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

Saturday, August 31, 2019

Providing Evidence for the Creator

In several places, I have written about how unbelievers often demand that we prove to them that God exists. Apologists can see that this insistence is actually a justification for their rebellion against the God that they already know exists (Romans 1:18-23), and irrationally requiring scientific, material evidence for God.


Unbelievers demand evidence for God, often with illogical requirements. We can give evidence for the Creator to honest seekers, but only in the proper way.
Credit: Freeimages / Maxime Perron Caissy
For the most part, the people that comment at The Question Evolution Project are antagonistic and hard-hearted, rejecting any attempt to answer their questions. Once in a while, we (and Bible-believing Christians) encounter people who have saddled up to ride the long trail to seeking truth. If they get up on the hill for the bigger picture, they can see that there is a wagon train-load of evidence for God's existence as well as his character. He is our Creator and has made himself known.

We do not need to spend time trying to present evidence to mockers and those who define "reality" through materialism and evolution, but we can have fruitful discussions with people that seem to be sincerely wanting answers. Then we can help remove stumbling blocks to their faith, but need to do so in a presuppositional framework. That means we do not let them sit in judgement over God, nor do we leave the Word of God out of it (see "Question Evolution Day and Presuppositional Apologetics"). There are some things to keep in mind when doing this.
Interact with people long enough online when discussing God, and the inevitable demand for “evidence for your sky daddy” (or other pejorative) will arise. So, let’s talk evidence.

. . . another prerequisite, how do we define God. God as revealed through his creation, through his Word, and through Jesus as The All powerful, All Knowing, and All Loving Eternal Creator.

We need to talk about three more things before we talk about evidence:
To read the entire article, click on "Evidence for the Almighty". Another by the same author should be helpful, "It is Irrational to Demand Evidence For God".




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

Friday, August 30, 2019

Now Extinction is Evolution?

The Darwin death cult has many strange ideas. Now they are saying that death leads to evolution.
The Darwinian death cult keeps on getting stranger, quite possibly because their efforts to deny the Creator are downright irrational. We are bombarded with the canard, "It evolved" without models or evidence when reading articles, watching documentaries, and so forth.

Not only is evolution assumed in order to provide evidence for it (the fallacy of begging the question), but Darwin's dark dream is often presented as an irrevocable force: things must evolve. Except when they don't. These are the same tinhorns who brought you you, as "science", that parasite manipulation just may have influenced human intelligence. Yes, really.

There are many living fossils (an organism was fossilized many evolutionary years ago and its living counterpart is essentially unchanged), so the lack of evolution is evosplained with the unscientific excuse of "stasis": it didn't feel the need to evolve. Some addlepated evolutionists actually use lack of change as evidence for evolution. Wait, what? I think these are the same tinhorns who also claim that loss of traits also supports the Bearded Buddha. Isn't evolution supposed to provide new and improved traits? Must be another evolutionary miracle happening.


via GIPHY

We know that death leads to change. Animals are food for other animals (or us), and we stand before our Maker in the greatest change we experience. Yet Darwin's disciples are claiming that death leads to life through evolution! (I still say those folks have been ingesting peyote buttons.) Their speculations conveniently ignore important information and do not provide plausible mechanisms for this alleged evolution. They also raise a prairie schooner-full of questions.
How can scientists and reporters write articles on “evolution” when evidence shows organisms died or didn’t change?

What’s going on here? Frequently, evolutionists classify papers and articles as being about “evolution” when the evidence is opposite of evolution. Darwin needs life to evolve from bacteria to human beings. He doesn’t need them to stay the same or die out. What’s evolution got to do with it?
To read the rest, click on "Extinction is not Evolution".



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

Thursday, August 29, 2019

Atheism and Irrationality

The original definition for atheism is the denial of God and any other supernatural beings, but since they cannot support their claims, they redefined the word to the fatuous "lack of belief" claim. They also pretend to be the paragons of logic and reason, believing in "reality". However, they are not consistent with their worldviews.


Atheists claim to believe in reality and reject God and spiritual matters. However, many admit to belief in the supernatural, which affirms what the Bible says.

There are times when people call themselves atheists and say, "You don't know what atheism is!", then proceed to presumptuously speak for all atheists, painting them with a broad brush. Not so fast, Phyllis. Back in 2008, an article in the Wall Street Journal called "Look Who's Irrational Now" cited a survey where atheists admitted to belief in the paranormal and pseudoscience, including astrology. The original article is here, and is reproduced here.

More recently, another survey revealed that professing atheists and agnostics believe in some form of the supernatural, including fate, karma, and reincarnation. This shows what Bible-believing Christians have maintained all along: belief in God is built in. Since atheists reject biblical creation, they (and their compromising religious allies) substitute  falderal such as the Big Bang and evolution mythologies to account for the origins of the universe, humanity, and everything else.

