfully dull for some people, but this is more of a big picture aspect. And we're not going to be examining things like the dangling pluperfect indefinite participle or whatever.

A very basic definition of language is that it is a means of communication, and languages are not merely verbal. There are written forms of verbal languages, braille raised dots for the blind, sign language for the hearing impaired, and more. There needs to be some degree of uniformity and consistency for a language to be useful. How many times has someone inserted some slang that you've had to ask for a definition or look it up if you had not experienced it before? Some slang words become established in a language because of agreement and acceptance, but many drop off (such as, fortunately, "gag me with a spoon"). The gesture I received while driving the other day could be considered an unofficial bit of sign language because those sending as well as receiving know what it means. 

Then we develop languages for our electronic devices, big and small. Computer languages and graphic user interfaces are complex, but they are reduced down to binary for the computers to use: ones and zeroes, yes or no, on or off. Signals are sent out and computers communicate with other computers, who build things back up again for humans. I'm typing in English, you're reading it in English, but there were many translation steps in between. A step can be added when someone uses electronic translation of a Web page or site into another language.

It takes a logical mind to understand and use a language, whether interpersonal communication or for various computers. We understand our vocabulary, put words together to communicate greater concepts than the individual words alone can communicate, and we can glean a meaning of an unfamiliar word from the context. In our communication, we also select from words with similar meanings if we wish to use a word with a more positive or negative connotation in our conversation. 

The most mirific language of all does not have anything to do with linguistics per se. It is the specified complexity of DNA, which is lining up atoms and molecules, as well as operating molecular repair stations withing our cells. Those, and far more. Proponents of lactobacilli-to-linguist evolution are unable to come up with a believable model for the origin of language, partly because it involves minds that must be able to use a language properly. The coded language of DNA makes matters far worse for evolutionists, old son.

Basement Cat looking intent

To make matters worse for evolutionists, words are not material in nature. The are non-material, like numbers. If I post a picture of Basement Cat, and then delete it (you only see the placeholder where the picture used to be), the cat remains unaffected. Similarly, take a dry erase marker and write "5" on a dry erase board. Then, erase it. A bit more, I can still see it — there you go. But "fiveness" still exists. Words, numbers, laws of logic, concepts are not material, but they are very real. Ultimately, they testify of God the Creator as described in the Bible! How did God create? He spoke.

Many arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness of God’s existence have been advanced over past millennia. On this issue, the biblical record maintains that clear evidence of God’s reality resides in the natural realm all around us. This evidence is so plain, the record claims, that no human being can fail to have awareness of God’s existence (Rom 1:20). This paper calls attention to a category of reality that provides especially powerful support for God’s existence. Our focus is upon the phenomenon of language. We begin from our own subjective experience of this phenomenon and then extend our considerations to the realm of the material world around us. Because language is so integral to our own mental processes and so intuitive in the way we relate to other human beings, most of us never pause to analyze just what is occurring when we think, write, speak, or process what we read or hear others say. Therefore, a crucial first step in this discussion is to establish clearly what the term language entails.

To finish reading this extremely interesting article, click on "A Linguistic Argument for God’s Existence".




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