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

Tuesday, May 26, 2020

Polystrate Fossils and Long-Age Duplicity

Although we discussed polystrate fossils a few months ago (see "Let Me Be Polystrate With You"), it is time to run the subject up the flagpole again and see who salutes it. Like the problems of soft tissues, DNA, and such in dinosaur fossils, assorted rescuing devices are manufactured.


We have seen before that polystrate fossils are a serious problem for secular geologists. Now we can see how they ignore the many problems of these in the Joggins layers.
Original image from GoodFreePhotos / Paula Piccard
The main approach of secular geology is uniformitarianism, but occasionally Janus-faced geologists will invoke catastrophes when their philosophies fail. They have even imagined multiple small floods without evidence instead of the best explanation: the global Genesis Flood. Polystrate fossils are a serious problem, and these are often completely ignored in textbooks and such.

Wikipedia, that font of secularist propaganda, does not have a section on polystrate fossils, but there is a sentence in the fundamentally dishonest section on creationism about what creationists believe. Of course, they wave the fossils off without providing a reasonable explanation for their existence. Up yonder in Nova Scotia is an area called Joggins. There are numerous polystrate fossils there, but they are not mentioned in the Wikipedia section on the fossils there except for a drawing from 1868 of an "upright fossil". Like mainstream news sources, if something is inconvenient for a narrative, it tends to be ignored. That does not make the Flood any less real nor does it support secular geology.
Polystrate fossils punch vertically through multiple layers, or strata, within a geological formation. They have been a mainstay of the debates in geology going all the way back to the earliest days of the deep-time controversy arising in the 18th century. They remain relevant to the discussion today.
In the 1800s, the primary debate over geology was waged between the competing ideologies of uniformitarianism and catastrophism. The former believed in slow gradual processes and long time periods, while the latter believed in rapid processes over short time periods. For a while, uniformitarianism was the dominant view. Today, however, the preferred term by long-age geologists is ‘actualism’, as they have been forced by the overwhelming evidence to abandon strict, classical uniformitarianism (a.k.a. gradualism) and include catastrophes to explain many parts of the geological record.
To read the rest, run on over to "How the Joggins polystrate fossils falsify long ages".






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

Monday, May 25, 2020

Deep-Sea Squid Signals Defy Evolution

Here is another example of how the more we learn, the more we should realize that there is still much more to learn. We can narrow it down to communication. It is not just language between humans, and we have seen that many other creatures have their own methods. Consider the Humboldt squid.

Humboldt squid are bad boys, but at feeding time, they have a unique method of evolution-defying communication.
Credit: NOAA / MBARI
You're not likely to find these deep-sea bad boys without special equipment, as they are often found in deep water where it's mighty dark. They're not the kind of squid you want to invite to a social gathering, either. They were observed at the chuck wagon, feeding on fish and zipping along. No collisions were noticed, but their Creator gave them bioluminescence.

Why would they need to glow in the dark (so to speak) down there? Communication! Not as involved as signaling in Morse code (such as on an Aldis lamp), but the senders and receivers must be able to understand the message. This is yet something else in organisms that defy evolution —

"When you're a creationist, everything 'defies evolution', Cowboy Bob!"

The usual Darwinian reaction is, "It evolved. Something something something natural selection." Things might be more interesting if naturalists provided more than arbitrary assertions and storytelling. A plausible model might be a nice starting point for conversation, but the accumulated evidence from everything around us testifies of God (Rom. 1:18-23).
In the deep, dark, cold waters of the Pacific Ocean—about 1,500 feet below the surface— hundreds of Humboldt squid the size of small humans (~ 5 feet long) were recently observed feeding on a school of lantern fish only about 3 to 4 inches long. The scientists used a high-tech remotely operated vehicle (ROV) with highly sophisticated photographic equipment to document the squid’s behavior. What they discovered was shockingly sophisticated.
You can read the rest by wrapping a tentacle around "Deep Water Squid Communication Mystifies Scientists". It will be interesting when more information about their bioluminescence comes to light.





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

Saturday, May 23, 2020

Asking Questions to Investigate Extraordinary Evidence

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Unusual concepts require unusual discussions. A reader of The Question Evolution Project on Fazebook sent us a link to a TEDx Talk about orbiting the earth and the ancient past. Seemed like an interesting subject and it was only about twenty minutes, so I gave it a listen. Then I watched it more closely.

