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, February 27, 2021

Shlooping — a New Word for Evolutionary Storytelling

Scientists are expected to conduct research and present evidence to support their findings. Darwin's handmaidens are often exempt from this, instead presenting conjectures as science and telling tales that elicit adoration from the secular science industry. One way of evosplaining is essentially, "Stuff happens".

Darwin's handmaidens build a grand sandwich of storytelling that includes plenty of oops. Add a layer of Stuff Happens Law, SHL, make Shlooping.
A Winter's Tale by John Everett Millais
This is often wrapped in a sciencey club sandwich that includes millions of years, time, chance, luck, random processes, bad logic, natural selection, weasel words, "it evolved", and even the Stuff Happens Law. Sometimes it's served with a dill pickle. I like that part. No ethics though.

David Coppedge suggests a new word for evolutionary storytellers: Shlooping. There's a great deal of "oops-ing" in their efforts to deny the Creator his due. Add the abbreviation for the Stuff Happens Law. You get schlooping. Sounds kind of Yiddish, doesn't it? There are some similar words about unethical behavior that come to mind...
It’s the Stuff Happens Law plus Oops, throwing mud into the water of science, fouling understanding.

We hereby introduce the descriptive term SHLooping, which means using the Stuff Happens Law (SHL i.e., chance) as a primary means of scientific explanation, and being careless about it (“oops”). The Stuff Happens Law is, of course, the antithesis of science. Scientists should be attempting to explain the world, not explain it away by saying “stuff happens.” And yet SHLooping is exactly what Darwinians do every time they say, “It evolved,” or otherwise appeal to blind, unguided processes as a means to explain things. They say their findings “shed light” on evolution. They say any and every conceivable trait “emerged” by some kind of rhetorical magic. This is deceptive, vapid and self-refuting. It’s also a bit loopy.

To read the rest, slide on over to "SHLooping Undermines Scientific Understanding".



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

Friday, February 26, 2021

Pseudoscience — Back at You!

I disremember what movie it was, but one scene had an inept deputy sheriff pointing a pistol at the main character. He was annoyed and said, "Give me that!", taking away the gun. The deputy immediately put his hands up and said, "Don't shoot!"

Religious folks riding for the Darwin brand say creation is pseudoscience. Hold up a mirror, they do that which they are accuse creationists.
Original image: The Angry One by Ferdinand Hodler
There are some religious owlhoots who ride for the Darwin brand that say that biblical creation science is really just pseudoscience. Ironically, evolution has many qualifications of being a pseudoscience itself. With logic and scrutiny, it can be turned around on them. Watch for the double standards of criticizing biblical creationists of believing in the Creator, yet they presuppose naturalism, then present speculations and unfounded opinions as science. Someone hold up a mirror for these jaspers.
The organization BioLogos, which advocates that Christians accept secular evolutionary claims, recently published an online essay entitled “How to Spot Fake Science.”1 The not-too-subtle implication of the article is that Christians skeptical of ‘consensus science’ claims are being duped by pseudoscience. Based on their published material, BioLogos clearly thinks that criticisms of evolutionary theory fall into this category. Ironically, however, a number of the stated characteristics of pseudoscience apply to evolutionary claims.

To read the rest, take the journey to "Is Evolution ‘Fake Science’?" You may also be interested in "The Real Pseudoscience", which links to some more in-depth material.



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

Thursday, February 25, 2021

The Work Ethic Begins in Genesis

Many of us reluctantly get up and go to the workplace, then take satisfaction in a job well done. These days, some people have an entitlement mentality where they expect money for doing little or nothing at all. We were designed to do work.

