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

Monday, July 31, 2017

Genesis and Ancient Mythologies

There's a prairie schooner-full of legends about creation, the global deluge, humanity's dispersal, and a heap of other things. Skeptical scholars tend to presuppose that the Biblical record of history, especially the early chapters of Genesis, is not the written Word of God. To do this, they need to make a number of assumptions and ignore important details.

Bible accounts of the global deluge were not copied from pagan myths

Something I reckon is a big stumbling block is the dating of the manuscripts. Some tinhorns will be on the prod and say, "Those ancient documents were dated as being hundreds of years older than Moses supposedly lived". We've seen how dating methods can be inaccurate, and it also raises questions regarding which manuscripts were dated, and what dating procedures were used.

People will also look at the similarities of the documents and, based on their presumptions and biases against the biblical manuscripts, assume that Genesis was copied by the Hebrews from other peoples' myths. Something they need to consider is the differences between Genesis and the ancient tales — something we considered in "Adam was a Man, not a Myth". The Epic of Gilgamesh contained a global deluge story, but it has many significant differences from the Genesis Flood account that are neglected by many scholars. Pagan gods and people are capricious and immoral, making the claim of Hebrew copying ridiculous.

The biblical account of the Genesis Flood and other events have internal consistency and integrity. Instead of thinking that Genesis took elements from other people, it's the other way around: the biblical accounts are accurate, and the pagan myths are copies that became corrupted over time and by cultures.
When faced with the question as to whether the Bible accurately records ancient history in Genesis 1–11 or was derived from some other “ancient” document, we first need to apply a solemn reminder. God’s Word has made the ultimate and justifiable claim for itself that none of these other ancient texts has made. The Bible repeatedly asserts to be the perfect Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21; Psalm 19:7; 119:160). If the Bible borrowed from ancient mythologies, this claim would be called into question.
To read the rest of this very interesting article, click on "Is Genesis 1–11 a Derivation from Ancient Myths?" For some additional material, I recommend two other articles, "Are Biblical accounts copied from pagan religions? Part 1. The God of Creation" and "Are Biblical accounts copied from pagan religions? Part 2. The Resurrection".

Saturday, July 29, 2017

How Do You Know It Is True?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The title brings to mind a roomful of intellectuals discussing Kant, Hegel, Descartes, Voltaire, and arguing until they're blue in their mouths. While this article deals with philosophy, it is not highfalutin, impractical stuff. It's because I have learned some important things and want to pass them along, and they're very useful for reasoning. Also, I hope the programming on this site is going to deliver on its "promises" and doesn't distract from the content.

How you know that something is true is actually a very important question
Made at RedKid.net, with the text on concrete done using Paint.NET

Don't Let the Big Word Bother You

People who have read my material before probably know that I get to gnawing on that worldviews bone after a hearty helping of presupposition, as in presuppositional apologetics (a.k.a. transcendental apologetics). That is, everyone has a worldview, which is just as it seems: a way of looking at the world, our experiences, beliefs, assumptions, and so on. Presuppositions are those things we assume are true, but have not necessarily examined and tested.  Apologetics is a method of defending and presenting the truth of the Bible — and as Christians, we need to know what and why we believe. We all have our ultimate starting points. For the Christian, it should be the infallible Word of God. Other people have various fallible philosophies and opinions.

With me so far? Good.

I'm not going to load you up with a whole heap of big words, but there's one more we need so this article can be useful. That word is epistemology, and it means knowledge. Well, the -ology part means "the study of", so it's the study of knowledge. Don't run off just yet, it's not that hard to catch hold of. Epistemology is how we know something, and if it is true. Also important is the way certain terms are defined, so you really have to watch that in many discussions. If the basis for our knowledge is fundamentally flawed, we could be wrong about many things and end up where we don't want to be. See how that works? Since this article relies on the understanding and use of logic (no, you don't need to have an advanced degree in it), I suggest that you read "How should a Christian view logic?"

Knowing What You Know

Not  very many people make a point of examining and comprehensively defining their worldviews, presuppositions, and theory of knowledge. They have their opinions and "know" certain things, but are unaware of the hows and whys of what they claim to know. For most of us, our worldview grows over time, and is seldom consciously processed. One aspect of presuppositional apologetics is to give an internal critique of non-biblical worldviews. This includes asking questions about how people reached their conclusions, and how they know their starting points are accurate. Sometimes the in-between stuff, too.

It's interesting that, no matter what the subject, people will argue from what they've been told. Christians do this, especially when a celebrity or teacher they like makes a statement, and their epistemology stops with the authority or personality of that person. How do you know the claim is true? That person who told you — how does he or she know something is true? (I've embarrassed myself by relaying incorrect information from unchecked sources, now I tend to be more circumspect.) Atheists and evolutionists believe what they've been told about Christians and creationists, but their epistemology generally stops at misotheist sites and the statements of friends. Their epistemology seldom involves actual source material. 

