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, April 22, 2019

Video Review — "The Fool" by Ray Comfort

Ray Comfort has been maligned as the "Banana Man", based on atheists editing and misrepresenting him. Find out the truth and more. And be encouraged.

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Obtaining and reviewing The Fool by Ray Comfort/Living Waters has been a goat rodeo for me. I knew it was going to be released, and one of the web sites indicated February 2019, so I passed. Later, I checked again and saw that the release date been moved out. I purchased the video downloads to help the ministry and see them (the second being "The Angry Atheist") in advance. However, I wanted my review to coincide with the release of The Fool, so I contacted Living Waters. The fellow I spoke with did not know, but his supervisor believed it would be released two weeks after Easter. Nope. Looks like it was released to YouTube at midnight their time on Sunday, April 21. So I moved this review to almost the top of my priority list.

Early Days

New Zealand native Ray Comfort has been an evangelist for years. He is a "walk the talk" guy, living what he says. Mr Comfort is involved in street preaching , and sometimes people get mighty hostile. His autobiography, Out of the Comfort Zone, includes descriptions of how he was not only preaching the gospel but giving food and care to people in the extremely dangerous MacArthur Park area of Los Angeles, California.

In the early days, Ray was promoting "Hell's Best Kept Secret" and "True and False Conversion" (which are still very important resources). You may want to watch this short documentary from around 2011 for some interesting information. Things began to move from a trot to a canter when he teamed up with Kirk Cameron and working on "The Way of the Master", which includes biblical evangelism courses. However, his ministry began to gallop because of misrepresentations by atheists.

Evangelism

Mr. Comfort tries to be friendly to atheists, but they get on the prod when confronted by the truth of the gospel. They get even angrier when evolution (a foundation for their religion) is challenged — which is something I've experienced with Question Evolution Day and other activities. Ray speaks to atheists and has had formal debates with them. This is rare, because atheists and evolutionists are seldom willing to engage in debates or intelligent discussions with biblical Christians and creationists. Ridicule and trying to silence us, yes. Civil discussion, not so much.

Ridicule

Ray has the moniker of "Banana Man" and has been called a fool because of a parody that he made using bananas and a soda can as props. Let me interrupt myself for a moment. Comfort said that atheists don't think their beliefs are ridiculous and worthy of ridicule, but I disagree on that small point. From my observations, atheists and evolutionists in general are exceptionally proud and cannot take a joke, but are more than willing to ridicule others, even when they know their attacks are blatant misrepresentations. This is ironic because their claims to owning "reason" because of atheism and that people of faith are irrational are highly fallacious. I've discussed that elsewhere, so no need to saddle up that one just now.

Scene changes are often shown with bananas. Unlike many atheists, Mr. Comfort appropriated an object of ridicule that is used against him. Meanwhile, atheists deliberately misrepresented Ray and the parody mentioned earlier for ridicule purposes. (I keep bringing up ridicule because people like that are in rebellion to their Creator; atheism and origins are not intellectual, they are spiritual problems. They are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, as seen in Romans 1:18-22. If it were a question of intellect, everyone would be Christians. Indeed, they would be biblical creationists.) A tremendous irony of the Banana Man mockery is that atheists were allowing the gospel message to be shared. As indicated in other posts here, atheists don't trust each other, and will even become angry when their comrades show civility to Christians.

For fun, count the times Ray had a gaffe and said, "Then I forgot about it". Several things were used to attack him, but atheists and other anti-creationists don't seem to understand that ad hominem attacks, mockery, straw man arguments, and the many other fallacies they use not only show that they do not have a firm grasp of reason, but such things do not make atheism and evolution less false. God exists, and we will all have to stand before him. Logic, reason, and evidence are on our side.

Publicity from haters. All because of Banana Man.

Personal Applications

I found some encouragement in this movie, and there were a couple of quotes that stood out for me: "In the Bible, God often uses what seem like disasters and failures and uses them for his purposes". In that case, the Banana Man label opened doors for Mr. Comfort and his ministries to gain a larger audience. Also, "God delights in taking that which is a seeming failure and making it a success". This reminds me of what Joseph said to his brothers in Genesis 50:20.

My own online ministry efforts stirred up criminal cyberstalkers and even a libelous hit piece at (ir)RationalWiki, as well as an attack by an atheist who is an internet celebrity. All of these are pretty much unknown in most of the real world, so mayhaps I don't have the right haters. (I was even scorned for my musical preferences, as if that was helpful for atheism.) Like Ray's experiences, the things I've endured have occasionally left me bruised, but I know that God has his purposes. I keep on going to give God the glory, spread the truth, and provide information to equip the saints to stand up for the authority of God's Word.

Wisdom of God

Materialists and professing Christians who compromise on the Word of God think they are wise. Not hardly! The wisdom of the world is foolishness (1 Cor. 1:21, Psalm 14:1), and our spiritual weapons pull down fortresses raised against the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10:3-4). True wisdom comes from God (Prov. 1:7, 2 Peter 3:18, Prov. 3:13-14, Psalm 104:24). We must spend time in the Bible and get solid biblical teaching so we can be properly handle the truth (2 Tim. 2:15).

I hope you will see The Fool. It takes just over an hour and has far more material than I presented here, and I reckon that unbelievers and Christians can benefit from seeing it. You can get there from here. The trailer is below if you want it.

No, I don't have the book yet.