While people may be reluctant to go to their workplace, they can take satisfaction in a job well done. In fact, our Creator designed us to do work.
Credit: Unsplash / Fran Hogan
The work ethic is important in Western civilization. It was emphasized by the Protestant Reformers who noticed that it is a strong aspect of Christianity. Indeed, the value of work is all through the Bible and goes back to Genesis. Someone can be a construction worker, CEO, musician, ranch hand, stay-at-home mom, working with the developmentally disabled, author, or any of a myriad of professions. There's honor in that, especially when the worker seeks to glorify God.
Paul urges Christians, “to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you” (1 Thessalonians 4:11). But the biblical mandate for work goes far deeper and further back than these instructions. God worked on His creation masterpiece for six days and “on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done” (Genesis 2:2). Created in God’s image, there is a divine element to mankind’s labours, whether hard toil, creativity, or invention. We embrace our ‘God likeness’ in work, whether manual, creative, or intellectual. Many work activities combine all three.

To read the entire article, work your way over to "The work ethic — forged in Genesis". You may be interested in a follow-up feedback article from someone who objected to things that were not even said. For that, see "Why should a Christian ‘labour and toil’?"



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

Wednesday, February 24, 2021

Evolutionists Celebrating Darwinian Racism

It is bad enough that Darwin's votaries pretend that they are driven by science and not by faith in naturalism, but they celebrate the Bearded Buddha with religious fervor. It happened on the 150th anniversary of the Marxist-adored Origin of Species, and now this.

Although misotheists and evolutionists try to deny it, Darwin's views promoted racism. They are celebrating the 150th anniversary of  Descent of Man.
Some professing atheists think evolution makes them "intellectually fulfilled"
Celebrations are planned for the 150th anniversary of The Descent of Man, and by the time this is published, there will undoubtedly be more. (This may include dancing around the maypole.) Interestingly, there are no significant calls by the cancel culture gang to deplatform Darwin. Falsehoods abound about this owlhoot's "wonderful discovery" and how he was a "great scientist", but he only hijacked natural selection and retooled existing evolutionary views for his own purposes. Also, Darwin had no formal scientific training.

It is about worldviews. Evolutionism is naturalism and is opposed to special creation — especially God's creation of man as special and in his image. They reduce us to just another animal. Although we have documented many times that Darwin was a hardcore racist and evolution was amplified, atheists and evolutionists wave off its racism or say that Darwin was a "product of his times" (something that cancel culture doesn't do for others). There are many ways that evolution has been harmful to society, religion, medical science and more, Darwin is revered. While it may seem petty on the surface to criticize Chuckie, it is important to know his worldview because it influenced the philosophies he advocated.

Ok, a test for you. Is the following fact or fiction?

An edict banned church services and ordered the destruction of Scripture and churches. There was strong persecution for failure to obey. Later edicts commanded that pastors be arrested. Beheadings and burnings were the common punishments for disobeying the edict, but that depended on the creativity and cruelty of the particular governor of the region.

Well, the above is fact! The first Roman edict for this situation was issued on February 24, 303. While the edict was issued by Diocletian, his subordinate Caesar Galerius bears much of the responsibility for it. Galerius was a hardened pagan and wanted to use paganism to unify the empire, much like Constantine would use Christianity a few decades later. Edicts were issued for the entire empire to sacrifice to the pagan gods. The edict against Christianity lasted a mere seven years before Galerius repealed it, openly admitting it was a failure.

In a way, it does have some similarities with what happened when Nebuchadnezzar issued an edict that people had to bow down to his image or be burned in a fiery furnace. And for some reason, it even reminded me of certain events over the past year.

To read the rest, visit "Darwin’s Racist Descent of Man Turns 150".



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

Tuesday, February 23, 2021

Human Reproduction is Still a Mystery to Evolutionists

Since social(ist) media have their on bots search and destroy missions for things that are against their so-called community standards, I was a bit vague on the title. This is about sex, the matrimonial mattress mambo. More importantly, it is about design and wonder.

Human reproduction has been unexplainable to evolutionists. The processes involved that give us pleasure and children are a marvel of God's design.
Credit: Pixabay / Karin Henseler
As we have seen previously, the human reproductive system is an enigma to Darwin's disciples. In their paradigm of time, chance, mutations, natural selection, random processes, and so on, they cannot explain it — especially the specified complexity of the male reproductive system. Their lack of understanding doesn't stop them from making ludicrous assumptions and using evolution to excuse promiscuity in humans, though.