A TEDx Talk about Earth orbits, Molinya orbit, ancient artifacts and civilizations, catastrophes, and other things indicates that Roger G. Gilbertson may be open to creation science truth.
Proposed Mars Molniya orbit image credit: NASA
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
The Talk was given by Roger G. Gilbertson uploaded to YouTube on February 3, 2020. This was in the written introduction of the post:
In my years as a writer, inventor, researcher, filmmaker, skeptic, story teller and explainer, I have always tried to keep an open mind about what we do not yet know. I seek the truth wherever it resides, and try to follow wherever it may lead, for the greatest mysteries are often the ones that we are the closest to solving next.
You don't believe everything that "scientists say" or obediently run with the herd? You want to think outside established norms (as well as established Brians, Carls, and Toms)? I like it when people want to think instead of following established science dogma.

While I am not endorsing this video, it does merit examination. It also prompts pondering.

At the first minute, Mr. Gilbertson pointed out one simple fact: science changes. For example, plate tectonics was rejected until comparatively recently, and now it has been accepted by most geologists. (He might like to know about the scientific "fact" of phlogiston — nah, he probably knows that.) Shortly after this, he mentioned visiting a website on the fringes of scientific content. It calls into question some of the established beliefs of scientists. Well, sure, get inspiration from outside the mainstream. I'm using something outside of my own usual fare right here, and have even drawn inspiration from H.P. Lovecraft, Star Trek:TNG, and others, so this child can't be one to fault him.

Around the 2 minute 20 second mark, Roger began to wonder, "Can a satellite orbit the earth in such a way that it travels over a single, circular ground path on the earth below?" He asked and was told that it could be done over the equator. Of the various kinds of satellite orbits, Mr. Gilbertson most interested in two: geostationary (at 5:12, it stays locked in the same place over the planet's surface), and the Molniya (at 6:02, elongated and highly inclined, taking half a day). Then he got an idea.

As we move to the 6:38 mark, Roger was wondering if he wanted a longer orbit. He checked his calculations and verified them with a friend who does aerospace work. Yes, a certain 2-day orbit would put the object in the same position over the earth after that amount of time. Checking with the STK analytical graphics site, he saw that a circular ground-path orbit could work. Another friend in the aerospace industry verified his results.

Now we're at 8:25, and he was excited about what he called the 2DO, the two-day orbit. Fine tuning it for a thirty-one degree orbit and making other adjustments (include the time needed), he found that the satellite or person could be outside the Van Allen radiation belt and also outside Earth's magnetic field. Nor would it ever be in Earth's shadow. This would have potential for useful applications

At 10:05, Gilbertson goes back to the site that got his wheels turning. It was about the alignment of many of the ancient wonders of the world in an almost circular path. Not all ancient wonders, but they were not scattered all over the face of the globe. (We are at 12:20 if you're keeping score at home.) Many of these many had noteworthy features, including their tremendous size, precise stone cuts, unusual knobs in the stone, and more.

At 14:45, we wonder along with him: what kind of people did this? People might expect R.G. to bring up "ancient astronauts" and UFOs, but that is not the case. He wants to know about how and when ancient peoples did these things. 15:20, he says there was a more advanced form of human civilization way back when. Some catastrophe must have happened. Ancient coast lines were much lower long ago, but oceans rose and temperatures dropped. Did a comet hit North America, does that explain some of the geological features?

We need more data (now we've reached 17:18). People need to think in terms of science fiction, get ideas and engineering involved to make these ideas into science fact. Use some imagination to investigate. He modified the Carl Sagan remark about extraordinary claims needing extraordinary evidence and said, "Extraordinary evidence deserves extraordinary investigation". We have a passel of such evidence to investigate.

The part about orbits at the beginning was somewhat interesting, but as he went on with the presentation, I began to wonder if Roger would be willing to seriously, honestly investigate biblical creation science. The Genesis Flood explains geological features better than the established secularist methods and paradigms, and this includes the post-Flood Ice Age and changes affected by the tremendous volcanic activity involved. People ask where the water went after the Flood — it's right here.