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

Saturday, April 20, 2019

Human Value, Genesis, and the Cross

In an evolutionary worldview, the death of Jesus on the cross is nonsensical. His bodily resurrection is unthinkable. According to materialists, this life is all there is, and it has no meaning, no hope for future justice, and when you die, you're worm food. Did you remember to pass along your selfish genes first? What a depressing way to live.

The biblical worldview is the only one that consistently makes sense of human experience.
In reality, atheism is incoherent. Only the biblical Christian worldview — beginning from the first verse of the Bible — consistently makes sense of human experience. We have joy and pain, life and death, and all kinds of experiences. Our Creator took human form. He lived a sinless life, died on the cross, and bodily rose from the dead. He did this out of love. The wisdom of the worldly wise is frustrated by the wisdom of God.
No one wants to live in a world where evil is ignored, or worse still, approved. Everyone yearns for justice when they have been mocked, insulted, betrayed or abused.
Who has not rebelled when they have been treated like an animal or a thing? We have a deep desire for our wrongs to be put right, for our suffering to have meaning.
The cross of Christ answers our human need. In Jesus’ Passion we discover that behind the universe is a God who treats every person with immeasurable value, who cares about justice.
To read the entire article, click on "Genesis and the Cross".




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

Friday, April 19, 2019

Giant Bee as a Living Fossil

People who have followed the origins controversy have probably heard the term living fossil, originally used by Charles Darwin. This term essentially means that something living shows no appreciable change over millions of Darwin years. Wallace's Giant Bee is an ironic contribution.

Wallace's Giant Bee was rediscovered alive and well after several decades. It is considered a living fossil, and is a problem for evolutionary views.
Megachile pluto, Wallace's Giant Bee drawing by Dr. Heinrich Friese
This bee was made famous by Alfred Russell Wallace, a friendly rival of Charles Darwin, when Wallace was in Indonesia. It was thought extinct since 1981, but was found again recently. Nice when that happens. However, it also prompts evolutionists to come up with Just So Stories that rival Rudyard Kipling. You see, amber is quite a preservative, better than a typical fossil, so they have to explain away the lack of change. "Stasis" is a non-explanation that buzzes the wrong way for evolutionists' claims, and is just an excuse to get out of admitting that life was created recently.
Every now and then one of these ancient giant insects is discovered to be still living today. An example is the world’s largest bee, Megachile pluto, which was recently rediscovered on an Indonesian island. The bee, which grows up to an inch and a half long and has a wingspan of 2.5 inches, is roughly four times larger than a honeybee. Morphologically, it is clearly a bee, and yet it is very different from all of the bees we are familiar with, especially the honeybee. Called a living fossil, it has very large un-bee like mandibles that resemble those of a stag beetle. . .

Reported widely by the press, this find created an interest in the enormous variety of insect life on earth. Unfortunately, labels such as “primitive” are often applied by evolutionary scientists and reporters to describe life assumed to have existed eons ago, but this ancient bee was anything than primitive. It had as complex a body and brain as modern insects have.  How do we know this? The answer lies in the way they were preserved.
To read the entire article, click on "Living Fossil Giant Bee Challenges Evolution".



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

Thursday, April 18, 2019

Engineered Adaptability and Populations

Further development of the continuous environmental tracking (CET) model by the Institute for Creation Research has previously examined how organisms are designed to respond to environmental changes. This is the opposite of Charles Darwin's view and that of his followers. What about adaptation by populations?

Organisms were designed to adapt according to the CET model, which is the opposite of Darwin's view. Engineered adaptability applies to populations as well as individuals.
Credit: Unsplash / Chad Kirchoff
This model takes an engineering perspective; the Master Engineer designed both individuals and populations to work together in order to solve problems. Since they are designed to adapt, there is no randomness involved. Organisms have adapted rapidly, rocking evolutionists back on their heels with exclamations of "faster than we expected". After all, their paradigm requires long ages and slow processes.
At the population level, natural selection envisions these organisms locked in mortal competition with each other, with a few individuals emerging victorious at the expense of the rest of the population. They pass on their genes while the “weaker” genes are eliminated. Evolutionary scientists imagine that the survivors were lucky enough to be endowed with superior genes through random mutations.

In stark contrast, an engineering-based model would suggest that both the individual and the population are vitally important. Thus, in order to arrive at optimal solutions to environmental challenges, individuals and populations work together in a targeted, non-random approach to problem solving. Such a model has the potential to liberate biologists from the selectionist mindset. What characterizes this mindset?
To read the entire article, click on "Engineered Adaptability: New Distributed Problem-Solving Model for Population Adaptation".



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

Wednesday, April 17, 2019

Hypsilophodon, an Overlooked Dinosaur

Hypsilophodon foxii was easy to overlook because it was small. Sure, we get excited about the behemoths because they were big and impressive, but there were others around that may not get as much coverage. Like the big ones, Hypsilophodon and other small dinosaurs were designed by their Creator to survive in their environment.

Big dinosaurs seem to get most of the attention, but even the smaller ones show the design skills of their Creator.
Hypsilophodon reconstruction at Brussels image credit: Wikimedia Commons / MWAK
A good deal of what paleontologists describe about creatures from way back when is necessarily speculative, but there are other aspects that make a lot of sense. Some of what we read and hear comes from comparisons with other animals today as well as the way they were built.
It isn’t easy being so small, especially if you are only 1.5 feet (0.4 m) tall. Imagine being surrounded by massive long-necked sauropods or herds of Iguanodons. Just one misstep and you’re an instant pancake. Or what about those vicious killers, known as theropods, many times bigger than you and always on the prowl?