Professing atheists are far more willing to pass along negative material that they know is untrue — which is something I've seen done. You'll find atheo-fascists that seek out their fellow travelers who will "refute" evidence against evolution with "arguments" that amount to, "That's not true!" Then they feel better about themselves and their erroneous worldview. I recommend that professing atheists and agnostics ask themselves why they believe all sorts of negative things about the Bible, Christians, God, creation science, and so on. Perhaps they are simply following a leader, or trying to gain the approval of others. According to the Bible, they are attempting to justify their rebellion against God.

People like this have an a priori definition of reality as atheistic materialism: God and miracles do not exist, Genesis is false, nothing exists except the material world, and so on. They consider Christians and biblical creationists to be "reality deniers" because we do not kowtow to their assertions.  They get ornery, ridiculing us for using our own starting point: the revelation of God's Word. Ridicule is one of the manipulative tactics use to control a discussion. 

Related to that is how atheists get on the prod when Bible-believing Christians will not appeal to their pride by letting them decide whether or not God exists, and argue on neutral ground. No, there is no "neutral ground": we believe the Bible, and it says they know that God exists, but suppress the truth (Rom 1:18). I have to add that demanding of material proof for the existence of God is a logical fallacy called the category error. This is ironic, since they claim to uphold science, logic, and reason. (Note to apologists who use evidence only: evidence does not save anyone, nor will someone's brilliant arguments. That is the work of the Holy Spirit, see 1 Cor. 2:1-5. Also remember that we must be honoring to God in our apologetic methods.). Another irony is that such questions are theological and philosophical, not scientific. By the way, what tinhorn made science the pope of truth?

Examples to Ponder

"Reality doesn't work by perspectives. Things are objectively true whether you accept them or not". Sounds good on the surface, almost intellectual. You can take someone like this back to square one and ask him how he defines reality. Also, ask if he can he defend his position that things are "objectively true", and how he reached that conclusion. Actually, it is an arbitrary assertion. (I happen to know that this particular atheopath is a materialistic atheist and evolutionist. A very bitter one, too.) Arbitrariness is irrational, and is devastating to a worldview because it has no basis. It also leads to bullying and pejoratives like we saw in the example.

"Calling a creationist scientifically illiterate is dead on".
This, too, is based on evolutionary materialism, and is obviously bigoted. How does he know that creationists are "scientifically illiterate"? The claim requires knowledge beyond the capabilities of the one making the comment. His statement is also a lie that has been handily refuted many times. Related to this, "Creationism is more scientifically illiterate than flat earth, so no scientist can be a creationist." How would this jasper know that "creationism is more scientifically illiterate than flat earth"? This bigoted claim was made on a post that listed creationary scientists, so it is another falsehood based on arbitrary assertions, prejudicial conjecture, unargued assumptions, and an invalid comparison. Too illogical to warrant a prolonged discussion.

Also, notice that assumptions of superior atheistic "morality" gives some folks an imaginary license to lie, use multiple false accounts, deception, ridicule, and so on. When queried, some respond that creationists deserve ridicule and deceit. Really? Upon what basis? Do the critics use the same criteria for other people? It turns out that their erroneous epistemology gives them the "knowledge" and a right to ridicule those who do not hold to naturalistic presuppositions; they claim to have the greater good The end justifies the means, mein Schatzi

Normally, I try to do posts and articles several days in advance, and then schedule them to post. This article was several days in the making, and I actually finished it on the day I wanted it to publish. How do I know that it will publish? Because the software has been reliable before, according to my memory. Mostly reliable. My epistemology shows me that it's best to check and see that the software did not fail me, both here and sharing to social media.

Short-Form Summaries

The starting points for many people are based on opinions without knowledge (that is, poor epistemology), and can be summed up:

"There was no Genesis Flood, that is fiction!"


"Because atheism!"

Someone like that just disqualified himself from rational discussion and lost credibility. For one thing, it is not a science statement, it is his or her personal philosophy.

Here's another:

"You don't pick at flaws in evolutionary theory, namely because there are no such flaws."

How do you know this?

"Because evolution!"

That is, there are fundamentalist evolutionists who are compelled by blind faith to prop up Darwin at all costs — including contradicting evolutionary scientists who admit to flaws in evolution. They can not admit that a creationist is right in anything of consequence. In fact, we must be slapped down, even in small things.

Atheism and Evolution Make Science Logically Impossible

The epistemology of atheists and evolutionists relies on their ability to use reason. How do they know their ability to reason, their perceptions, their memories, are reliable? One atheopath said, "Presuppositional apologetics will always be self defeating. You always have to assume your brain is reliable a priori". 

Actually, the opposite is true. Important aspects of science are uniformity of nature, repeatability, and consistency. God is the author of logic, and upholds the universe (Heb. 1:3), so we know that the laws of logic and science will be the same tomorrow. Universal common ancestor evolution relies on chance, uncountable random mutations that somehow improve organisms, and a whole heap of time. According to atheism and evolution, we are simply bundles of chemicals responding to their reactions — we cannot trust our thoughts and memories. How can you trust your evolved-by-chance brain to give you reliable information? Not happening, pilgrim. 