This jasper gave a hint that he did not want rational discourse:
Like others with atheism spectrum disorder,
this one chooses to blatantly misrepresent "religion"

This one lashed out with unbridled hate:
This bitter demoniac also misrepresents the Bible; click for larger
(used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes)
Unfortunately, some professing Christians who are not well-grounded in the faith believe in occult things. One of these is a pseudo-karma cause-and-effect along the lines of, "I parked in a handicapped spot for fifteen minutes yesterday, today my car won't start. God is punishing me!" Both the religious and irreligious know that the truth about our Creator and life is found in his written Word.
A recent study on atheists and agnostics (those who say we cannot know whether or not a God or gods exist) showed that they are not quite as naturalistic as most might believe. Despite not believing in a God (or gods), neither of these groups seem to have completely rejected supernatural beliefs about issues such as “life after death, astrology, and the existence of a life-force.”
. . .

But for most, it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile atheism or agnosticism with a religion that believes in God—like Christianity. Nevertheless, atheists and agnostics still borrow many aspects from a biblical worldview—whether they realize it or not. For example, logic, truth, knowledge, morality, and science—which are predicated on the Bible being true—do not come from a materialistic and naturalistic view of things. Atheists and agnostics often agree that logic, truth, morality, and so on exist, but it cannot be justified in their worldview.
To read the article in its entirety, click on "Atheists: Believers in Fate, Reincarnation, and Karma?"




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

Wednesday, August 28, 2019

Concluding the Engineered Adaptability Series

We have been exploring the Continuous Environmental Tracking engineered adaptability model from the Institute for Creation Research. It has been fascinating to see how the Master Engineer has built adaptations and variations into organisms.

To concluded the Engineered Adaptability series, we are given an overview of what the creation science model is displaying.
Modified from a photo at Freeimages / Tolga Kocak
Charles Darwin bushwhacked natural selection and made it his own so he could take God out of the picture. His paradigm is that external forces cause creatures to evolve into something else, but that is not the case. Instead, the CET model shows that adaptations are front-loaded into living things to not only adapt, but anticipate changes. This affects not only individual organisms, but entire populations.
For the past two years, the Engineered Adaptability series of articles has explored ways in which scientific methodology and understanding benefit when engineering principles are applied to how living things function. In the process, we have built a conceptual framework for a design-based model called continuous environmental tracking (CET), which focuses on the mechanisms through which organisms express traits that enable them to closely track changing conditions and adjust accordingly. This final article will take a bird’s-eye view of what the series has presented.
To read the rest, click on "Engineered Adaptability: Continuous Environmental Tracking Wrap-Up". At the end of the article is a link to the entire series. We have seen other instances of engineered adaptability here, but they were not "officially" a part of the series. I have found it exciting and am looking forward to further developments.

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

Tuesday, August 27, 2019

Genetics and the Creation of Eve

Atheopaths and other mockers often point to the Genesis account of the creation of Adam and then Eve.This is in stark contrast to the fact-free fish-to-fool evolution that they falsely call science, yet still insist that we all accept.


Mockers reject the creation of Adam and then Eve since it does not fit their materialistic opinions. Eve's creation foreshadows aspects of modern science.
Adam and Eve before the Temptation / George Frederick Watts
I'll allow that the creation of Adam from the dust of the earth and not evolving from critters is a mite startling to some folks. They would do well to consider that the Creator does things the way he sees fit, and there are purposes for his methods. Sometimes he tells us, other times we don't really need to know.

The same sort of thinking can apply to the creation of Eve. God showed Adam the animals, but none of them would be suitable עֵזֶר, helper. He was different from them. God essentially used the first anesthetic, and took a rib from Adam's side to make Eve. In a way, this was the first act of cloning by using genetic material. The science of genetics would not be pioneered until thousands of years later by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him.) Some elements of God's making of Eve foreshadow modern science.

 Scoffers lie about the Bible and say that it teaches men have one rib than women, but people who have a basic knowledge of biology know that ribs not only grow back, but inherited physical traits are not passed along to offspring.
Evolutionists claim that a population of human-like creatures evolved from a population of ape-like creatures. However, the true eyewitness account is very different. God directly created the first human being, Adam, from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7).
. . .

But whereas God made Adam from the dust of the ground, this new companion would have an intimate connection with Adam. In a way, this helper would be a physical descendant of his.
To read the entire article, click on "Eve, the rib, and modern genetics".



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

Monday, August 26, 2019

Unsafe to Question Evolution?

We are just under six months away from the ninth annual Question Evolution Day as I write this post. QED is a grassroots movement to encourage people to share material that refutes evolution and affirms special creation. We are hoping that not only will people reevaluate fake science for evolution, but that some evolutionists themselves will also question it. Ultimately, we want people to come to know the ultimate truth found in our Creator.


While some people simply accept evolution and refuse to question it, scientists and academics who public doubt Darwin risk losing their careers.
Yale Old Library - postcard via NY Public Library
As we have seen numerous times on this site alone and even more on the sites that are linked to from articles, Darwin's proselytes frequently declare evidence (or even proof) of evolution using incomplete data and spurious reasoning. Many people succumb to the propaganda: "Well, if science says, then it must be true!" Not hardly!