How does a little guy survive in a land of giants? With some special designs, of course.
To read the full article or download the audio version, click on "Hypsilophodon—Least but Not Last".



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

Tuesday, April 16, 2019

Extraordinary Claims and Rejecting Evidence

When dealing with atheists and other anti-creationists, they often try to bushwhack us with statements or questions that are designed to put us on the defensive. The assertion that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (attributed to Carl Sagan) is downright viperine.

We expect scoffers to want us to support our claims, but they use tactics to put us on the defensive. We can turn it around.
Credit: Pixabay / moritz320
Biblical creationists are often challenged to defend our positions, which is to be expected. When asked about a subject under discussion, creationists often provide discussion, logical points, and links to relevant material. These are ignored much of the time and the subject is changed, which makes people like me think that they are not interested in learning. Worse, we are erroneously told what we believe which is rooted in the scoffer's prejudicial conjecture and not from honest examination of our point of view.

Some owlhoot will invariably drag out the platitude about claims and evidence. We may respond, "What evidence are you willing to accept?" Sounds good, except that not only are we letting them make up the rules and set the odds, they're dealing from the bottom of the deck and hiding cards. That is, we're letting them take control and put us on the defensive! We can turn it around and use the same demand on them.

The whole thing is subjective. The scoffer is calling the shots and deciding what evidence suits his or her fancy; anything you offer can be dismissed as being insufficient. The "extraordinary evidence" requirement is also hypocritical because they believe in cosmic and biological evolution, deep time, and other things that are based on assumptions and biases.

A biblical creationist will probably be told to argue from "neutral ground" and leave the Bible out of it. Not hardly! This trick is simply to manipulate us to give up what we claim we believe and go to their naturalistic game: they are in no wise neutral, and the Christian should not be, either. We are to presuppose that the Bible is true, and they presuppose their naturalism. You can hardly make any progress if you admit defeat at the get-to, pilgrim.
Since all evidence is interpreted from within the framework of a person’s worldview, don’t expect that when we, for example, are arguing for the reliability of Scripture, or for the evidence of God’s existence from nature, that the skeptic will suddenly ‘see the light’ just because you mention things like early independent attestation (in the case of New Testament reliability) or the incredible design in nature (in the case of God’s existence). They already have ways of looking at these things through their ‘agnostic/atheist glasses’ that render these things unremarkable, or ‘not extraordinary enough’, in their eyes. Yet at the same time, they will embrace all manner of highly extraordinary claims (like chemical evolution or ‘abiogenesis’ and undirected evolution of life from single cells up to human beings) with very weak or no evidential backing.

The ‘extraordinary claims’ maxim is a double standard. You can usually be sure that the person uttering this statement is not willing to apply it to their own claims! If you play their rigged game and it proves unfruitful—as it almost certainly will—try a different tactic instead.
To read this article in its entirety, click on "Do ‘Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence’?"



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

Monday, April 15, 2019

What is the Antimatter with Cosmogony?

We have seen in several posts that the Big Bang story has been Frankensteined for many years, but it is still deplorable. In fact, efforts to imagine a universe without God (I lack belief that a universe without God can exist) actually defies basic laws of physics. Then there's that pesky antimatter problem.

Another problem for cosmic evolution and the Big Bang is antimatter. There is not enough of it, and some scientists are admitting it.
Credit: National Science Foundation (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
According to the non-science story, there should be a passel of antimatter in the universe equivalent to the same amount of matter (possibly to satisfy affirmative action laws). Good thing this is not the case. Matter and antimatter collide and release energy. The universe would destroy itself, but scientists cannot detect very much of the stuff at all. Certainly not enough to power a warp core.


Some scientists are admitting that the lack of antimatter does not fit their cosmic evolution expectations. Since the narrative is more important than the truth, we are told things like "something happened". Perhaps if they were willing to drop their naturalism for a spell and realize that the evidence shows the universe has a Creator, they may be able to commence doing some useful work.
An astrophysicist explains that the predominance of matter in our universe is just weird, and has no explanation.

The big bang should have produced equal parts matter and antimatter, but it didn’t. If it had, our universe might not be possible, because the oppositely-charged particles would have annihilated each other in a blaze of energy. Antimatter is so rare, that if it survived, annihilation events would be visible throughout the universe, but we don’t see them. This failed prediction of the big bang theory has been known for decades. What is the latest thinking about it?
To read the rest, click on "Still No Explanation for Matter/Antimatter Imbalance".



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

Saturday, April 13, 2019

Asteroids, Volcanoes, and Dinosaur Demise

Secularists really have no idea what caused dinosaur extinction, and that is a thunder lizard-sized reason their stories keep changing. The alleged Chicxulub asteroid impact down Mexico way is the dominant explanation, but not all scientists are in agreement on that. Perhaps it was volcanic activity. Mayhaps it was a combination.