It is interesting that sex is our means of reproduction and also a source of pleasure. Indeed, it is a gift of God within the confines of true marriage. Although the porn industry is making huge amounts of money and Mohammedan countries are increasing their populations, many countries (mainly in Europe) are actually facing a population decline and their leaders are worried. I lack belief that evolutionist can give plausible explanations for that.

It is a marvel that the way our reproductive parts fit together, but there is a great deal more happening within us that we cannot see. All of this is a testimony of God's masterful design.

Sex involves much more than just having perfectly fitting sex organs. It entails complexity on multiple levels, from human psychology to proteins in the gametes. We have learned that a sperm cell, for instance, carries with it proteins essential to the development of the embryo. The internal organs that develop ovum and sperm (each undergoing specialized cell divisions that result in half the normal complement of paired chromosomes) is another level of staggering complexity. After sperm and egg are manufactured, there have to be systems of storing and delivering the gametes, implanting the zygote, and preparing the female for nourishing it. All those glands and organs, in turn, require blood vessels and nerves. Recent ‘movies’ of how an unborn baby develops in the womb rightly arouse awe and wonder at the whole choreographed process. After the miracle of birth, the continuing development from baby to child, through puberty and on to adult is beautiful to behold.

To read the rest, journey to "Matched Design in Human Reproduction Defies Evolution".



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

Monday, February 22, 2021

Solving the Dinosaur Demise Mystery

The most common narrative is that dinosaurs lived somewhere around 250 to 65 million Darwin years ago, then they became extinct. Whyzat? Supposedly they were doing fine until something fell from the sky and killed them off. Actually, secularists argue about their extinction.

Credit: Pexels / Engin Akyurt
Your typical village atheist or other evolutionist seems to think that evolution is a "fact". To have a fact, there needs to be incontrovertible evidence. Not only is there considerable evidence refuting dust-to-dinosaur evolution, secular scientists are not in agreement about it.

Nor do they agree about the extinction of dinosaurs (the fact that there is no evidence for their supposed evolution might have something to do with that). Some scientists think they gradually faded away, others think it was sudden. New research shots that it was sudden — and fits right nicely with creation science Genesis Flood models. Instead of excluding biblical creationists, the scientific community as a whole would benefit from creationists' perspectives. Study on that a spell.
Scientists from the University of Bath have found that dinosaurs were thriving up to the end of the Cretaceous. This discovery conflicts with earlier claims that dinosaurs were declining in number towards the top of the Cretaceous System. However, these findings fit the predictions from a global Flood scenario.

Lead author Joseph Bonsor and his colleagues explained:

So yeah, if you would click on "Flood Buried Dinosaurs with a Bang" and read the rest of the article, that would be great.



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

Saturday, February 20, 2021

Lying for Darwin about "Junk" DNA

A few days ago, Jacqueline Hyde, the lady friend of Rusty Swingset from the Darwin Ranch, wanted to meet up with me over at Gravel Gulch. Although an evolutionist, she has some doubts. She also was not happy about recent dishonesty regarding so-called junk DNA.

Some evolutionists are so committed to their worldview that they will deceive people. So-called junk DNA has been refuted, but some still promote it.
If interested, you can find the original 1895 photo at Wikimedia Commons,
Papa Darwin's image is found all over the web, and the source of the DNA image is at openclipart
Evolution is essential for making an evolutionary worldview appear rational. Its adherents despise anything that even hints at design, since they are committed to time, luck, time, chance, time, mutations, and especially time. They make up ridiculous dysteleology arguments that our Creator is a bad designer, therefore he must not exist. However, their specious arguments have been clearly refuted in creation science, the Intelligent Design organizations, and the secular science industry. Pre-refuted for your convenience. Who do they think they are, Bill Nye?