We believe and teach that humans were created in the image of God and are not the products of purposeless Darwinism. While creationists believe that there would be no remnants of the pre-Flood world after the global cataclysm, intelligent descendants of Adam and Eve got off the Ark and began to rebuild. After the dispersal at Babel, civilizations were built in many parts of the world. History and archaeology show us that the ancients were indeed very intelligent.

Creation scientists dare to question evolution and deep time assertions. Secular scientists have made many assumptions that have been harmful to medical science, were extremely reluctant to submit dinosaur bones to radiocarbon dating, are puzzled when fossils are found in places where they are not expected, and more. If science was an actual being, people like this would be an embarrassment to it.

Evidence for statements in the previous three paragraphs are all over this site, and most of those link to other sites for further information. I hope Mr. Gilbertson is led to investigate in the biblical creation science direction. After all, he is willing to question proclamations of the secular science industry. In my opinion, he's not far from the truth right now.

One last thought about the whole shootin' match. There was a disclaimer in the text that it was flagged, and included the statements, "...because it appears to fall outside the TEDx content guidelines. Claims made in this talk only represent the speaker’s personal views which are not corroborated by scientific evidence." 

My suspicion is that he was dry gulched because he dared to question established evolutionary dogma, even though it was implicit at best. It is interesting to see that the TEDx Talk by Ben Mezrich titled, "Why I believe in UFOs, and you should too..." was full of assertions (including that the sighting at Roswell was indeed a UFO), opinions, and not corroborated by scientific evidence. Double standard? I found the UFO Talk to be a waste of time, but linked to it anyway if you take a notion to watch it. I would like to give one of these Talks, but we know that such a thing could not happen.





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

Friday, May 22, 2020

Problems in the Cosmological Principle

There is a concept in cosmology that all matter is evenly dispersed throughout the universe. This idea is used to support the Big Bang, a concept that has been reworked and cobbled for decades because it is the best of the failed secular theories. However, the cosmological principle is having difficulties.

Factors in the cosmological principle are used to prop up the Big Bang. A recent study may cause serious problems for it.
Seven-Year Microwave Sky image credit: NASA / WMAP Science Team
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
It appears that matter is distributed throughout the universe, and the universe is expanding. A recent study of galaxy clusters, which could not be done before orbiting telescopes, detected that these galaxies emitted large amounts of X-rays. This study indicates that the universe is not isotropic (uniform in all directions), which is a serious problem for cosmology and cosmogony if this study pans out. Since secularists are committed to atheistic materialism, cosmologists will probably not let evidence interfere with the cosmic evolution narrative, and certainly not admit that the universe was created recently. Expect rescuing devices soon.
One the local scale, matter in the universe demonstrably is neither homogeneous nor isotropic. However, since we’re are talking about the universe, it is important not to sweat the local things but concentrate on the big picture. In these terms, homogeneity means that, to all observers throughout the universe, the universe should look the same. Of course, since we are restricted to one place in the universe, we cannot directly test the assumption of homogeneity. In fact, studies of the distribution of matter in the universe show that there is clumping of matter at very large scales in the universe. It is assumed that on the grandest scales the clumping smooths out, but this has not yet been observed.
To read the rest of this rather technical article, click on "The Cosmological Principle Fails?"



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

Thursday, May 21, 2020

Idols and Evolutionary Beliefs

The first two of the Ten Commandments are the forbidding of false gods and idols. These concepts tend to overlap, so someone can give preeminence to a false god without setting up an actual image. Many people have false gods they serve, including themselves. There is also idolatry in evolutionism.


Idolatry does not necessarily mean worshiping an object made of hands. Some evolutionists are guilty of idolatry in the name of science.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Gausanchennai (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Christians, don't be getting smug. We tend to have our own idols, whether it's adhering to doctrines (and congratulating each other on believing certain things), church itself can be an idol, a religious leader, and so on. Your favorite politician did not die on a cross for your sins and rise from the dead three days later. Examine yourselves.