Research in volcanism and the alleged Chicxulub asteroid impact area have received some research. Strip away flawed dating methods, and the information supports creation science Flood models.
Image assembled from components at Clker clipart
There is an area in India known as the Deccan Traps that has significant lava flow layers. Geologists got a hankering to do some research, and tied this volcanic activity with the Chicxulub impact. Wait, what? There is quite a bit of distance between the two points of significant geological activity. If you take out the circular reasoning and fundamentally flawed presuppositions in radiometric dating, the relative timeframe can be useful. Bad news for old Earth advocates, though: the evidence actually supports creation science Flood geology models.
In its October 2nd, 2015 issue, Science published a report announcing a more detailed study of the many lava flows in the Deccan Traps located in Western India. The Deccan Traps are a massive igneous province—think of it as a lava flood plain—comparable in size to the US states of Oregon and Washington combined and composed of numerous lava flow layers having a total depth of over 6,500 feet (2,000 meters). The strategy was to examine the mineral composition of the lava flows from older samples on the bottom, to younger samples near the top of this thick sequence of lava flows. According to the report, the lava flows show differences in composition, and the timing of their eruption, according to the radiometric dating methods used, coincide remarkably well with the 66-million-year-old conventional date of the Chicxulub impact (within 50,000 years). The volcanic fissures in the area are interpreted to have been active before the impact, but with much smaller eruptive events. Lava flow rates appear to have markedly increased at roughly the same time as the asteroid impact.
It would be right neighborly of you to read the entire article. To do this, click on "Asteroids Hit First, Volcanoes Deliver Knockout Punch to Dinosaurs?" You may also like "Dinosaur Extinction and Chicxulub Revisited".

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

Friday, April 12, 2019

False Claims Supporting Evolution are Refuted

We have seen numerous times that the hands at the Darwin Ranch near Deception Pass have a nasty habit of dealing from the bottom of the deck by conflating evolution with natural selection, variation, and speciation. This time they took the rag off the bush by being dishonest about Darwinian evolution.


C. reinhardtii algae were falsely reported to be seen evolving. Nope. In fact, we see support for a creation science model!
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii algae image credit:
Dartmouth Electron Microscope Facility, Dartmouth College via Wikimedia Commons
Secularists cannot explain the origin of life, nor can they explain how it allegedly developed. They certainly cannot explain how or why single-celled life commenced to becoming muti-celled. There's an alga known as Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, a single-celled thing that buzzes around with a pair of flagella. Now we get to the part that got researchers so excited they were dishonest.

Using circular reasoning, the report claims that we "know" evolution happened from single-to multi-celled organisms. Good job, Hoss, you assumed evolution to prove evolution.

Even algae want to avoid being food for something else. A group of them will effectively circle the wagons and clump together. Dishonest Darwinists claim that they have witnessed evolution in action. Stop shooting holes in the saloon ceiling in your celebrations, because that's just not so. Good thing we have biblical creationists around to keep those owlhoots honest.

They saw activities in a controlled environment that they induced that are still not evolution. Worse for them, they inadvertently supported the continuous environmental tracking (CET) model by the Institute for Creation Research. C. reinhardtii responded in a way that demonstrates the work of the Master Engineer. Yippie ky yay, evolutionists!
Recent headlines claim, “Scientists Have Witnessed a Single-Celled Algae Evolve Into a Multicellular Organism.” In reality, the experiment showed that nothing more than a crude clumping together of individual cells had occurred. A new multicellular organism was not created, nor was any real evolution observed.

One of the major hurdles in the grand story of molecules to man evolution is how life first transitioned from unicellular to multicellular organisms. Plants and animals are complex systems of interlocking cells that form tissues, structures and whole bodies. How could creatures like bacteria or algae make the grand evolutionary hurdle into complex multicellular creatures? There is no evidence of this ever occurring in the fossil record and we don’t see this sort of thing happening now.
To read the rest of the article, click on "Algae Multicellular Evolution Study Debunked".




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

Thursday, April 11, 2019

Basilisk Lizard Sprints on Water

There is a lizard down in Central and South America called the basilisk. I wonder what prompted Carl Linnaeus to name it after a creature that could kill you with a its gaze or breath. Maybe it looks like the art from mythology. Anyway, this critter has baffled scientists for a mighty long time because of the way it runs across the water. Funny to watch, but it works.

The basilisk lizard baffles evolutionists by the way it runs across water. Also, it is clearly the product of the Master Engineer.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / The Rambling Man (CC by-SA 3.0)
It doesn't just take a leisurely stroll, because that won't work. It has to be moving right quick. Even then, its feet sink in a little bit.



When it gets all tuckered out and can no longer run, the basilisk will be content to swim. Proponents of molecules-to-machinist evolution have trouble explaining ability to run on water, but the specified complexity in the details involved clearly indicate the work of the Master Engineer. By the way, God's design is up for plagiarism again: scientists are studying this creature so they can design machines that run across the water.
A lizard that walks on water? The Basiliscus genus of lizard is often irreverently called the ‘Jesus lizard’, an obvious allusion to the miraculous act when the Lord Jesus Christ walked on water. But a far more accurate description is that the basilisk (as it is commonly known) runs on water.

Basilisk lizards consist of four species ranging from areas of southern Mexico to the northern areas of South America, as well as Florida in the United States. They are excellent swimmers and climbers, but when a predator threatens, escape comes by sprinting across the water’s surface.
To read the rest of this short article, take a stroll over to "The ‘water-walking’ lizard". For some additional material, see "Basilisk Jesus Lizard Frustrates Evolutionists".



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

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

Design of the Tyrant Lizard King

T. rex is probably the most famous dinosaur. It shows design and there is not evolutionary history for it.

Tyrannosaurus rex is arguably the best-known of all the dinosaurs, and has been prominent in movies, television shows, documentaries, and so forth. We only have forensic information from fossils. However, while there is a great deal of speculation about this critter, fossils do tell scientists a great deal.