The idea of "junk" DNA was established out of ignorance because the human genome was not yet fully sequenced. In addition, they argued from ignorance, presupposing evolution. Also, because certain areas of the genome did not code for proteins, they were useless junk leftover from our evolution. Although better science showed that the genome is functional, some have the hubris to insist that some is still junk. See how these things work? Presuppositions, arbitrary statements, bad science, silly logic, and more to cling to their evolutionary mythology. It's who they are and what they do.

Biblical creationists knew all along that God doesn't make junk. Things are designed, and designed for specific purposes.

Remember, we need to go on the offensive by asking why, if evolution were true, do people need to be deceitful to con us into believing it? In this case, science deniers who insist that some DNA is junk are saying that it is a key to understanding evolution. They also insist on dysteleology (that God is incompetent) but praise the glories of inefficient and wasteful evolutionary processes that they find "exciting". While the following article praises Intelligent Design, the ID movement does not go far enough; ID proponents do not identify the Creator, who is the God of the Bible.

The headline of a new article in Science News about the findings of a new study announced “A key to the mystery of fast-evolving genes was found in ‘junk DNA’” The details show why some genes rapidly “become crucial because they regulate a type of DNA called heterochromatin. Once considered ‘junk DNA,’ heterochromatin actually performs many important jobs, including acting like a tightly guarded prison: It locks up ‘bad actor’ genes, preventing them from turning on and doing damage.” This new study indicates that what had been called “new genes,” supposedly created by random mutations and favored by natural selection evolution (such as the gene in fish that makes a novel antifreeze), were there all the time. The existing genes were activated when the conditions were appropriate! If this finding is supported, a favorite evidence of the ability of mutations to evolve new genes that produce new traits will have to be added to the many mistakes and blunders of evolutionists! I will report on this research in a future post.

To read the rest, see "More Evidence Refutes Myth of Junk DNA".



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

Friday, February 19, 2021

Creation Science and Studies of Baraminology

Believers in universal common ancestry get a mite riled when biblical creationists discuss the created kinds (e.g., Gen. 1:25). Ironically, Carl Linnaeus, who got the taxonomy ball rolling, was a creationist who believed in the created kinds. Creation scientists are working out the details of baraminology

While creationists do accept speciation and variation, some of our scientists have models of baraminology. This is the study of the created kinds.
Credit: RGBStock / Graeme Rainsbury
Don't be disunderstanding me now, creationists do believe in speciation and variations. There are some creation scientists who are exploring the created kinds, which would be a larger category than species. As with any scientific model, there are differing views that need to be worked out. Remember that creation science models come and go, but creationists who propose them agree on the truth of God's written Word. Two distinct views used in the pursuit of this science are discussed.
New genomics-based statistical approaches have helped us in baraminology research. There is currently much genomic data available in the public databases suitable for baraminology studies. This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of both morphology-based and genomics-based methods. It is hoped that the use of both types of methods will complement one another in future baraminology research. With more than one line of evidence, baramin membership can be determined with more confidence. This also allows us to classify a greater number of species, since if one type of data (i.e. morphological) is unavailable, another data type (such as genomic data) may still be available for analysis.

To finish reading, kindly head on over to "Comparison of morphology-based and genomics-based baraminology methods". Also, the webinar recording below was done by one of the authors of the linked article:



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

Wednesday, February 17, 2021

Dr. Duane Gish and Debating Evolutionists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Dr. Duane T. Gish was born one hundred years ago today, and was referred to as "creation's bulldog". Thomas Henry Huxley was "Darwin's bulldog [1]", and C. Richard Dawkins was nicknamed "Darwin's Rottweiler [2]". The bulldog monikers refer to tenaciously advocating viewpoints.

Dr. Duane Gish has a specious debate tactic named after him. This is demonstrably false, but misotheists and evolutionists use such things themselves.
Original image furnished by Why?Outreach
Today is the 100th anniversary of Dr. Gish's birth. He was involved in the foundation of the Creation Research Society and the development of the Institute for Creation Research [3]. He was 92 when he passed away in 2013. Here are some tributes and biographical sketches [4], [5], [6] ). Duane gave many lectures, as well as writing numerous books and articles. Many fish-to-Gish evolutionists and atheists with knowledge and life experience know of him from his 300 or so debates where evolutionists chose to slap leather with him.