Regular readers have seen that believers in minerals-to-mycologist evolution have resorted to their form of idolatry when they make evolution and natural selection into entities with the abilities to make decisions and choices. Although they profess atheistic naturalism, the desire for God the Creator and Redeemer is within. Instead of seeking the true God, they bow down to things they've made out of their own imaginations and wishful thinking. This, in turn, is presented as evidentiary science. How about another example?
Engaging in worship seems unavoidable for humans—even the atheistic thinkers who dominate modern science. Reverence and adoration lie at the heart of worship. Scripture tells us the ancient Egyptians, Canaanites, Israelites, and other cultures worshiped idols. They imagined their idols held power and could sway personal, political, or physical events.
Ironically, some of the scientists who scoff at the way our ancestors gave god-like attributes to inanimate objects follow similar patterns today. Each person should examine their heart to root out subtle idolatry.
To finish reading, click on "Subtle Idolatry in Modern Science".





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

Wednesday, May 20, 2020

The Bizarre Beliefs of Cosmic Biology

We have seen some mighty peculiar things passed of as science, including the non-science of astrobiology and even the — time to face it — pseudoscience of minerals-to-machinist evolution. What really takes the rag off the bush is panspermia, which defies scientific realities.


Some evolutionists agree with creationists about the origin of life, but reject creation and come up with strange ideas of life coming from outer space.
Artist’s depiction of Comet C/2012 K1 credits: NASA / SOFIA / Lynette Cook
Many believers in evolution (the knowledgeable ones, not the trolls on social media) admit that life could not have originated on Earth. The late astronomer Fred Hoyle had some views that seemed to incorporate Hinduism as well as evolution, and indirectly supported creation science. Instead of life evolving from minerals here, it came from way out yonder. Perhaps it was brought by comets, meteorites, and such. (Or even brought by aliens, which is called directed panspermia.) Then, life was given a boost now and then by other life materials from space.

Such ideas are controversial even among those committed to naturalism, to say the least. Basic biological principles are subducted under the plates of the Stuff Happens Law, and the absurdity of any form of life surviving a trek through the stars and surviving the entry to the earth are seemingly ignored. It is amazing that Fred Hoyle had some followers who not only are riding for the panspermia brand, but are continuing to develop it. I reckon that brain cells switch off when people deny the Creator.
The mainstream view of Neo-Darwinism has maintained a relative stranglehold on academia for over a century, with little consideration being given to anything outside of that paradigm in the most prestigious centers of academia. But major fundamental cracks are showing in the very foundations of that worldview, and some extremely interesting developments are coming about as a result.
. . . 
In any case, though Dr Hoyle passed away in 2001, Dr Wickramasinghe is still working to advance their thesis to this day. He, along with 32 other coauthors representing 23 different institutions in 12 countries all across the world, recently published a paper in a peer-reviewed academic journal that advances the idea of panspermia (that life arrived on earth from outer space, rather than evolving here on Earth). Not only this, but they appeal specifically to the octopus as an example of something they feel is too complex to have arisen by chance mutations, and thus it must have either arrived via frozen embryos from space, or have evolved from genetic material inserted into terrestrial genomes from extraterrestrial viruses!
To read the entire article, brace yourself and click on "Cosmic Biology".






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

Tuesday, May 19, 2020

Lack of Evidence for Turtle Evolution

After my recent visit to the town for supplies, I headed up yonder toward the Darwin Ranch. You have to go past Stinking Lake (which is not as bad as it sounds) near Deception Pass. There was a ruckus so loud that it distracted the Winkie Guards, and I could hear them (the ranch hands, not the guards) arguing about turtle evolution again.


There are significant disagreements among secular scientists about turtle evolution. That is because there is no evidence.
Original image credit: Pexels / Richard Segal
Listening in on them cleared up something I had not bothered to check before: tortoises are turtles, but not all turtles are tortoises. The main difference is that tortoises spend more of their time on land and turtles prefer water. The main row was the long-running contention about the evolution of turtles. There isn't any. Nuffin at all, and the fossil record is a hostile witness. Turtles were created to be what they are, although there are variations.
Turtles (Chelonia) are found in oceans, freshwater ponds, and on land. The Galapagos tortoise is the largest living species of tortoise and, like the sea turtle, is able to live well over a century. A 100% turtle fossil (Stupendemys geographicus) recently discovered in South America is the shape and size of a small car. Turtles are a truly unique kind of reptile designed with over 50 bones.
You can read the rest of the article by clicking on "Turtles Have Always Been Turtles".