By using logic and science, atheists and evolutionists are actually denying their own epistemology and worldview, and standing on the biblical worldview! They cannot explain science, logic, or anything else regarding the preconditions of human experience in their own worldview.

Finding Logical Fallacies

My regular readers probably knew I was going to bring this up. Because of their erroneous epistemology, atheists and evolutionists make numerous errors in reasoning — especially those that frequent the internet. Like the big words in this article, the term logical fallacies may seem intimidating, but those fallacies are often easy to spot. (They are fun when bundled. I've seen three or more fallacies in one sentence.) It's mighty difficult to build a rational, persuasive argument when using bad reasoning. Knowing about these errors not only helps us when Darwin's disciples attack, but helps us to reduce our own errors when presenting our reasons for believing. One place to start is my list of "Logic Lessons" and resources listed there.

Bringing It Together

The main word here is epistemology, which is the study of knowledge. How do you know what you know, and how do you know it's true? We all have an epistemology, but few people have actually given theirs a detailed analysis. We build our presuppositions on things we believe are true, and from there, we build our worldviews. The whole shootin' match is often done a piece at a time.

Atheists have an irrational and incoherent epistemology that is internally inconsistent. Logic and science are impossible according to a materialistic, atheistic worldview, so they indirectly admit that their belief system is incoherent, and stand on the biblical worldview. Likewise, evolution is scientifically impossible, since it relies on illogical things. 

Biblical creationists rely on the Word of God. It is internally consistent, and contains the answers necessary for human experience: where we came from, where we're going, and how we get there. Atheists hate presuppositional apologetics because those of us who use it will not appeal to their egos, and we will not compromise on the Bible. Further, we use this apologetic method to show that atheism and evolutionism are incoherent, internally inconsistent, and that Scripture contains the truth that they lack. Our epistemology is certain.

For further reading in addition to links used above, I highly recommend two articles that spurred me on to write this article. First, Dr. Jason Lisle's "Are You Epistemologically Self-Conscious?". Second and a bit deeper is Dr. Dave Greear's "The Role of Presuppositions and Worldviews in the Creation-Evolution Debate".

Friday, July 28, 2017

Nodosaur News is Good News

Shawn Funk had an interesting day on March 21, 2011 while working for Suncor Energy in Alberta, Canada. Excavation work had to be done (he's a miner, they do that kind of thing). Bet he didn't expect to make a bit of history by finding what is considered the best-preserved nodosaur (a type of armored dinosaur) fossil. 

Nodosaur fossil defies evolutionary assumptions and supports the Genesis Flood
Suncor nodosaur fossil photo credit: Wikimedia Commons / Machairo / CC BY-SA 4.0
Despite failed, hoary tales of Darwinists and old Earth geologists (such as dying, getting swept out to sea, then becoming preserved instead of scavenger chow), this critter had evidence to present supporting the Genesis Flood and a young Earth. Sure, they wouldn't be so surprised to find a marine creature in that area, but a land dweller? That's the first clue that something unusual happened. Preserved skin remnants were found as well. The whole thing is well-preserved and is expected to yield a whole passel of information, and it would be mighty helpful if the scientists dropped their evolutionary presuppositions so they could do actual sciencey stuff.
Nodosaurs were tank-like dinosaurs, similar to ankylosaurs, covered with spiky scales and a pair of two-foot-long spikes—one protruding from each shoulder. Miner S[h]awn Funk encountered one during 2011 in Alberta’s Millennium Mine. The fossil turned out to be the best of its kind.

No technical reports yet describe the specimen, but researchers have learned enough during the past six years of its painstaking preparation to suggest that it holds plenty of secrets about dinosaur life, death, and preservation.
To read the rest of the article, click on "Secrets from the World's Best-Preserved Nodosaur".

Thursday, July 27, 2017

Bee Hive Business

Yes, I flinch when a bee buzzes too closely to my head, since I've been stung before and it startles me. There was that hornet the other day that spooked me, but I won't apologize because those things hurt. Stings I've received were not by those insects that most people probably think of when hearing the word bee, that's the one that makes honey. The only times I was stung by honeybees happened when I was a tyke, and asked for it. Honeybees are a stumbling block for baryons-to-beekeper evolution that give silent testimony to creation.