It had a very large head. Although T. rex did not have big arms and was subject to ridicule from other dinosaurs that could run fast or birds on the wing, it had a large tail for counterbalance so it didn't faceplant when lunging for it's prey. If you were to stare one down face to face, what do you think would get your attention?



It had many large, pointy teeth. These were different from its relatives but could take a huge chunk of lunch. Was it actually a predator? Fossil evidence suggests so and its design was conducive to predation. Rexie may have been a scavenger, especially the older, larger ones. There is no explanation for dinosaur evolution. Instead, we see that T. rex was designed by the Master Engineer. It apparently did well until the global Genesis Flood took most of them away, and dinosaurs that disembarked from Noah's Ark eventually became extinct.
Since T. rex is found only in Flood deposits, our knowledge of this great animal is limited to his fossilized remains from Noah’s time, nearly 1,700 years after Adam’s Fall. We’re all fascinated to learn more, and that’s where the fun of forensic science comes into play. Like crime investigators, paleontologists try to reconstruct organisms and their environments by the partial evidence left at the “crime scene.” Though lots of “ifs” remain, we can learn many amazing things from fossils.

One thing is clear: T. rex was big, and he was well designed for his dominant role after the Fall. But being big didn’t mean that God just scaled up the design of other average-size, meat-eating dinosaurs, called theropods. To understand how T. rex was specially designed, we need to compare him to the “normal” proportions of other theropods.
To read the entire article, click on "T. rex—Fashioned To Be Fearless".



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

Tuesday, April 9, 2019

Heavy Metal Starstuff and Cosmic Evolution

As we have seen several times, it is important to define your terms in certain discussion. In this case, the word metal means something different to astronomers than to us reg'lar folk. For them, it is an element more dense than hydrogen and helium. The terms heavy metal or heavy element are not defined consistently.

Secularists futiley try to explain the existence of heavy metals. Some are finally admitting that they really do not understand it. Again, the biblical creation explanation is the best one.
RCW 86 supernova remnant enhanced image credit: NASA / ESA / JPL-Caltech  / UCLA / CXC / SAO
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
According to Big Bang mythology, that event produced hydrogen, helium, and some lithium. Then stellar fusion produced some of the lighter metals. To rock on to the heavy metals, however, requires supernovas and even kilonovas. Cosmologists deny recent creation and keep digging themselves in deeper because they cannot explain the abundance of useful elements on Earth. They also have other problems that are conveniently ignored. Stuff happens is an accurate summary of "scientific explanations" presented to uphold their presuppositions — even when some admit they have no real clue as to what's going on out yonder.
Elements heavier than iron form in supernova explosions. End of story. We can all rest now. But wait…

The origin of heavy elements via supernovas is one of those facts everybody learns without question. Astronomers say so in textbooks, on TV and in science media without any qualification, like “scientists believe” or “scientists think” it is so. It just is so, we are told. It led Carl Sagan and many of his disciples to quote, “We are made of starstuff.” Stuff happens, and this stuff exploded out of stars. Some of the stuff you might want to gather though; it includes gold and platinum.
To finish reading, click on "How Well Do Astrophysicists Understand the Origin of Heavy Elements?"



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

Monday, April 8, 2019

Plate Subduction and the Ice Age

Although secular scientists and their pals believe there have been many ice ages in the past, they cannot provide evidence for their claims. Indeed, they are unable to furnish a plausible model for any ice age in their scheme of things. Biblical creationists postulate that the Genesis Flood precipitated the Ice Age.


Secular geologists do not have a plausible model for the Ice Age. Biblical creationists, however, postulate that the Genesis Flood and plate tectonics played a large part in it.
Credit: United States Geological Survey (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The Flood was not just a huge amount of rain for forty days and nights. It was catastrophic and changed the face of the earth. In Genesis 7:11 we see that the "fountains of the great deep burst open", which provides the answer to something secular geologists cannot explain: the beginning of plate tectonics. This involved plate subduction —

"You mean like when I do math, Cowboy Bob? I do my gazintas, where three gazinta eighteen six times. Then I do my subduction, when I subduct twelve from eight and get four".

We'll leave your advanced mathematics out of this geology study for now, okay? Subduction is when a plate is pushed under another one. This contributed to volcanic activity. The Ice Age could not be caused by some volcanic activity. There was a passel of it during the Flood, plus heat caused by subduction that led to warmer oceans. Let's take a look at a short overview.
Creation meteorologist Michael Oard has written extensively about what it takes to make an ice age. The first requirement is much warmer oceans than we have today, which would provide the extra evaporation needed for heavy winter snowfall. The second requirement is cooler summers that allow snow to build up from year to year and eventually transform into thick ice sheets.

But what would warm the oceans? And what could cause cooler summers for many years in a row? Catastrophic plate tectonics provides the answer for both warmer oceans and cooler summers.
To read the rest, click on "Subduction Was Essential for the Ice Age".



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

Saturday, April 6, 2019

Evolution and Genetic Determinism

When Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him) was initiating the science of genetics, it is doubtful that he envisioned that evolutionists would misuse it to the point of determining human behavior. They say, "Excuse me while I whip this out", start spinning their Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Rings™ for "scientific truth", and conjured up genetic determinism.