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

Monday, May 18, 2020

The Joy of Jumping Genes

For a long time, it was thought that DNA was the lord of genetic molecules to rule them all. When research indicated that genes can effectively jump and reattach, scientists circled the wagons and responded not only with ignoring the material, but also with hostility. Since then, it has been bad news for Darwin's followers.

Scientists initially rejected research that genes detach and reattach elsewhere. More evidence shows that jumping genes are problematic for evolution and support special creation.
Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / Stuart Miles
As an aside, the strong reaction against research and the efforts to protect the paradigm of unchanging DNA reinforces the point that scientists are not "follow where the evidence leads" dispassionate automatons. They are people.

Since evolutionary dogma is based on purposelessness, one may expect that if genes detach themselves and wander off, it would make matters worse for the organism. Unfortunately for naturalists, research shows that this detaching and reattaching in other areas is an important function. Not only does this further exemplify the work of the Master Engineer, it also shows the foolishness of the refuted "junk" DNA concept.
Each step taken in analyzing the human genome reveals not only more complexity, but also more evidence of design. As is often said, genetics has not turned out to be a friend of evolution. As time goes on, this claim has become more meaningful. A major discovery was made by Barbara McClintock in 1951. Gleaned from her research on maize corn, she discovered controlling (transposable) elements called ”jumping genes” (e.g., plasmids and transposons). These are sections of DNA that can literally cut themselves out of their original location and move elsewhere in the genome. They can then splice themselves into their new home.
The full article continues after the jump. "Jumping Genes: From Genome Havoc to Designed Variety".





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

Saturday, May 16, 2020

Angry Atheists Exterminate Reason

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

When I began doing creation science on weblogs and social media several years ago, I was startled and even intimidated by the vituperation of professing atheists and other anti-creationists. Christians and creationists can be prepared and see that their suits of armor are rusty and full of holes.

Responding to a small sampling of reactions from atheist trolls. They claim to believe in logic and reason, but their words show this is not true.

After learning more about what creationists teach and learning about logical fallacies, it became much easier to see how those who hate us actually do not use the science, logic and reason that they espouse. Indeed, many that we encounter in various places on the internet (especially social media) seem to actively turn away from using reason.

Many times, they set up camp on various internet forums and on Facebook Pages, celebrating how they abuse Christians and biblical creationists. (Indeed, I have seen "reviews" of books, videos, music, and so on where the material is voted down because it is contrary to atheistic preferences.) It is common on Fazebook for hateful atheists to share posts from other Pages for the purposes of mockery. Some of us consider this a form of trolling.

Before we look at some examples from one Page in particular, there are a few simple facts that those denizens disregard. Actually, they are things that everyone should know:
  • Disagreement is not refutation
  • Throwing irrelevant and outdated links at us is also not refutation
  • Mockery does not prove someone right, nor does it give one the moral or intellectual high ground; laughing emoticons to not add credibility
  • Disliking something does not make it untrue
  • Calling someone a liar without producing evidence makes the accuser into the liar
  • Misrepresenting the position of another person or group is deceitful and makes the one misrepresenting look foolish and desperate to knowledgeable people
  • Lying about Christians and biblical creationists does not make atheism and evolutionism true
  • Multiple logical fallacies or additional lies do not justify one's position
There are more, but we need to mount up and ride to the end of this here trail.

For a while, I was pointing out the straw man arguments and other fallacies of this group. It didn't take long before I realized some things: they desire attention, are not interested in truth, gleefully exhibit bigotry, and demonstrate the truth of Proverbs 18:2. Further, I have never seen evidence that he has ever bothered to read the linked material. That is seen in the multitudinous straw man arguments utilized.

I considered providing links to their material, but that would give them the attention they crave, except for a couple that had to appear from another Page. Also, I have seen links changed and posts removed (one stalker actually removed his self-embarrassing comments on one of my weblogs), so I am content to keep screenshots and links for reference. The anonymous Admin's comments are in pink. I need to add that links to other Pages are not necessarily endorsements of their content, and some contain profanity.