Materialism is the dominant religion in the West. No, not officially. But biblical creation science and even the Intelligent Design movement are actively suppressed by the Ministry of Truth, and those who dare stand up for intellectual, academic, and speech freedoms are often subjected to ridicule and censure. This makes it extremely difficult for Darwin doubters (even if they are not creationists) to survive professionally and academically.

Dr. Jerry Bergman has written several books on how people rebelled against riding for the Darwin brand and paid the price. He is a victim of academic discrimination himself. In the following article, he discusses two people who are able to speak their minds with less reprisals, but leftist sidewinders still manage to defame David Gelernter as "fiercely anti-intellectual". This is journalism? Yes, today defamation and libel are a big part of their playbook.
In my experience after teaching at three universities, when discussing Darwinism with colleagues, I have learned there exist many more Darwin skeptics than commonly believed. Most are in the closet for very good reasons (career survival), or at least they decline to publicly speak out about their views opposing Darwinism. The evidence against Darwinism is so great that it seems inevitable a few would speak out about their well-founded doubts about evolution. And some have.

Just this week alone, reports were published about the views of two leading scientists who have spoken out about their Darwin doubts. A leading Yale University Professor, David Gelernter, chief scientist at Mirror Worlds Technologies, a member of the National Council of the Arts, and a prolific author, has publicly renounced his former belief in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. He explains the main reason is because the idea “has been effectively disproven.”
To read the entire article, click on "Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out". You may also consider how spreading the word about Question Evolution Day can help plant seeds of doubt in the minds of evolutionists, and help proclaim the truth of our Creator. ADDENDUM: It figures. The day after this posted, an additional article was posted about David Gelernter. If you have the notion, see "Yale University Prof: Darwin Was Wrong".




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

Saturday, August 24, 2019

Evolutionary Thinking and Fake Reality

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It is interesting to me that many of us who reject the concept of space aliens and unbelievable science in fantastic fiction still tend to put our disbelief in the stable and watch or read these things. Computer simulations can be like high-end video games, totally dependent on programming. Add to these the idea that we are living in a computer simulation. My current favorite is Stargate SG-1.


There are some new versions of the idea that we exist in a computer simulation. Also, evolution is deceiving us about reality. A podcast is linked that discusses these concepts.
Image credits: The one on the tablet is an artist's conception from NASA,
the larger image and modification from PhotoFunia
The idea of "you may be just a brain in a vat" has been around a spell. You know how it goes: we're imagining everything we experience but nothing is real. This idea, as well as those "we're living in a computer simulation" concepts, give rise to a passel of science fiction movies like The Matrix, They Live (well, it sort of fits), and others. I have to add a science fiction short story that I read (I disremember the author and title, sorry) where people realized that when things were going wrong, it was because our lives are the dream of another entity. Somehow, they figured out a way to lull it back to sleep; centuries for us were a few hours for the dreamer.

When playing some shooter games, I occasionally get bored and become Mr. Indestructible so I can hurt the evil critters up personal-like. Some have suggested that we are living in a computer simulation by an advanced alien civilization. Mighty smart folks to do that, huh? They even came up with all of the specified complexities of life that refute evolution, as well as the amazingly complex DNA molecule. The latest version is similar to the story of lulling the sleeper back to dreamland because we don't want the aliens to know that we know. (Mayhaps they'll bring on the Meteor of Death because they're bored with their game.) There have to be limits to dealing with "what if...?", old son, and get back to the real world.

The whole thing is clearly based on atheistic and evolutionary thinking. There is no Creator, no purpose, no value to life. From that comes the ideas that there is no reality, and morality is relative (postmodernism). One concept is that even though evolution is supposed to explain everything, it is also deceiving us. Yes, evolution is once again being treated like an entity, not a blind, pitiless, impersonal force. 

Materialists deny God and define "reality" on their terms. Like some tinhorns have redefined lying to mean, "I disagree with some people, so I call them 'liars' even though I cannot prove deception and want to use an emotive word". Reality (like honesty, logic, and science itself)  is defined by God on his terms. People who deny his existence or authority have no say in the matter. God has made himself known in the Bible, and its in everyone's best interest to find out what he has to say.

This article was inspired by a pair of segments in The Briefing podcast by Dr. R. Albert Mohler. Although other writers will probably delve into these subjects, I would like to commend you to his podcast (free to listen online or download, or read the transcript). Click here for The Briefing on Thursday, August 22, 2019. Look for "Could the Cosmos Just Be a Computer Simulation? The Threat of Meaningless Existence vs. the Sure and Certain Hope of Biblical Realism" and "Leading Scientists Claim We Live in a Subjective Reality: Are We Gripped by a Collective Delusion about the Material World?"