A dangerous amoral philosophy of Darwinism is genetic determinism. This tells us that even our morality is genetic and biblical creation tells us the truth.
Background image furnished by Why?Outreach
plus a modified graphic from Clker Clipart
These materialists try to find immaterial things such as consciousness which is contrary to the dogma of your behavior is in your genes. Some speculate that even your morals are genetic. Let's just reign in this pony for a moment. Although thinking people reject such a notion, it would be the ultimate in postmodernism with no ultimate truth. This is consistent with evolutionism, since they say we are the results of cosmic explosions, primordial slime, random chance processes, time, and so on.

For that matter, if they say biblical creationists are wrong and worthy of ridicule, they are flaming hypocrites; we're born this way, and they were born that way. That would also mean that you have no responsibility for your own actions — except that some tinhorns would set themselves up as the arbiters of truth and morality, which would contradict the paradigms. However, there is ultimate truth that begins at Creation as seen in God's written Word. Wonder what part of the pasture secularists will wander into next?
One of the most dangerous philosophies in the history of mankind is still embedded in modern Darwinism.

In a recent post, we laughed at two evolutionary just-so stories that extrapolated animal behavior into human behavior. Remember, though, that animal behavior is encoded by their genes, and that’s no laughing matter when genetic determinism is extrapolated to humans. It sucks all the air out of morality, making humans pawns of an amoral, aimless natural process with no accountability.
To read the rest, click on "Darwinians Still Justify Genetic Determinism".




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

Friday, April 5, 2019

Falsely-Feathered Dinosaurs

As usual in evolutionary speculations, the narrative takes prominence. Disciples of Papa Darwin see what they want to see. This happens quite a bit, and is especially prominent in their desire to find dinosaurs with feathers. There are two examples of bad science and evolutionary wish making in this area.


The quest for dinosaur feathers has two more examples of bad science and dreadful logic. Worse for evolutionists, the evidence supports creation.
Anchiornis image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Kumiko (CC by-SA 2.0)
Why are they so determined to see feathers on dinosaurs? Those owlhoots demand them for their unfounded belief that dinosaurs evolved into birds, and they sure can't allow that God created everything. So they find some filaments and cry, "Yee haw boy howdy! Feathers on dinosaurs!" Of course, they conduct poor science and use bad logic by ignoring other possible explanations for what they have found. The evidence actually refutes their claims and also supports special creation.

We saw a previous report that scientists "saw" something that kinda sorta looks like maybe it could be related for feathers, but looks nothing like real feathers. They haven't made any progress in saving face. Also, another critter has been dubbed a dinosaur, so hooray for feathers (yawn). Of course it has feathers, ya idjits, it was a bird in the first place.
Descriptions of feathered dinosaurs continue to wing their way into scientific literature. While most researchers see each new example as another link in a Darwinian story of reptiles somehow evolving into birds, others fit these fossils into more classical categories. Two new discoveries give owners of these opposing views new opportunities to peck at each other’s ideas of bird beginnings. Both cases are easy to land on a creation-friendly perch.
To read the rest, click on "New Fossil Feathers Affirm Created Kinds".




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

Thursday, April 4, 2019

Continental Margins and the Genesis Flood

Uninformed and willingly ignorant anti-creationists often claim that there is no evidence for the Genesis Flood, then seek rescuing devices that they believe confirm their biases. Creationists have done a passel of research and pointed out flaws in uniformitarian beliefs. One of these is the formation of continental margins.

Huge amounts of sediment are found on the continental margins. Secular geologists cannot explain this fact, but it fits with biblical creation science Flood models.
Credit: NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio et al.
Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents. Click for larger.
For the most part, continental margins are the continental shelf and slope. Proponents of long-age geology are unable to formulate a plausible model for the huge amounts of sediment on the continental margins; the could not have been formed by oceanic activity seen today. Indeed, using a computer visualization that "drains the oceans", one of the first things you see is this conspicuous boundary. Biblical creation science Flood models give a plausible explanation.
During the last half of Noah’s Flood, the rising continents caused the Flood water to flow into the sinking ocean basins. These fast-moving, massive currents eroded vast amounts of sediment that had been laid earlier in the Flood, and carried it away. The water travelled so fast that little sediment was deposited on land. It wasn’t until the currents reached the oceans that they were able to slow enough to deposit their load.
To finish reading, click on "Continental margins — Their rapid formation during Flood runoff". Instead of being detrimental to biblical creation science, geology is actually a very effective tool for demonstrating the truth.



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

Wednesday, April 3, 2019

Speciation and Polyploidy in Animals

This is another post that links to an article that is intended for people with a good working knowledge of biology. Most cells are diploid, meaning the cells have two sets of chromosomes. When an organism or cell has more than two sets of chromosomes, you have polypolidy. An earlier post discussed plant polyploidy. Now we are going to take a look at it in animals.

Cells or organisms that have more than two sets of chromosomes give you polyploidy. This is rare in animals and is contrary to evolution. It is also consistent with a biblical creation worldview.
African banded barb image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Citron
Polyploidy has not received as much study as other areas, but it is known to be more common in plants than animals. What is known so far is that polyploidy in animals is rare, and often fatal. Get some biologists discussing whether or not the changes are harmful, beneficial, or neutral, and you may have an entertaining dustup. The mysteries of polyploidy are not helped when researchers are intellectually dishonest and make assumptions, but some research on various critters has been interesting.