Everything Came from Nothing

graphic from Ray Comfort included his quote, "I have found that nothing offends a proud atheist like confronting him with his belief in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything". Reaction? "And who says nothing created everything? Looks like Ray Dumfort is lying again. As if that's something new."

Aside from the ad hominem, I had previously shown him(?) that unbelievers do indeed claim that everything came from nothing. Mayhaps he needs to inform C. Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, Lawrence Krauss, Paul Davies, and others? They need to know that they did not really say what has been documented. Calling Ray a liar without any supporting evidence makes the accuser the liar, remember?

Not Understanding the Secular Peer Review Process

The Page called Intelligent Design Memes took the misotheist we are examining to task for not understanding the peer review process. It is used predominantly for research papers. Instead of leaving it alone, the angry atheist retorted with additional fallacies: "Hey, nitwit, I meant "peer reviewed" in the context of describing a legitimate scientific publication. I didn't mean that your list had to be peer reviewed. But as usual you jump to a wrong conclusion and then make an idiotic meme about it. Jackass."

As you may be starting to notice, ad hominems are a staple of people of this ilk. In addition, something I have pointed out to him before is the genetic fallacy of rejecting something because of its source instead of dealing with the material. I confronted him and his followers at other times about the "legitimate scientific publication" remark. It turns out that for them, creationists are not "real" scientists. Why? because "real" scientists are devoted to Darwin and atheistic naturalism. The genetic fallacy was compounded with redefining scientist.

He also referred to Evolution News as "a creationist website", but that is false. It is a part of the Intelligent Design movement. This is yet another example of misrepresentation, possibly based on prejudicial conjecture and not having bothered to do his homework before lashing out.

Evidence Not Found

An Admin at The Question Evolution Project posted a "404" graphic that empirical evidence for Darwinian macroevolution was not found. This is true, conflations of variations, adaptations, and change with the word evolution notwithstanding. (I avoid the terms macro- and micro-evolution because they are incomplete and easily misused.) Evolution is not present time, it is forensic (historical) in nature. 

The reaction was, "Looks like QEP needs to stop using creationist search engines. I googled 'evidence for macroevolution' and this is what popped up: [link to talk.origins]". Aside from my own dislike of using "google" as a verb, there is the insinuation that we rely on "creationist search engines". Sure, I use fifteen creationist search engines — well, I might try them if I could find them.  (Another angry atheist wrote, "If anyone was wondering whether to take QEP seriously, keep in mind they can't do a Google search". Not worth any more of my time.) Hate makes people say vapid things.

When I did use Google instead of my preferred search engine, the first result I saw was under "Scholarly articles for 'evidence for macroevolution'" and it was a site doubting Darwin. Second was from a Christian site, the third was from a biblical creationist site. Sure, there were eventually evolutionist links as well. Although I only looked at the first page of results, clearly the talk.origins link did not "pop up". By the way, I thought these people insisted on material from peer-reviewed journals. It seems that biased anti-creationist sites are acceptable because they confirm atheistic presuppositions.

Do Not Watch The Video

Abundant bigotry was found when a post from Capturing Christianity was shared. I am no fan of William Lane Craig, but he would be able to eviscerate their claims with very little effort. "I'll save you 90 minutes of your life and answer this question so you don't have to watch this video. No. You're welcome." What followed was even more dogmatic. 

"The introduction is enough for me:

"'[...]. I'm exposing you to the intellectual side of Christian belief. That's what I do on my channel.' 7 seconds and I am already done [laughing with tears emoticon]." This guy with the fake name already had made his decision and was unwilling or unable to even begin to give an honest evaluation.

The Admin replied, "'Intellectual side'? What's 'intellectual' about any Christian beliefs? This is beyond the pale, revealing their hatred and their inability to be rational — or even tolerate the fact that many thinking people are not atheists and that many scientists — past and present — have been biblical creationists.

Doubling Down on Dishonesty and Hate

This will have to be the final entry. This article took three or four hours to write, and a great deal of that time was spent collecting documentation on the appallingly slow Facebook. But I digress.

How about being caught lying? Here is another entry from Intelligent Design Memes which highlights the profanity and self-justification of the atheist. Transcribing the screenshot the owner exclaimed, "Lying is not wrong because the Babble is full of lies and your god is a lie so I can lie as much as I want, s**thead. I'll keep harassing xtians and lying as much as I want". (Emphasis added.) I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this reaction was enhanced by methamphetamine.