The Infamous "Gish Gallop" Trope

Unfortunately, a pejorative called the "Gish Gallop" was conjured up. According to Wikipedia (that bastion of unbiased scientific integrity and truth written by anonymous people): "During a Gish Gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate [7]". This essentially describes a very similar tactic known as elephant hurling [8], and something that really takes the rag off the bush [9] is how atheists and evolutionists use it freely (Bill Nye used it against Ken Ham [10], [11], for example). The fact that these folks don't call each other out on that makes this child wonder about their intellectual honesty and character.

It is interesting that the term "Gish Gallop" was coined by anti-creationist Dr. Eugenie Scott, but a researcher is hard-pressed to find actual examples of this unjustified ad hominem. It also raises the thought that it was a damage-control tactic, as Dr. Gish had a reputation for winning the debates [12]. Indeed, Scott also advised against debating creationists, and they have several excuses for not doing so [13]. Wouldn't it be prudent for evolutionists to shut down biblical creationists with incontrovertible evidence if they have what they claim?

Many Debates, No Registered Complaints

Dr. Gish had a large number of his debates on university campuses before large audiences [14], several times with people he had debated previously [15]. While the usual false claims of quote mining and other "tactics" were leveled against creationists [16], there are apparently no known complaints that fit the "Gish Gallop" mischaracterization.

In a formal debate setting, it is not only important to stay with the topic, but also to deal with the strong points of the opponents [17]. The format is generally agreed upon in advance or a common type is used. An article by an anti-creationist discussed the Winning the Creation Debate videos that Gish was involved in making did not say he advocated dishonesty or overwhelming the opponent [18], so no mention of deviating from debate protocols. Dr. Gish presented scientific evidence, but the claim that he was using rapid-fire misleading or deceitful tactics does not appear to have any foundation; we don't need to be bamboozled by this buffoonery. See this rather passionate video refuting the "Gish Gallop" falsehood [19].

I would do lousy in a debate, opening fire on logical fallacies and distracting myself. 

The Making of a Mythology

The hands at the Darwin Ranch (out yonder by Deception Pass, but not the one in Washington State) have built up the mythology surrounding the debate tactic quite handily, but there is no evidence upon which it is based. These sidewinders say that creationists win debates by using the Gallop. Someone who does an internet search on "Gish Gallop" will find a wagon train-load of material passing along the disinformation, but no records or first-hand accounts to verify their position. There may be creationist debaters who use elephant hurling, but I seriously doubt that they represent respectable creationist ministries.

Although its origin is based on false claims, the term is being used. A leftist accused Mitt Romney of using the Gallop during a 2012 debate with B. Hussein Obama [20]. There was another leftist who praised Joe Biden in his debate with Paul Ryan [21]. Did Romney and Ryan display the Gallop as it is portrayed, with elephant hurling and dishonesty? Probably not, considering the vituperation and logical fallacies the authors used undermines their credibility.

"If it's not true, why do they use it, Cowboy Bob?"

There are several possible reasons, likely a combination. One is that people don't care about its untrue origins. Another reason is that it is used to describe a debate tactic, and the name stuck — but for the wrong reasons. Third, many atheists and evolutionists have antipathy toward Christians and creationists, so if it libels a decent man, that is an additional reason to use it.

Let's think about the accusation of lying and see if it passes a simple smell test. Why would creationists lie to refute evolution and convince unbelievers that they need to humble themselves, repent, and make Jesus Christ the Lord of their lives, but God hates lying? Such an accusation is risible all by its lonesome. It decisively failed the smell test.

Something else to get cognating on is that the secular science industry has a reproducibility crisis [22] in that papers were written, passed peer review, cited by other writers — but the results were not duplicated. Similarly, there is a problem with retracted papers that are still being utilized [23]. Maybe it's human nature to use statements and papers from others in support of their own views, even if those are not credible. This may be similar to what has happened when attacking Duane Gish.