Credit: Pixabay / Eberhard Grossgasteiger
Did you know that the hexagonal shape they use for the hive is mathematically the strongest and most efficient design? Odd that they know that, isn't it? Plants need bees, and bees need plants — and we need bees to keep a big part of our food supply going. The honey they make is also very beneficial for us. Then there's the very intricate system of the hive, with the scouting, communication, gathering pollen, honey manufacturing process, breeding, and more. Honeybees are troublesome for evolutionists to explain, but biblical creationists have no difficulties, accepting that they are a blessing from our Creator.
We’ve all heard the phrase “busy as a bee.” The aptly named worker bees literally work themselves to death. In the barren winter, they may live several months, but in the work season when flowers are blooming, they may die after only a few weeks outside the hive. Their lives are cut short from the rigors of flying—sometimes dozens of miles each day. During its frenetic working lifetime, a single worker bee may add merely one-twelfth of a teaspoon of prized honey to its colony. Yet the power of the bee is in the cooperation of the colony. Together, an industrious colony may produce 150 pounds of honey during a year’s warm season.
Bee-have yourself and read the rest of the article by clicking on "Honeybees: One of God’s Sweetest Designs".

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

About that "Humans Evolved from Apes" Thing

Unfortunately, creationists see well-meaning people offer an "argument" along the lines of, "If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" Cringeworthy. On more than one occasion, I've tried to gently correct the person making the comment. It is actually a straw man argument (probably not deliberate) that misrepresents the universal common ancestor evolutionary view that humans and apes evolved separately from a common ancestor. That kind of comment also shows ignorance of their beliefs. Anti-creationists choose to misrepresent, and have little knowledge of, biblical creationist teachings, but we do not want to be like them.

The 98 percent genetic similaritiy between chimpanzees and humans is false
Credit: Morguefile / hotblack
Let's step back a bit and cut the uninformed some slack. I can see where they get the ideas, since there was a putative ape-like common ancestor for us and them. Add in the survival of the fittest mythology where the strong survive and pass along their superior genes while the weak die out. Then we hear about ape-men. So, superficially, it seems like a reasonable statement, and you might see where people got the idea. However, for those of you who still persist on arguing the "evolved from apes so there shouldn't be apes" line, here are two words for you.

Now, let's get away from the monkey business.

"Stop it, Cowboy Bob!"

Darwin's Flying Monkeys® gleefully post the false information that we have a 98 percent genetic similarity to our alleged closes evolutionary relatives, the chimpanzees. That number has been greatly reduced with better research and less circular reasoning. There is also no time for the vast amount of beneficial mutations to accumulate and make the differences between the human and ape genomes. By the way, notice that you don't hear about the similarities with gorilla genomes, which are not supposed to exist.

Other factors come into play, such as mitochondrial DNA (passed along from mother to daughter), the Y-chromosome that goes from father to son, and the rate of genetic decay. Then there are the fossils, which are either human, ape, or a careless mix of fossil bones of both apes and humans. These are devastating to their evolutionary paradigm. The truth about our origins is found in God's revealed Word, not in the constantly failing whims of evolutionary guesswork.
Since Charles Darwin first proposed the basis for such ideas in the 19th century when he wrote On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, molecules-to-man evolution has increasingly been taught as fact. Later, he fleshed out the idea of human evolution from a common ancestor with apes in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. . .

The concept that humans and apes share a common ancestor contrasts with what we read in the Bible. . .

The two contrasting explanations for our existence—and for apes—have obvious philosophical/faith starting points because neither side can go back in time and observe how everything came into being. Both sides can only examine what we have in the present and draw conclusions from that.
To read the entire article, click on "Did humans evolve from apes?" You may also like this collection of links to frauds and bad science regarding our so-called ancestors. In addition, evolutionists claim similarities are evidence of evolution, but assume that evolution happened (one reason is there's no grant money in trying to find proof of evolution itself). Here is an interesting essay, "If We Resemble Apes, Does That Mean We Evolved from Apes?"

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Creation and Engineering Principles Part 2

If you missed Part 1, you can find that here.

Time and again, we've seen how evolutionary assumptions actually hinder science. Such assumptions also have hindered medical science as well, such as the conflated claim that antibiotic resistance is the result of evolution. The entire paradigm of biology needs to be retooled with an engineering mindset. After all, things that we build are often complex by nature, having many parts or subsystems working together for the whole. Many give pantheistic praise to "nature" and "evolution" as if they had volition and creative powers.

Humans engineer objects, and biology is best viewed with engineering principles
Credit: Pixabay / ractapopulous
Proponents of bacteria-to-biochemist evolution rely on time, chance, mutations, and so forth. To figure out how something works or to solve a medical problem, they are working at a disadvantage from the beginning. Creationary scientists and medical doctors can take an engineering paradigm. They can see that, like things we build, our Creator has designed living things to have many aspects working together for the whole.
Making sense of biomolecular, physiological, or anatomical functions is not mysterious. Just like man-made things, these functions always operate within the laws of nature. Though it was within God’s prerogative to design His systems to contrast with man-made designs by operating through different laws of nature, He didn’t. This makes an endeavor like designing aircraft after studying birds possible. One researcher working on reverse-engineering biological networks concluded:
To see what was concluded and read the entire article from the beginning, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Engineering Principles Should Guide Biological Research". This is the second article on the subject, more will be arriving.