The ID Memes folks grabbed that comment and added, "Well on the bright side at least he admits he is a dishonest and bigoted degenerate that harasses Christians [female emoticon]. 

They received a reaction, "And Tardy McTardface continues to fabricate posts. This is what you get when when religious nuts think they can lie, cheat, steal and kill because their deity somehow sanctions it." We were accused of "lying about evolution" at The Question Evolution Project by this Page owner, but again, never gave an example of the alleged lying. Here, not only abusive ad hominem attacks, but question-begging epithets, prejudicial conjecture, and the ubiquitous straw man arguments; no attempt at justifying the risible claim that God sanctions evil. But this hypocrite also said that lying is not wrong, so where does he have any business complaining about alleged lies and such? Atheistic "morality" and "logic" in action.

"But Cowboy Bob, these examples are taken from one Page in particular! Aren't you using hasty generalization?"

One Page with a couple thousand followers, and I have not seen any atheists remark, "That is not cool. Be logical" or some such. What is seen here is a small sampling, and to continue would actually be redundant. I have seen the same kinds of things in many places. 

Recently on Twitter, I was pointing out the bigotry and logical fallacies of a vicious atheist and even provoked him a bit so he would reveal more of his nonsense. He eventually blocked me, but one guy commented, "Please don’t over-generalize atheists. I don’t want to be lumped in with him". Interesting how he and other atheists did not confront the angry atheist.

Even a cursory examination of forums and such like the Page we are considering reveals common elements of blind hatred toward God and Christians, antipathy toward biblical creationists (most likely because we uphold the foundations of the gospel message), and the rejection of honestly representing what Christians and creationists actually believe and teach. Their posts can be summed up with, "Nuh uh! Evolution is true, there is no God, and I'm smarter than you because atheism!" There are a few thinking atheists, but I lack belief that they want anything to do with types like this.

The irony meter is about to explode because people like this are full of hate, but they are inadvertently sharing messages of the gospel and Christian doctrine by sharing our posts.

While I believe that miracles happen because many atheists have indeed repented and turned to Jesus Christ for salvation, many are in a dangerous place. Specifically, when God gives them over (Romans 12:18-24) and essentially says, "Have it the way you want it". Their hearts are hardened beyond all hope. When encountering such hateful and irrational atheists, I suggest you find something else to do, such as learning what and why we believe, and why biblical creation science is important. Do not fear The Mighty Atheist™.





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

Friday, May 15, 2020

Hot Jupiters Should not Exist

Our own Jupiter is a massive gas giant that orbits the sun in just under twelve Earth years, and its rotation gives it a day of about ten hours. There are exoplanets (planets outside our own solar system) that are called "hot Jupiters" because they are massive and close to the stars they orbit. There are problems for secularists.

A hot planet in another solar system causes problems for secular astronomers committed to billions of years and faulty planetary formation models.
Cropped from an artist's conception, credit: NASA / Ames / JPL-Caltech
After all, nobody knows what they really look like
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Since they have hog-tied themselves to materialism, secularists are committed to the Big Bang and deep time. Luck must have been a lady because they feel lucky that they found these hot Jupiters. Although star and planet formation models consistently fail to explain scientific facts and observed evidence, they fallaciously select the best of the worst and assume that the star and planet must be ten billion years old. Because cosmic evolution.

Like the folks who try to tap dance around the implications of dinosaur soft tissues and DNA, secular astronomers and cosmologists have serious problems trying to uphold the ancient universe paradigm. They would have fewer brain strains if they would accept the truth that God created the universe recently. Observed evidence and real science would fall in line much better.
Astronomers have discovered a Jupiter-sized extrasolar planet (exoplanet) orbiting so close to its host star that it is “perilously close” to the distance where it can be torn apart by gravitational forces.
. . .
This particular “hot Jupiter,” designated as NGTS-10b, is about 1,000 light-years from Earth. Planets with smaller orbits take less time to go around their host stars than do planets with larger orbits. NGTS-10b orbits its host star in just 18 hours! Or to put it another way, the length of its year is less than one Earth day! This is the shortest orbital period yet observed for an “ultra-short period” hot Jupiter planet.
You can read the rest of the article by clicking on "'Hot Jupiter' on the Verge of Destruction".