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

Friday, August 23, 2019

Jupiter has a Purpose

We have several large planets in our solar system, the gas giants, and Jupiter is the largest in the herd. It has 79 satellites, two of which are larger than our own moon. Speaking of which, the gravitational effect of our own moon is obvious, but massive Jupiter and its own moons also have an effect.

The planet Jupiter is important to our solar system for several reasons. Some scientists are trying to come up with other ideas based on a previously discredited concept.
Credit: NASA / JPL (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Scientists and other wonder why those planets are out yonder. Indeed, it has been learned that the outer planets keep the solar system in balance. Jupiter's gravity is powerful (as indicated before) and it helps protect Earth from asteroids and such. For that matter, one flamed out over there on August 7, 2019. Seems mighty clear that our Creator put it there as not only a stabilizing presence, but as a kind of cosmic vacuum sweeper to protect us.

Some secular scientists were none to keen on the protector idea, trying to force in come other slant on cosmic evolution. They borrowed a discredited idea of Velikovsky that the outer planets formed elsewhere and then slipped into the solar system illegally. These scientists have computer simulations. As we have seen before, simulations are based on what is programmed using numerous presuppositions; important data can easily be omitted by design or poor planning. 

Although the author of the article featured below is a brilliant creationist, I was disappointed that he was cheering for intelligent design and left praise to our Creator (who is our Redeemer) out of it for the post part. Even so, the article is very interesting.
A cover story in New Scientist on May 25 discusses the Juno spacecraft, an “audacious mission circling Jupiter’s poles” that arrived in 2016 and is schedule to orbit Jupiter until 2021. In this article, writers Leah Crane and Richard Webb give a remarkable role to the largest planet that has worked out for our benefit. They state that Jupiter is “the biggest and perhaps most important planet in the solar system…. And might even ultimately be responsible for life on the earth.” To understand why, we must look at the solar system as a functioning unit, and not as a haphazard grouping of planets independently operating separately. The study of the solar system as a system has increasingly supported the conclusion that life is not about just being in the “habitable zone,” but is intricately connected with the arrangement of all the other planets.
To read the rest, click on "Why Did God Create Jupiter?" You may also like "The Joy of Jupiter" and the article linked from there.



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

Thursday, August 22, 2019

The Life-Giving Blood

The outlaw decided to slap leather with the marshal, but he came out on the losing end. The town doctor needed to stop the bleeding to keep him alive. Way back when, the barbaric practice of bloodletting was used to drain off supposedly bad blood. Too much bloodletting led to the death of George Washington. We are plainly told in Leviticus 17:11 that the life is in the blood.


Blood is far more intricate than it may appear, and performs many functions. All this activity and specified complexity defies evolution and affirms special creation.
Credit: Pixabay / allinonemovie
When we have accidents with sharp things, we see blood. However, there is a great deal more to it than a river of red. There are many components involved doing various specific and complex activities. The cells have to travel a great deal and they even change their shape to fit into tight places, then take on their proper shape afterward.

A mother and her unborn child can have completely different blood types.

Many great scientists (many of the Christians and even creationists) have studied the stuff, building on the work of others. One of the great pioneers is Antony van Leeuwenhoek, who contributed to microscopy, refuted spontaneous generation, and was fascinated by studying and drawing blood cells.Joseph Jackson Lister improved on Antony's work and inventions, then others followed. I reckon these pioneers of microscopy would be thrilled with the equipment we have today.



Blood cells clean up our system, fight disease and infections, and is important for medical diagnosis and treatment. Although it seems like the phlebotomist is taking quite a bit out of my arm, it is actually a small amount to test for various things. Basement Cat was recently sick (she's thirteen years old, so we're not casual about things) and had blood work done. Not nearly as much was taken, but the results were very good; I was surprised by the number of things the veterinarian could investigate. The power and irreducible complexity of the blood cannot be the products of random evolution. They exist by the plan of the Master Engineer.

The life is is in the blood. Eternal life is also in blood — that shed by Jesus, our Creator who took human form for our redemption. He bled and died, and was bodily raised from the dead for our salvation.
It takes about 60 seconds for all the blood in your body to complete its journey. It travels from your heart to your extremities and returns, there and back again. Blood moves with the rapid current of the great arterial rivers and through the smallest capillary creeks. William Harvey first noticed circulation (1628) through the heart into arteries and veins; however, he could not see how they connected since he did not have a microscope. The man who first described this was Anton van Leeuwenhoek about 46 years later (1674). Then, J. J. Lister and Thomas Hodgkin described the rouleaux formation or stacking of RBCs through a capillary bed. All of these men mentioned above were committed Christians.

. . .

Knowledge of the blood and circulatory system gives us insight into spiritual, biological, and clinical applications. Blood reveals much about the majesty of our Creator and Master Craftsman, irreducible complexity, and the health or disease state of the human body. Capillaries are the smallest blood vessels through which blood cells can move through in single file. This blood vessel network knitted with lymphatic capillaries shows an interwoven complexity, thus revealing the fearfully and wonderfully made . . . In this article, we also show a biblical worldview and notable Christians who expounded the biblical concept that “Life is in the Blood.”
To read the full article, click on "Life Is in the Blood".