Monday, July 24, 2017

Muddying Mosasaur Evolution

The expression blinded by science seems more popular in the UK than in the United States (I only know of it from the Thomas Dolby Song), but it seems to be a way of baffling people with big words. Apparently this is most effective when discussing science subjects with non-scientists. Sort of like, "Sometimes I use words I don't understand so I can sound much more photosynthesis". Also useful when using the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™.

Credit: Warpaintcobra at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
A slice of evolutionary dogma tells us that everything evolved in the sea, a bunch of critters moved to dry land, and some went back to the sea. There is no evidence for this except in Darwinoid mythology, but not in science. (Seems to be yet another wild-eyed attempt to deny the truth of creation, don't you think?) Some of those apparently dissatisfied living a dry life were mosasaurs. Using a heap of circular reasoning, blinding-by-science-jargon, unsupportable assertions, and so forth, scientists provide "answers" that actually say nothing at all with their jargon shuffling.
The tricks of the Darwin trade come out in force to explain these aquatic reptiles that evolutionists maintain came from land lizards.

To understand an evolution paper, you have to learn to look past the overconfident words. “Mosasauroid phylogeny under multiple phylogenetic methods provides new insights on the evolution of aquatic adaptations in the group,” claim six authors publishing in PLoS One. OK, want some insights?
To read the rest, click on "Mosasaurs Show No Clear Record of Evolution". Also, you may want to see the video, "Monstrous Mosasaurs!"

Saturday, July 22, 2017

Creationists Mining DNA Gold

Things were kind of quiet for a spell at The Question Evolution Project. The hands at the Darwin Ranch left their digs at Deception Pass and trekked over to Defiance Arroyo, where they did some sacrifices to Hanuman, the Hindu monkey god. Evolution is pagan, after all, so that's fitting for them. This was done to drive biblical creationists away, but President Trump let me work in the bowling alley under the White House for a marathon posting and scheduling excursion. Ever try to write in a bowling alley? Actually, curses and such have no effect on Bible-believing Christians, so I stayed put.

DNA is a gold mine of information refuting evolution and supporting creation
Credit: Pixabay / ColiN00B
Evolutionists are getting on the prod because things they thought would fortify their claims end up refuting them, and biblical creationists are seeing how failed evidence "evidence" actually supports special creation. One of the most frequent sources of evolutionary agitation is DNA. Some Darwinoids occasionally claim that DNA supports evolution, but it's easy to wonder if those owlhoots have any idea what's really happening in science.

Years ago, the human genome was improperly sequenced, and simplistic views dominated for a spell. After serious research was conducted through the ENCODE project and afterward, scientists are discovering that they still have a great deal to learn. Non-coding DNA has many important functions, epigenetic changes in the DNA molecule, gene splicing, the way DNA has built-in repairs, and much more. Evolutionists admit that they do not know where DNA came from, and claims of time, chance, mutations, and so forth are increasingly ridiculous. No, DNA and RNA are among the many products of our Creator that are inexplicable to evolutionists.
Decades ago, high school and college students learned the basics of how the molecule of life—DNA—contained segments called genes that code for proteins. Today, that rather simple concept is entirely inadequate to explain what really happens at the genetic level and how DNA functions. Recent discoveries have caused a major paradigm shift in our knowledge of the nature of DNA, and none of the findings provide evidence for evolution at any level.

Consider the following statement by famed evolutionist Eugene Koonin and his colleague:
To finish reading, click on the rather exaggerated title, "The DNA Goldmine Appears Infinite".

Friday, July 21, 2017

Escarpments and the Genesis Flood

Escarpment is an unusual-sounding word that seldom makes its way into casual conversation, and if you use it, you may get strange looks and questions. "Do you mean the attempted escapement at the Wallkill Correctional Facility?" Or mayhaps, "I thought you lived in a house, not an escarpment complex". Then you have to explain that the things are cliffs that are mighty high and very long, found along coastal areas.

The best answer for the formation of escarpments is the Genesis Flood
Credit: Pixabay / sandrapetersen
Believers in long ages and uniformitarian geology think that gradual processes made these cliff things happen. However, their mechanisms are wretchedly inadequate, failing to consider important factors, such as their size. Some even say they were formed by local climates. No, that doesn't work. Biblical creationists, however, have a far more plausible mechanism and explanation based on the tremendous erosion of the Genesis Flood. Which, in turn, indicates that Earth is far younger than secularists want to believe.
Coastal great escarpments are steep slopes or cliffs found along some continental coastal areas. They are usually very long—several thousand kilometres—and often over 1,000 metres (3,300 feet) high. They run parallel to the coast, typically 100 to 200 kilometres (60 to 120 miles) inland, and are not the result of faults that caused the land to uplift, but are formed by erosion. Coastal great escarpments separate a high plateau (an erosion or planation surface) from a coastal plain.