When polyploidy leads to speciation, it happens very quickly, but does not add new genetic information. It may come as a surprise, but not only is polyploidy unhelpful to Darwinists, but it is consistent in a biblical creationist worldview.
Animal polyploidy does exist, though it appears to be far less common than it is in plants. As in plants, polyploidy arises as a reproductive mistake. During sexual reproduction, two diploid parents exchange genetic information. If one of their gametes produces diploid instead of the usual haploid, there is a chance that gamete will lead to a polyploid offspring. If the diploid gamete combines with the other parent’s normal haploid gamete, a triploid offspring will result. This offspring will likely be reproductively isolated. This process occurs infrequently, but it does happen.
To read and consider the entire article, click on "Animal Polyploidy: A Mechanism for Evolution?"

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

Tuesday, April 2, 2019

Darwinism and Chinese Communism

Some people wonder why the fuss about origins. After all, Darwin proposed a naturalistic view of origins, so let the scientists slap leather on that and we can just go on about our business. Unfortunately, evolutionary views have been applied to many areas, and even prompted tyrants and wars.

Darwinism has fueled a host of evils in societies, including racism and war. People may not know that not only is communism based on atheism and evolutionism, but the Chinese Communist atrocities were based on Darwinian thinking.
Mao Zedong ca. 1950 via Wikimedia Commons
If you search this site, you will find links to articles on many outgrowths of Darwin's death cult, including eugenics, abortion, "scientific" racism, and more. It is worth noting that Darwin's sidewinders saw fit to get into wars. Darwinism played a prominent role in World War One, the Nazi race holocaust, communism, and more.

Remember, the religion of atheism has evolution as a cornerstone, and millions of people were murdered by atheist evolutionists. What people may have forgotten (or neglected, since evolution is adored by "wise" people and many scientists) is that the atrocities in Communist China under Chairman Mao Zedong (Mousie Dung) were also inspired by evolutionism. These people actively embraced atheism and rejected our Creator, the God who is explained in the Bible.
As history separates us from Darwin’s death, the media is more willing to expose the harm of his ideas. This, plus the release of once-sealed records have revealed a great deal about the atrocities of recent history. This is the case of the horrors of Mao Zedong in Communist China.[1] That Darwin was a major influence in communist China should not surprise us. Darwin not only supported the survival-of-the-fittest ideology, but even
divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair color. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy.
To read the entire article, click on "Darwinism Inspired China’s Communist Holocaust".

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

Monday, April 1, 2019

Double Standards Hobble Atheists and Evolutionists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen


One of the most exasperating situations to encounter is when people have double standards. These are rampant among atheists and evolutionists.
An aspect of discussions, debates, or even everyday life that can get almost anyone on the prod is when someone says or acts like something is all right for them but not for someone else. This can be referred to as special pleading, but a broader term is double standards. I reckon that we all have double standards to some extent, but Christians and biblical creationists need to be careful to minimize them, especially in apologetics encounters.


Political Double Standards

We see examples of "fine for me but not for you" in political situations, especially from those on the left. When Judge Brett Kavanaugh was being confirmed as a US Supreme Court justice, some women accused him of sexual misconduct from a previous decade. Although their stories had no substantiation, Americans were told to "believe the women". Why? Because they were women? Genetic fallacy. The blatant hypocrisy in this is that a Moslem, Keith Ellison, was accused of sexual abuse by women in recent history, and these were swept away even though they had evidence. The same thing happened when Bill Clinton was running for president, and his accusers were made to go away in one manner or another.

We hear that reports of "hate crimes" are increasing lately. No kidding, Sherlock! The category did not even exist a few years ago. (It is also a stupid designation. Someone once asked, "Ever hear of a love crime?" It requires the ability to know what is in the hearts and minds of the perpetrators to determine a hate crime.) If there is a complaint by a woman, a homosexual, an ethnic minority in the favored status of the left, it gets a large amount of attention. We don't hear much about how "hate crimes" turn out to be fake.

Actor Jusse Smollet faked a hate crime that kept the Chicago police busy for quite a while. After it was determined that the crime never happened, he was indicted. Amazingly, the charges were dropped. Is it because he is a homosexual and black? We may never know, but the suspicions remain.

Interesting that large-scale murders of Christians go mostly unreported.

I normally try to keep political things to a minimum in these posts and articles, but I wanted to show how double standards are rampant in political areas. Especially from leftists.


Atheist Double Standards

Not long ago, I purchased a video download by Ray Comfort called The Angry Atheist, which should be available for public viewing in a few weeks. Mr. Comfort was street preaching again. One particular atheist hated God more than many that I have seen and encountered and argued loudly with him.

As usual, he sang from the sheet music of the Atheist Tabernacle Choir. One of their favorite stanzas is about how there are bad people who profess to be Christians, therefore, there is no God. (This is a version of the problem of evil; "How can a loving God allow...?") I have seen atheists and anti-creationists demonize Christians and creationists by pointing out adulterous preachers, embezzlers, weirdos who let their children die because they believe in healing by faith (or somesuch). Meanwhile, those religious folk who willfully indulged in sin as well as other bad things done by the church were claiming the Bible is true, but not living like it: a double standard. Unbelievers have also taken the bit in their teeth over something said or written that they disliked, but personal their personal preferences do not constitute valid arguments.

Christians show that the greatest mass murderers in history have been in the atheist spectrum: Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler (his pantheism could qualify his as essentially being an atheist), and others. Special pleading is engaged with remarks like, "They didn't say, 'I'm killing people in the name of atheism!'" They hated God and his people, seeking to either eradicate Christianity (and other religions, but mostly Christianity) or subjugate it for their own purposes. Atheists have no consistent moral standard that would give them pause in their atrocities. While it is true that many professing Christians do rotten things, there is a difference: they are not acting in accordance with the teachings of the Bible.