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

Wednesday, August 21, 2019

Geological Unconformities and the Flood

What are unconformities? They are the nonconformists of geology. No, they are not people, but instead are rock formations that do not fit the deep time uniformitarian presumptions of secular (and compromising Christian) geologists. In fact, geologists have several categories but not a whole heap of agreement on the things.

They are called unconformities because these geological features do not conform to secular expectations. However, the Genesis Flood models have explanations.
A view of the Grand Canyon, with the Great Unconformity visible
Credit: US Geological Survey / Alex Demas (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Geology has a deep time stratigraphy approach built in. Americans use several different kinds of unconformities, but the British do not recognize them. (So much for scientific consensus, huh?) Unconformities are not outliers, but cover large areas and are rather common. Secularists cannot adequately explain them, but the catastrophic deluge of the Genesis Flood offers the best fit.
An important distinction between diluvial and uniformitarian geology is their contrary interpretive approach to unconformities. Uniformitarian geology has long emphasized unconformities as repositories of all the time that cannot reasonably be attributed to the strata. But that interpretive framework would be unworkable if most unconformities formed during the Flood. Diluvial geology must focus on the physical interplay of hydraulics, tectonics, and sedimentology to investigate the formation of erosional surfaces of all scales.
To finish reading, click on "The meaning of unconformities".



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

Tuesday, August 20, 2019

The Tyranny of Consensus Science

Something we often hear about in discussions of science is consensus. While that can be useful in some situations, it is not helpful in science. In fact, consensus is used to censor evidence that is contrary to the view of the majority. Anti-creationists often claim that microbes-to-materialist evolution is "settled science" and appeal to a consensus (as do other people with an agenda), as if that settles the matter under discussion.


People appeal to a scientific consensus as if it settled a matter under discussion. In fact, consensus suppresses science and inquiry.
Credit: Unsplash / Pedro Lima
Climate change alarmists really take the rag off the bush by appealing to their selected authorities and becoming irate when contrary scientific evidence is presented. (Indeed, I have been called a "science denier" and a "bigot" for presenting refutations.) Global warming alarmists have been proven wrong repeatedly, such as in this article about the prediction that the Maldives and other areas would be under water by now.

Some jaspers will exclaim, "Weather is not climate!", then post news about heat waves as evidence of climate change — while ignoring news of record low temperatures from a few weeks back. Some even assert that low temperatures are evidence of global warming. Whatever you say, Hoss. 



Chris Plante has a couple of quick reports about climate change wackiness. The site gets on the prod about ad blockers, so if you want to here there, you need to pause them or something, then click here and head to the 2 hours, 45 minutes, 55 seconds mark if the link doesn't go there like it's supposed to.

Embryonic stem cells were all the rage a few years ago and a spurious "consensus" was used to support abortion for this research. Today, adult stem cells are more beneficial as well as ethical.

Fun facts: a flat earth was never consensus science, nor is it taught in the Bible.

"Consensus science" is actually a means of furthering political agendas, and its adherents are often tyrannical. They have particular antipathy toward biblical creationists, pro-lifers, and climate change skeptics. Evidence and rational arguments they dislike are suppressed, and those who disagree tend to be quirted until they get in line with the majority. This is not the spirit of scientific inquiry, old son, but a means of maintaining the status quo of those with the money, power, and majority. The article featured below is from 2009 but is just as relevant today — if not more so.
In battle, one clever military tactic is to focus enemy troops' attention on a spectacular frontal assault so they will overlook a deadly side attack. This approach works in other arenas, as well.

On March 9 [2009], President Barack Obama ordered that federal tax money be used to promote medical research through harvesting the stem cells of, and thus destroying, human embryos. There has been much discussion about the medical ethics of this order and the government's increased power to destroy human life for "scientific" progress, but in reality these debates, while important, drew attention away from a serious analysis of the words of the president's speech. His order was actually a directive for "restoring scientific integrity," and stem cells served as the needed pretext.

. . . preserving "scientific integrity" would not mean keeping the scientific process from going awry, but keeping scientific outcomes in line with policy.

How? By empowering an atheist scientific elite who will decree--without debate and by consensus opinion only--the scientific validity of all bioethical issues, not just the killing of embryos for research. In doing this, Mr. Obama has capitalized on two trends in the scientific community: the rise of "consensus science," and the dominance of atheism among the scientific elite.
To read the entire article, click on "Consensus Science: The Rise of a Scientific Elite". Also worth your time is "Why consensus science is anti-science".




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

Monday, August 19, 2019

Psychology, Morality, and the Bible

Warning: The post and some of the links contain mature content. Discretion advised.

Know why there are so many schools (systems) of psychology? Because none of them completely work. Years ago, I had a therapist that used the REBT approach developed by Albert Ellis. That had some benefit, but he also had me doing "power animals" and other things from Native American mythologies. No good. While it can be helpful to talk to someone with knowledge, the root problems are not addressed in secular systems.