They are one of the most significant topographical features found on earth. Remarkable examples of coastal great escarpments encircle southern Africa, and run along eastern Australia, eastern Brazil, and western India.
To read the rest of this article which looks longer than it really is because of illustrations, click on "Noahs Flood helped form escarpments".

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Life on Earth Protecting Life on Earth?

Way back when I was a young'un, my mother wanted me to clean up my room. After I reluctantly gave in and cleaned at it, she would do the real cleaning, the stuff I was too young and unskilled to do. I reckon most parents know this scenario very well. Those with superior knowledge, skills, and experience need to help out those who are lacking in certain areas.

New studies indicate our Creator put organisms and chemistry in place to protect Earth.
Credit: Pixabay / moritz320
It seems strange, but it appears that Earth was set up to do some of the same things. We know about the planet-sized deflector shields, but there are things happening on the small end of the scale as well. An oil spill makes the news and people are expecting current conditions (and what is actually known right here and now) to remain constant. That idea doesn't work. There are plastics in the oceans, but the amount seems to be remaining the same, if not decreasing. Bacteria may be breaking down the oil and the plastics. Some owlhoot may say that the abilities evolved, but oh wow boy howdy, that's mighty fast evolution! The more likely explanation is that certain organisms already have these abilities, as was designed by our Creator. There is a great deal to learn about what's happening in small places. 

The most effective way to curtail erosion in Florida is nothing that we've done. Instead, it's mangroves. Far more effective than salt marshes and human efforts, and they also increase sediment deposits. Tree-mendous!

Even the atmosphere has activity that needs (wait for it) to be studied further. Even so, there is activity by hydroxyl radicals that help break down pollutants. Finally, radicals that don't burn dumpsters or try to kill us, but are actually helpful. Yes, I used a fallacy of ambiguity on "radical" to be humorous. In addition, the interconnected systems are controlling climate change in ways that also need further study.

So, God has apparently designed some thing on Earth to clean up after us, but that's no excuse to say, "Dad will take care of stuff", because we are supposed to be good stewards of the world he gave us, you savvy? To read more about the items touched on above, click on "Life Helps Protect the Planet".

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Creation and Engineering Principles Part 1

One of the arguments used by creationists is that something that was designed had a designer. You may have seen it: a painting has a painter, a building has builders, music has composers — but something with amazing specified complexity such as the human brain is something that Darwinists will tell us is the product of time and chance. People like C. Richard Dawkins say that things are not designed for a purpose, they just look that way. Oh, please!

Evolutionists reject Master Engineer's work in favor of materialistic dogma.
Credit: Pixabay / Stevebidmead
Materialists fall back on their chant of "EvolutionDidIt", even though they have no plausible mechanisms or explanations for what is transpicuous. (You'd think that someone with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering like Bill Nye would be able to understand this, but such is not the case.) Organisms are engineered to adapt, but their false god of evolution receives undue credit. When logic and evidence indicate the work of our Creator, the Master Engineer, such conclusions must be rejected according to materialistic dogma.
When you observe nature, especially living things, does what you see look purposeful or messy? In other words, do living things have body parts that look like they have a proper fit and function, or do they seem as though they were cobbled together through some kind of tinkering process?

In college, I was taught that evolution produced life’s great diversity. What some call “survival of the fittest” was said to be the process nature used to “tinker” with life. Living creatures looked messy to my teachers since to them life had evolved through chaotic, deadly struggles.
To read the rest, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Engineering Principles Point to God's Workmanship". Part 2 is here, and more will be following.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Adam Was a Man, Not a Myth

Genesis account creation of Adam not dependent on ancient Near East texts

It is not uncommon for atheists to use selective citing from the Bible, cherry-pick incomplete or utterly false "facts" attributed to history, and a wagon train-full of dreadful reasoning in their efforts to claim that the Bible is untrustworthy. Then they cheer their own brilliance, which is merely justification of their rebellion against our Creator. 

One method is to find some similarities between ancient Near East texts and the book of Genesis, and then claim that Genesis took its inspiration from pagan sources. While there are some similarities, there are also very distinct differences that show how Genesis is unique. Those get ignored to preserve the narrative and reach the conclusion that Adam did not even exist. No need to do thorough research or logical thinking, or consider that the ANE texts were inspired by true history (which is found in Genesis), then corrupted in other texts. See how that works?

Unfortunately, there are liberal "Christian" owlhoots who want to reject Scripture as well, and the best way to do that is at the beginning. This child wonders if the liberal religious folk realized that they're not only supporting atheism, but undermining the gospel message itself.
It is popular for many people to think that the account of Adam’s creation is just another myth from the ancient world. Many evangelical scholars today accept that the biblical account reflects the worldview of the ancient Near East. They accept this, believing that these other accounts of the creation of man pre-date Genesis. Of course, this brings the Bible’s authority into question.
To finish reading, click on "The Creation of Adam: Unique Revelation or Ancient Myth?"