Darwinist Double Standards

Evolution is not simply an academic discussion about biology and origins. Social Darwinism has given us eugenics, abortion, and a host of other evils. Indeed, Darwin's ideas have been applied to Nazism, Communism, Socialism, "scientific" racism, and a host of other evils.

The Norwegian terrorist is a social Darwinist, and one of the Columbine murderers wore a shirt that said "Natural Selection", which was consistent with his Nazi influences and hatred of humanity as a whole. Their worldviews made them de facto atheists. Evolution is being force-fed to students in those Western indoctrination centers known as schools. When kids are being taught that there is no Creator, life is by chance, there is no purpose, no final Judgement, no ultimate justice, they are just animals, when you die you're worm food — honestly, what kind of behavior do you expect from them?

Referring to the evolutionary view of origins (which is both historical and metaphysical) as "science" while suppressing evidence for creation is contrary to the goal of real science. The double standard can be seen when biblical creationists and Intelligent Design proponents are bushwhacked by the secular science industry and the science press, and it is extremely difficult for these scientists to have papers accepted for major scientific journals and for peer review. Creationists had to establish their own peer-reviewed journals. Yes, some creationists are published in scientific journals, but evidence for the Genesis Flood or recent creation is allowed in them.


Dr. Jason Lisle publishes the occasional exchange between naysayers and himself. One featured Colin, an atheist who had the focus of a ball bearing in a blender. He began with his uninformed complaints that the Bible is unreliable and erroneous. Whenever Dr. Lisle challenged his remarks with the truth, he would change the subject. Sometimes he would resort to personal attacks. (I would have banned a jasper like this early on, but then, I am not a scientist and have a day job.) The discussion soon turned to evolution, since that is a cornerstone for the religion of atheism.

We need to ride down a side trail for a moment. One blatant example of special pleading is when atheists only use a narrow definition of religion so they can dispute those of us who use logic, philosophy, current events, and the courts who have defined atheism as a religion. Here, the rulings are considered ridiculous, but they hail the Kitzmiller v Dover caricature of law as a brilliant ruling, even though it is only binding on a local scale.

Okay, we're back. Colin the atheist made assertions about origins and had accusations against Lisle's qualifications as a scientist. (We see this repeatedly: when they cannot prevail, atheists and leftists resort to ad hominem, ridicule, red herring, genetic, straw man, and other fallacies. Oh, and appeal to motive. They adore that one!) Colin had a prairie schooner-full of fallacies and used dreadful thinking. It's rather long but worth the read. See "More on the Bible’s Historicity".

When reading the popular science reports, it is easy to see that evolutionists are presenting incomplete research, conjectures, fudge factors, and speculations as actual science. Variations and simple changes are conflated with evolution, and Darwin's Flying Monkeys© grab this stuff and troll creationists using a "Gotcha!" attitude.

I'll allow that there are some areas where creation science needs more work. Scientists do not have all the answers, I don't care what they use for their starting presuppositions; it's the nature of science itself, old son. A favorite "Gotcha!" of materialists is the distant starlight "problem, which is under development by creation astronomers and physicists. Ironically, their "smoking gun" against creationists is saturated with bad science and insurmountable problems. Atheistic and evolutionary "reasoning" concludes that since they have no answers to areas of difficulties, we cannot know either, so there is no Creator.



I have seen and experienced tinhorns who actually believe it is their duty to protect the world from the evils of biblical creationists! They claim to believe in free speech, but seek to have ours suppressed. If not through legislation, then through social media complaints, email spam campaigns, and so on. Their shooting irons are loaded with defamation, misrepresentation, ridicule, and recruiting others to join in. Why? Because they are "right" and "tell the truth"; the end justifies the means. Well, those tyrants listed above thought the same things (Jer. 17:9, Rom. 1:21, Matt. 12:35, Isaiah 64:6).


Old-Earth and Theistic Evolution Double Standards

One of the purposes of apologetics is to show that the Bible is true and that we can trust it for our salvation and in all subjects that it touches on — including science. Theistic evolutionists and old-earth creationists accept atheistic interpretations of scientific evidence and science philosophies, then subjugate the Bible to those views.

William Lane Craig is supposedly known for defending the Resurrection of Jesus, but then he blatantly misrepresents biblical creationists. Hugh Ross has some strange views that involve both the twisting of Scripture and of misuse of science. A dodgy theistic evolutionist associated with the anti-creationist group Biologos contacted one of my Fazebook Pages and wanted to set both a creationist scientist and me straight on a few things.

These sidewinders actually claim that biblical creationists are hindering the gospel message, but that is the opposite of the truth. If you ponder it a bit, it is absurd to believe someone who claims to believe the Bible and then tells you that some sections need interpretation through atheistic science filters Such approaches are hidden reefs for the faith of Christians as well. Two standards, no waiting. For a related article, see "The Biases of Evolutionists and Creationists".


Atheists, evolutionists, and religious compromisers all need to humble themselves and repent.


Do Not Horse Around

When atheists and evolutionists protect their version of science from us bad ol' biblical creationists, they are actually hobbling themselves, serious scientific inquiry, and intellectually honest searches for knowledge. They preach in their fiefdoms to the faithful but suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18-22). People who engage in critical thinking and can spot logical fallacies see double standards. Again, those of us from the Christian and biblical creationist worldviews need to ride herd on each other to remind us that we have to avoid special pleading as much as we can.




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

Labels