Psychology is rooted in evolutionary thinking and seeks to provide morality and mental health without our Creator. There are many problems in the so-called mental health professions.
Adapted from an image by Gerd Altmann at Pixabay
Sigmund Freud got the ball rolling for psychology. He and other secularists have rooted it in evolutionary thinking, so they take naturalistic approaches to morality and mental health, denying our Creator in the process. (Sometimes people have better results through time and discussion instead of spending mucho dinero for numerous sessions with a therapist. The best approach would be to use biblical counseling.) Evolutionary psychology gave us the lobotomy holocaust. Like so many other areas, leftist agendas have hijacked psychology and psychiatry — and these are not actually sciences.

Sure, practitioners and advocates refer to them as sciences, but they do not actually fit the definition. Some scientific approaches are utilized, giving them a veneer of science. Psychiatry and psychology are having credibility problems, even though they can be beneficial to some people. We have two articles for you to examine. The first one contains the mature content.
  • There are critics of psychiatry who realize that the field is "in crisis" and things need to be fixed. Misdiagnosing patients is an old problem, and psychiatrists pretend to be scientists.
  • Since they figure that humans are just evolved animals, biological psychology defines "normal" by what is seen in the natural world. 
  • False views of sexual orientation and assorted perversions are forced on Christians and the public in general under the guise of "science". Those of us who reject trends are considered the ones that need therapy, even though those who engage in aberrant behavior are a microcosm of the population, and have been so for millennia. 
Brace yourself, and read the details at "Psychology Co-Ops ‘Science’ to Fight Biblical Morality". Don't forget to come back for the second installment, which is less alarming but still has shocking implications.



Howdy! Glad you could come back. There are some practices in the mind "sciences" that should trouble people who are concerned with ethics and morality.
  • Clinical reports are exaggerated in abstracts, and professionals often read those instead of the full reports. (I have seen similar things where someone "refutes" creationist material by citing an abstract, but that is really just promises and intentions of the authors, not actual evidence for something.) Do you want your disorder medication "cocktail" recommended by someone who has not done serious study?
  • There seems to be a conflict of interest where people make big money on the psych celebrity lecture circuit.
  • Cases of misconduct going back many years.
To read the article, click on "More Criticisms Raised Against Psycho-Science". By the way, I stopped seeing therapists and taking antidepressants years ago.

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

Saturday, August 17, 2019

Book Review — Motive: Uncovering the Primal Rebellion in Atheism

Recommending a book that shows how atheism, evolutionism, and materialism are illogical. It gives both Christians and unbelievers many things to ponder.
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

My obtaining Motive: Uncovering the Primal Rebellion in Atheism by Paul Ross was a bit unusual. A link was provided to a download, and had it converted for my Kindle device. After I had gone through it (the book was rather short), I contacted the author for a bit of information.

His reply included the Australian equivalent of, "Whoa there, pilgrim! Where did you get that? It's not the final product!" So I ponied up the money and got my own copy all nice and legal-like. This means that there is no disclaimer, Mr. Ross didn't give me a copy for reviewing or anything.

The real version of this book is much substantial than the preliminary copy, and is far better. However, I thought a Table of Contents would have been mighty helpful like the other version had — especially now when I'm working on this here review. Ross also provided 36 references. If someone was thinking that Paul was simply making things up as he went along (a notion that could come from someone who did not pay any attention to the material), the references should give lie to that notion.

This is the first book of a planned series. It is not a huge volume, and he intended to make it short enough to read in one sitting. That would be a good thing to do, but it's not exactly a pamphlet, so you might want to get comfortable. I think your time will be invested quite well. I was able to spot his presuppositional apologetics approach, and he also uses evidence. (Contrary to the claims of detractors, presuppositional apologists do use evidence, and evidentialists do have presuppositions.) The reasoning is straightforward and sometimes rather blunt, but he gives the necessary unvarnished truth.*

As usual, some of my own thoughts are mixed in with the review; the book sparked my thinking many times.

In the introduction, Paul Ross makes his intentions clear and gives the reader some thing to think about:
This book was primarily written to address the materialism of our times. What I mean by that is the emotional, psychological and intellectual rejection of God in favor of rampant self-determination. This rejection may manifest in the form of indifference, or it may surface in the form of open and defiant hostility—as in the case of contempt for all things divine—but, at the end of the day, both expressions are just two sides of the same coin. I also wrote this book to reveal the fundamental weaknesses of the materialistic position and to expose its unrelenting failure to answer any of the questions that ultimately matter.
Let the reader understand that materialism is not used in the sense of "accumulating a passel of possessions", but instead, it is the philosophy that the material world is all that exists. It is used to underpin evolution as the secular mythology of origins and a lifestyle for atheists. We are given some history on how materialistic thinking has been detrimental to civilization, including the sexual "revolutions" where promiscuity and various perversions have been not only accepted, but promoted.