Monday, July 17, 2017

Avoiding Diversions of Internet Atheists and Evolutionists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Since materialists cannot make us go away, they resort to various methods to silence Christians — especially biblical creationists. Many of these efforts involve ugsome reasoning and emotional reactions, which are common among internet atheopaths and fundamentalist evolutionists. We must avoid their manipulation and diversions, stay on topic, and keep them on topic as well. They tend to get mighty ornery when we see their diversions for what they are and keep them on the subject at hand.  I'll allow that it's not always easy, and I've chased a few shiny things myself.

Red Herrings

A common logical fallacy is the red herring, which is a distraction from the subject at hand. In my opinion, most if not all informal logical fallacies are diversions from a subject under discussion. If you ponder it, someone attacking your illustrious person, introducing a different topic, rejecting the source of the information, expecting you to explain or defend statements from a creationary biochemist when all you did was post a link, threats to tattle on you in inconsequential forums, lying about you, and other things will seldom have any relevance for the subject that was introduced. Keep in mind that people like this want to control the discussion and put us on the defensive. Here are a few that I'd like to lasso for your edification. 


Straw Man

Ain't no way, no how, are we required to defend positions we do not hold. Straw man arguments are common on the web, which are essentially attacking a position that a person or organization does not hold. "Look at me, I'm so clever, I destroyed you!" Not hardly! Someone wrecking a position of his own construction (building a straw man) and then tearing it down is not a victory. Putting words in someone's mouth is another form of straw man.


Appeal to Motive

The first line of attack for anti-creationists is simple ridicule and insults. Second seems to be the straw man. A strong contender for the third attack is the appeal to motive fallacy. Certain tinhorns assert that they know what is in someone's mind as to why something was said or done — an assumed motive which invariably meets with their disapproval. Someone might say, "You won't debate me because your worldview can't withstand the scrutiny of one atheist, and you're a coward!" No, you don't get debates because you waste people's time with childish behavior, terrible thinking, and trolling.


Arbitrary Assertions

Christians and creationists who have spent any amount of time on social media have probably encountered atheists and evolutionists who simply make an assertion and expect it to be so. Arguing from their naturalistic presuppositions, they assume and declare that their worldview is "reality", and those of us who believe the truth of God's Word (as well as appreciating how science and logic support recent creation) are "reality deniers". In addition to this, there are many who call us "liars' because we disagree with their opinions. (Some of them are unwilling or unable to ascertain the difference between a contrary interpretation of facts and the intent to deceive.) There are many other claims that opponents of the gospel will make which cannot withstand scrutiny, and when they are called upon to defend their statements, they give us red herrings, personal abuse, and so on. Arbitrariness is frequently encountered when dealing with an irrational worldview, so watch for it.

Moral Relativism

These days, materialists do not have a consistent moral compass. Many do not care. They cannot say that it is wrong to torture infants to death for personal pleasure, or that the Nazi concentration camps were evil. It is interesting to be called "evil" by an atheopath who has no consistent moral standard. In fact, evil is a theological term. Such a relativistic view is inconsistent and unlivable. To see an article where a biblical creationist responds to statements (and arbitrary assertions) from a moral relativist, click on "Answering a moral relativist". For a more lengthy examination in a debate setting, I wrote a post linking to a video, "Incoherent 'Reasoning' from Silverman in Debate".

Debate Challenges

When a creationist becomes known on social media, feral atheists and evolutionists often demand a debate. Drawing from my experiences and observations, they seldom know the content and purpose of a real debate — especially when they remain anonymous. It is supposed to be the deliberate, structured presentation of ideas, with respect for the person holding the contrary position, and knowledge of that position. Friends can debate a topic and still remain friends afterward. A debate is not intended to humiliate the other person or position, nor is it for the purpose of bolstering egos or to turn into a snarling dog fight. It's who they are. For more about debates themselves and who should qualify, click on the aptly named "Debate Challenges".

Dealing with atheists and evolutionists can be difficult when they want a dog fight
Dogs fighting in a wooded clearing / Frans Snyders / Wikimedia Commons
One of my favorite stories is that I "lost" a "debate" on Twitter that I did not know I was having! An atheist and I disagreed, and I wandered off to have supper or something. When I returned, he claimed that my lack of response gave him the victory. Right, so I should debate someone who uses logical fallacies (in that case and another one quite similar, the argument from silence was utilized mightily). Nope. It's mighty hard for someone to present a coherent argument and reach a valid conclusion with errors in thinking. They may blunder into a correct conclusion, but such a thing is not to be expected.


Be Ready

One way to be ready for attacks from those who despise the truth of Christ is to be ready to spot basic logical fallacies. While it may sound intimidating, it is not difficult. When dealing with misotheists and other anti-creationists, you need to wear your armor. Like it or not, know it or not, we are in a war. It is not about knowledge, science, wisdom of the world and so on, but it is spiritual. Naturalists deny this, and unbelievers consider the things of God foolish (1 Cor. 1:18). God has negated the wisdom of the world (1 Cor. 1:19-20) for salvation (1 Cor. 1:21, 25).