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

Thursday, May 14, 2020

Darwin's Promotion of Women as Inferior to Men

It is well known that Charles Darwin had racist views which in turn exacerbated so-called scientific racism through evolutionism. What may be less known is that Darwin also promoted his view that women are evolutionarily inferior to women, which influenced scientific communities.


Darwin's racism is well known, but he actively promoted his view that women are inferior to men. This had a negative influence on the scientific community and society.
A Man and a Woman Seated by a Virginal [an instrument in the harpsichord family], Gabriel Metsu, 1660 
Some people may think that such observations are ad hominem attacks on Darwin and are irrelevant (some even excused him because he was "a product of his times"), but they are quite relevant. His views influenced his doctrines, which in turn had impact on many scientists through the years. These were based on presuppositions of evolution and the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™. There was no scientific, observational, or experimental data. Just beliefs that women were inferior because evolution. Not hardly!

Perhaps the facts this his own family tree had inbreeding and that he married his first cousin, had something to do with Darwin's low view of women. Maybe there's a connection between hating God and contempt for women, since atheists have a misogyny problem. This might be something to research.

There were women who put forward well-reasoned arguments to refute Darwin's ideas. It is interesting that many people rejected them not because of their presentations, but because they were not scientists. Can't have them womenfolk contradicting the great scientist Charles — except that Darwin had no formal scientific training. His only earned degree was in theology. Also, there were some men who also sided with the women.

The tide has turned and women are respected in the sciences and other areas. Intelligence is something that I believe is often relative. I can talk to my wife about presuppositional apologetics, epistemology, fraud in peer review, continental plate subduction, and other things that I have learned over the years and her eyes glaze over. (Other women would gladly engage in such conversations and teach me a few things.) But if I was to attempt to do the work she has been in for years, I would look like a poorly-trained lemur.

Both men and women were created with distinct differences in skills and temperaments to complement each other. We are not the products of time, chance, random processes and mutations, old son.
This review has two goals, to document from Darwin’s writings that he believed women were inferior to men, and to document that his views greatly influenced modern academia and evolutionists. In reviewing Darwin’s writings, there is no question that Darwin both believed, and taught, that women were intellectually, and in other ways as well, inferior to males. Some claim his ideas, as expressed in the late 1800s, had little effect on how women were viewed in the Western world over the last century and a half.
To read the rest, click on "Darwin’s Views of Women Had a Considerable Effect on Society".



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

Wednesday, May 13, 2020

Moles and the Soil Ecosystem

People who own land are usually bothered by those bumps in the ground made by moles. Some people try to drown them out with garden hoses, which strikes me as a mite cruel and mean-spirited. It is easy to confuse moles, which are insectivores, with their relatives the vole and the shrew. Insectivores are not rodents, but they are similar to rodents like gophers and mice.

Moles are found on most of the planet and many people consider them to be bests. Take a few moments to consider some surprising facts on how they help the soil ecosystem.
Eastern mole image credit: USFWS / Gary Stolz
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Just because I'm on a high horse doesn't mean I'm going to sit here and judge people for getting rid of pests, ain't no way. You way want to consider, however, that moles are actually very helpful in the upper-soil ecosystem and chow down on quite a few things that need their populations kept under control. You can also think about their amazing digging abilities. No, our Creator put them here for a purpose, even if we don't catch on at first glance.

We have probably seven species of moles in these here United States. Interesting that they are not found in South America, but not so surprising that their range does not include Antarctica. 
Moles are mostly hidden out of plain sight, but they are actually important members of God’s creation. Many people dislike moles, due to how the creatures wrinkle lawn surfaces, but the ecological benefits usually outweigh such minor yard-care nuisances.
Moles are known for digging. But how do they dig?
. . . 
And moles, like all animals, are hungry. They need food to eat! They hunt earthworms, insect grubs, and other underground prey. In doing so, they serve the subterranean near-surface soil ecosystem.
To burrow into the full article, click on "Think Twice Before Whacking a Mole".





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

Labels