Materialistic dogmatism is discussed with an emphasis on atoms-to-author evolution. Antony Flew was an ardent atheist, but he changed his mind near the end of his life because he was forced to admit that the universe was designed. (Sadly, he apparently died a Deist, therefore would be just as lost as any other unrepentant sinner.) Most materialists insist on ignoring the evidence for creation all around them (Rom. 18:18-23). They cannot justify their rebellion scientifically or philosophically.
Materialistic explanations do not adequately make sense of the most common phenomena of human experience, such as the phenomenon of consciousness. In fact, it has never been shown—or demonstrated—how biochemical processes can transform into conscious subjective experiences. It’s simply claimed that they do, somehow, someway. Neither do materialistic explanations explain the existence of a conscience, moral intuitions or the propensity towards spirituality. Nor can the materialist show how impersonal, mindless matter and energy can write its own informational software code, as manifested in every molecule, atom and elementary particle.
Paul goes on to discuss a subject that I have presented on several occasions: consciousness. No naturalistic philosophies can explain it. For that matter, mathematics, logic, and even science itself cannot be explained without God! (This is my statement, not his.) "There simply is no materialistic model that can explain the phenomenon of consciousness in matter. It’s a complete mystery and enigma for the materialistic paradigm, and the reason why the materialistic model has been unsuccessful in explaining this gigantic enigma is because materialism is false." He is correct here, too.

Some materialists claim that the universe is better without God, more beautiful and with more grandeur. The sense of awe is something else that is immaterial and for which materialists cannot account. Atheists are being inconsistent (as usual) with such statements. "...the naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe basically boils down to an assertion that ‘stuff happens’." (Has he been reading David Coppedge about the "Stuff Happens Law"?) It's a lot of stuff that happened, and by chance arranged itself into all the specified complexity and beauty we see around us.

I think I have given you enough information to help you realize that Motive: Uncovering the Primal Rebellion in Atheism will prompt you to think and provides important information about how materialism causes damage to rational thought and to society.

Ross goes on with additional examples of the infestation of naturalism in society, including universities (which were started by Christians) and so forth. I recommend Motive: Uncovering the Primal Rebellion in Atheism.

You may want to get to know Paul Ross a bit better. I happened across a link to an interview with him, and it discusses the book, atheism, and Paul's missionary work. Try to ignore the comment about the US Postal Service "motto" that the interviewer made which is wrong on several levels. Other than that, give a listen at this link.

*Although Mr. Ross is unashamedly a creationist, he told me that he avoids discussions of the age of the earth because he considers it divisive. However, truth is divisive. The Virgin Birth, substitutionary atonement, even the Trinity are important doctrines that can be divisive. Recent creation supports biblical doctrines. I suggest three articles on this: "Who Is Jesus and What Did He Believe About Creation?, "‘But it’s divisive!’", and "Genesis: Real, Reliable, Historical".

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

Friday, August 16, 2019

Coyotes Have Gone to the Dogs

Out riding a forest trail at night, it is common to hear a coyote howl. This can give a greenhorn a bit of a start, but not as bad as hearing a cougar. Is the word pronounced KY-ote or ky-O-tee? Depends on where you are. My text-to-speech reader gets a mite confused and uses both in the same paragraph. They have a bad reputation. Is it deserved?

Many people consider coyotes pests. That is often true, but they are also being troublesome to evolutionists as well.
Credit: Flickr / AdititheStargazer (CC by-NC-SA 2.0)
While coyotes frequently make guest appearances in Western shows, they are found in most of these here United States, including New York and Alaska. These critters are crafty, stealing and eating all sorts of things. Sometimes they hunt in packs or even team up with other animals. By the way, the one in the cartoons should have caught the roadrunner because coyotes are faster.



Like their jackal and dingo cousins, they are considered pests. Some folks try killing them off which actually causes them to increase their population! They breed well, and the Eastern coyote has been found to have domestic dog DNA. Those in the wild have been known to breed with wolves as well. Darwin's disciples mistakenly call this "evolution", but that is not the case. Scientists are uncertain about the definition of species (Wikipedia, that bastion of objective science notwithstanding), but this activity illustrates the created kind of Genesis.
In many American Indian tales and traditions, the coyote is renowned as the Trickster—greedy, vain, cunning, and a liar. When European settlers arriving at the Great Plains first encountered it, aside from “heralding it as an icon of the expansive West”, the coyote’s reputation fared little better. Raids on livestock soon saw the colonists “vilifying it as the ultimate varmint, the bloodthirsty bane of sheep and cattle ranchers.”3 No doubt remembering Europe’s wolves, which it resembles, the settlers’ names for the coyote included brush wolf, prairie wolf, little wolf, and cased wolf. (Sometimes also the American jackal; though larger, the coyote is similar to the golden jackal of Eurasia.)
To read the rest of this extremely interesting article, click on "The wily coyote—dogged by reputation, this coy ‘wolf’ continues to surprise".