Reversing the Gallop: Gish-Doolittle Debate

Formal debates are used for each side to plead their case and to confront the strong points of the opponents. A common format consists of opening statements from each side, then shorter rebuttals, additional trade-offs that become shorter as the event progresses. Many have direct exchange segments that are often called cross examinations but those were not used in the following example. Civil behavior is expected, as is the use of logic. Duane Gish was gentlemanly in his presentations. At the end of his debate with Dr. Russell F. Doolittle (get the "talks to the animals" jokes out of your system), they shook hands and parted friendly.

Dr. Doolittle (stop that snickering, I say) immediately struck me as an elitist who condescended to venture down to Lynchburg, Virginia (against advice, no less) to have a debate. He actually insulted the audience, implying that they were a bunch of hicks that could not understand proper science. Russ even played the noble martyr, appealing to emotion; he was "worried about the future of education in America" because some people have the audacity to dare question the "factual nature of evolution".

He used the hoary canard that evolution is science, but creation is religion. That is false because evolution has strong elements of faith and religion itself [24]. Then he proceeded to read out of a children's book that raised ire in Livermore, California in 1980. Dr. Gish pointed out that ICR wants creation science and evolution taught side-by-side to allow children to make up their own minds based on the evidence alone. The children's book that Doolittle was ridiculing had nothing to do with the science that ICR was advocating. 

In addition to the implicit appeal to emotion about indoctrinating children with unscientific religion ("unscientific" and "religion" because he said so, and misrepresented creation science), Doolittle drew from his naturalistic presuppositions, saying, "Any implication that dinosaurs lived a few thousand years ago is sheer gobbledygook". Ipse dixit — oopsie daisy! Plus he simply put down creation science material without using any of the strong points in all those books he was insulting. Actually, I did not see that he referenced them at all.

Duane accurately described evolutionary beliefs, and pointed out that not all scientists accept evolution. In fact, there are many outside of biblical creation science fields who have doubts or even reject universal common descent. Gish also pointed out that materialistic indoctrination in public schools is not science. The bulldog came out when he stayed with science and logic but pointed out some false claims by Doolittle. Evolutionists are often startled when they encounter creationists who are knowledgeable about evolutionary beliefs and the accepted facts of science. No Gallop here, Hoss.

Like so many others, Doolittle insisted on the imagined differences between science and religion. Then he parroted something that has been said by others before (and is said even now): the blind faith that even though there is no evidence for certain things such as transitional forms, the questions would be found someday. That's blind faith, old son, not science. It can also be called futureware [25]. To use his own reasoning, such "science" does not belong in the classroom.

Providentially, I received a message while writing this article that provided some related information. There is a new book from the Intelligent Design movement that has not yet been published by Eric Heden and the atheist cancel culture [26]. Some people claim that ID is creation science in disguise, but that is clearly false. While they have good material that refutes evolution, they have serious limits [27] and do not go far enough in my view [28]. That said, Professor Heden was censored by atheists because they said ID was religious and does not belong in a university [29]. So much for intellectual and academic freedoms — which are two of the reasons Question Evolution Day exists [30]. One atheopath implied that Heden is a bad man for presenting evidence contrary to evolutionary dogma [31]. This kind of thing fits our discussion about defaming Dr. Gish and the worldview of Dr. Doolittle and many others.

A couple of disagreements I have is not only the use of thermodynamics (although evolution requires added genetic material and goes uphill while everything does indeed go from order to disorder), but his evidence-only and let people decide for themselves. Yes, facts are on our side, and we have more facts against evolution and in favor of creation than we did when Dr. Gish was roaming the earth's debate auditoriums, but to take "neutral ground" is wrong [32]. Many of us do not want creation science taught in public schools, but others say it would be a good thing. We cannot and should not force it through legislation [33]. If you study on it a bit, the idea of forcing an atheist to teach evidence for creation could be disastrous.