I do not counsel people on the internet to go into strongholds of those who hate God. (Some are called by God and skilled in the art of debate, but finding a rational opponent can be very difficult.) However, we are to be ready to give an answer to those who ask us to give a reason for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). We do not have to be experts in all areas of theology (no human is), but have a good working knowledge. Trust God and his Word. 

You will find several articles on presuppositional apologetics such as this one. Also, I recommend "Fool Proof Apologetics". Atheists and other anti-creationists hate this method because it does not appeal to their pride, and it challenges their worldviews.

"But Cowboy Bob, if I take a stand for biblical creation and the truth of the Bible, people will say mean things about me!"

Yes, that happens. But do you think that caving in to bullies of this nature will help? I learned long ago that if someone is going to say or think something wicked about you, there is nothing you can do about it. Atheists, evolutionists, cultists, legalistic or liberal "Christians", atheists pretending to be Christians, and similar sidewinders will attack and justify their rebellion against God (Job 40:8 comes to mind). Are you here to gain the approval of men or of God (Gal. 1:10, Luke 9:62)? Those of us in creation science ministries receive many attacks and attempts to silence us, and those in high-profile ministries have harassment far worse than you or I. When things get rough, I remember that I never carried my cross through town. Persecution of Christians and creationists is increasing, and that will continue. 

This vile comment was left on my other Facebook Page,
and those contumelious cretins said it did not violate their "standards".
Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes.
It is vital that Christians stay in the Word and get solid biblical teaching. In addition, learn the truth of biblical creation science. This site, and the aforementioned Page at The Question Evolution Project will point you to many good resources that present science that refutes evolution and affirms special creation. The major creation science ministries are also are doctrinally solid. I have the unpleasant impression that too many Christians think they can defeat atheism and evolution by sharing "memes" and other pictures. Sure, that's a lot of work, pilgrim. We share images as well, but they usually include links to important articles.

Please pray for this ministry, for those of us who administer The Question Evolution Project, and for me, personally. I'm asking that we are given grace and wisdom to continue to follow our Savior and Creator, Jesus Christ, God the Son.

Saturday, July 15, 2017

The Created Cat Kind

Cats are a problem for evolution and affirm creationEver notice that many of the animals we have are used for a purpose? Throughout history, we've used them for food and many have been domesticated for labor (plowing, riding, and so forth) and some as pets. (Cowboy wisdom: never name a cow you're going to eat.) Smaller animals like dogs are often useful, birds can be cute and fascinating, reptiles as well, and cats — don't try to harness a tiger, and the house cat is too small to be a laborer. Sometimes for catching mice, and yet, they are adored pets in many places around the world. Some of us coddle them while marveling at their grace and dignity. Guess we humans don't necessarily have to be utilitarian about everything, do we? Especially when many of us consider pets a part of the family.

So, where do they come from? The consensus was that our pets came from Egypt. Although they were worshiped there, genetic testing indicats — I mean, indicates — that they came from Shinar. Well, the Iraq area. And they ultimately descended from an ancestral pair that Noah took on the Ark. After the dispersion of people at Babel, they took their pets with them. See "Cats from Shinar, not Egypt".

Cats are problematic for proponents of fish-to-feline evolution. Yes, there have been mutations over the centuries (including selective breeding), and the presence of stripes is a problem for evolution. For that matter, they have a problem explaining the presence of manes as well. After an introduction, I link to a technical creationist article in "The Origin of the Cat Family".

Our little frisky friends appear throughout history and receive several mentions in the Bible. Everything was created vegetarian, and at the close of all things in the final revelation, there will be no more of the killing and eating of animals. If you are a vegan, that's your choice, but it's not your cat's choice because (except for a few exceptions) it must eat meat. Several animals do that. So don't be getting ahead of God's timetable force your food choices on an animal, you savvy? Cats can be affectionate and loyal, especially the blind one that attacked an intruder. I'm glad God provided us with pets, and I cotton to the ones that purr.
Cats are reckoned to be “the most popular pet in the world”, with more than 600 million living among people worldwide, despite the fact that they “contribute virtually nothing in the way of sustenance or work to human endeavour.” This helps explain why there is much less variation in domestic cats than in dogs. The diversity of canine sizes, shapes, and temperaments reflects the fact that people have long selected and bred dogs for such tasks as guarding, herding, hunting, and sled-pulling. Cats on the other hand, which according to Scientific American, “do not take instruction well”, have not been subjected to the same selective breeding pressures. While domestic dogs can look completely distinct from their ‘ancestral wolf’ form, many house cats are hard to distinguish from the wildcat—with which they readily interbreed, and share the same species name, Felis silvestris.
To read the rest, click on "Cats big and small".