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

Thursday, August 15, 2019

Icefish, Creation, and Evolution

A few years ago, we read about how the Antarctic icefish were equipped by their creator to survive in those extremely cold temperatures down yonder. That article was brief and simple, but now we are going to get into more detail and raise some questions for both Darwinists and creationists.


Antarctic icefish are uniquely built do survive extremely cold temperatures. Evolutionists cannot explain this, but creationist speculations seem reasonable.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Marrabbio2
Some icefish have been referred to as "bloodless", which is somewhat misleading. Adults do not have hemoglobin and red blood cells, but there is something working like blood — or antifreeze. Instead of appearing to be a simple adaptation or variation, they seem to have undergone a full rebuild. Evolutionists are stymied and cannot give a plausible explanation for their existence. Creationists have some speculations that include genetic drift and adaptations (supported by family variations), and are more reasonable that what evolutionists offer.
Icefish are the only vertebrates that lack red blood cells and hemoglobin as adults. In vertebrates, these are essential for binding oxygen and then transporting oxygen throughout the body. But rather than this being a “simple adaptation,” the icefish of the Channichthyidae family appear to have several major anatomical and chemical alterations compared to other similar fish (even other Antarctic species within the same order, from the Nototheniidae family). The icefish has extremely large gills for its body size, no scales (which may help it to absorb oxygen from the surrounding water), a flexible (and less dense) bony skeleton. It also has a heart four times the size of similar fish, larger blood vessels than other similar-sized fish, has accumulated a lipid layer in its bloodstream that makes it more buoyant, and makes more antifreeze-like proteins than other cold-water fish. Oxygen exists solely in physical solution in icefish blood, which has an oxygen-carrying capacity of less than 10% compared with that of their relatives with hemoglobin.
 To read the entire article, click on "Clear as Blood: How Did Antarctic Icefish Survive Their 'Evolution'?"




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

Wednesday, August 14, 2019

Further Dark Matter Weaseling

When materialism and evolutionary thinking bushwhack science, observed facts are lassoed, tied, and branded for the secularism brand. That is, the narrative drives the evidence instead of the other way around. We see this in stories about human evolution, our wonderful brains, and other areas. Of course, the deep time story must control cosmology. Dark matter is a rescuing device.


Credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / ESA /
Institute of Astrophysics of Andalusia, University of Basque Country/ J HU
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site content by any of those organizations)
The Big Bang is the current secular myth of origins and it is infested with rescuing devices. We recently saw how inflation and the multiverse are efforts to save the Big Bang, and another is dark matter. (Dark energy is occasionally invoked as well.) This stuff has never been observed, only inferred, and that because Big Bang speculations need it to keep their conjecture together and the money coming in.


Watch for the weasel words from secularists.

The linked article shows some of the more recent buckets of desperate flapdoodle that pass as "science". When you go there, note the frequent use of weasel words.
  • Dark matter and the strange dimming of supernovas
  • The cosmic speed discrepancy is bringing the existence of dark matter into question
  • Early dark energy and an appeal to string theory
  • Scientists cannot find dark matter, but they know it exists
  • Bullets of dark matter are zipping through us right this minute
You can read about these and other bits of fiction that pass as science by clicking on "Belief in Dark Matter Propelled by Theory, Not Evidence".


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

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

Dinosaurs and Whopper Sands

Imagine if you will that you are an evolutionary paleontologist. You have your ideological ponies put into your worldview corral and go about doing Darwinist business. Then your beliefs are threatened by discoveries that just should not be. Perhaps you fall back on the Stuff Happens Law to explain those dinosaur and other fossils.


Several instances of fossils and geological anomalies do not fit secular geology and paleontology, but are best explained by the power of the Genesis Flood.
Phytosaur art at Kings Park Perth image credit: Wikimedia / Moondyne (CC by-SA 3.0)
Uniformitarian geologists and paleontologists are frequently confronted by evidence they cannot explain. Bone fragments attributed to a land-dwelling dinosaur were found way, way out in the North Sea. Well, that's a puzzler! Sand and mud is expected to be found near rivers, but the Whopper Sand in deep-sea sediments of the Gulf of Mexico further complicates the puzzle. Those crocodile-like phytosaurs managed to be found in marine sediments.

The pieces of the puzzle are put in place with a proper understanding of Genesis Flood models. Tremendous amounts of water with astonishing force were at work. Yet again, the biblical record is confirmed by unwilling secular scientists who reject the Creator and the Flood, preferring the vacuous philosophy of evolutionism.
Oil and gas explorations have found sedimentary deposits so massive and so far offshore that secular science has no satisfactory explanation for their occurrence. Marine rock exposures have also revealed numerous land fossils washed great distances out to sea. Drilling off the coast of Norway has even pulled up a core containing dinosaur bone. Although these discoveries baffle uniformitarian scientists, they are not an issue for Flood geologists.
To read the entire article, click on "Deep-Sea Dinosaur Fossil Buries Evolution".



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

Labels