Related Debates and Discussion


Gish and Donahue


Many people use the word debate quite loosely, but there is not much in common between an online squabble, two people having a discussion, and a structured debate. One of these alleged debates was between Dr. Gish and Phil Donahue on the Feedback television program in 1982 [34], [35]. It was more like a discussion. Donahue freely admitted that he is not a scientist (his only degree is Bachelor of Business Administration [36]). Phil is charismatic and an accomplished talk show host who knows how to work an audience. Although a professing Roman Catholic, his expressed views sound more like Deism than anything else, and he claimed that evolution glorifies God.

While Phil was appealing to emotion and asserting unsubstantiated opinions (annoyed when Duane corrected him that Darwin was not a Christian and that Stephen Jay Gould was an atheist), Gish was asking pointed questions about balanced treatment of science and evolution in schools. As is typical of Darwinian votaries, Donahue used red herrings and arbitrary assertions, including how creation is religion and evolution is science. Dr. Gish pointed out some of the faith nature of evolution. When given hard questions, Donahue dodged. (Can we promote the expression "Donahue dodge"? Asking for a friend.) Like the Gish-Doolittle debate, they shook hands and parted friendly.


Dr. Ian Plimer


Here is a mountebank who was embarrassing even to atheists. In my research on Duane Gish, I saw that Dr. Gish had a 1988 debate with Dr. Ian Plimer in Australia. Although I did not watch the entire three-hour event [37], I watched Creation Ministries International's retrospective Facing the Fire [38]. (I wonder if he got permission from CMI to rip the video and post it.) He was irrational while Gish was calmly trying to stay on topic despite Plimer's antics and atheopathy.

Plimer may have anticipated Saul Alinski's Rules for Radicals, which is used today beyond community activism, it's original purpose [39]. One of Alinski's ideas was to make the enemy live up to its own rules. Ian said that Duane is Satan, and, "He wants God to bless him for the devil's work". That is an ad hominem and an arbitrary assertion, and the absurdity is compounded because Plimer is an atheist! I had a criminal cyberstalker atheist who kept telling me I was going to Hell for lying, and he misused the Bible to "prove" his claim. With both Gish and myself, we received hateful invective for its own sake and nothing was proven to be lies. Some folks refuse to distinguish lies from disagreements, hurt feelings caused by inconvenient truths, or simply dislike of the facts.

Did Duane and Ian shake hands and part friendly?

Interesting that Dr. Plimer posted these videos where he tied his credibility to a post, lit it on fire, and threw it off a bridge into the Murray River. CMI has had encounters with Plimer's secular jihadist proclivities [40]. It is interesting that Ian is a "climate change denier" [41] (note that such pejoratives are used to poison the well), but his attacks on creationists in his book Telling Lies for God (which have been proven baseless [42]) could be a hindrance for him today. That is a reminder for Christians to keep good reputations in the eyes of both God and people.

Worldviews are Important

It is ironic that people who accuse creationists of being disingenuous are often antagonistic, condescending, elitist, attempting to influence people with arbitrary statements and insults their ownselves. They frequently utilize logical fallacies and straw man arguments to misrepresent not only their debate opponents (whether in formal debates or simpler discussions), but creationists and Christians in general.

These stem from a fundamentally flawed worldview based in atheistic materialism. Biblical creationists, however, are motivated to present the truth as accurately as possible. This is not only to win minds and hearts of people, but to glorify God.

I hope the thoughts and resources presented here will benefit readers and seekers after knowledge. Doing this research has certainly been a helpful experience for me.



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

Tuesday, February 16, 2021

Evolutionists Telling a DAM Lie

Believers in minerals-to-misotheist need to be asked some direct questions, such as if evolution is a proven fact, why do they expect evidence to be found later? That is faith, old son, not science. Also, why do they need to use falsehoods and chicanery?

Evolutionists need to be accountable for believing without evidence, and for lying. Darwin's Abominable Mystery remains unexplained despite deception.

Darwin's Abominable Mystery troubled him for years and was never resolved. Flowering plants existed too soon for evolutionists, a fact which supports recent creation. Deal with it, hippies. But no, living by faith, evolutionists have tried to hoodwink us with tall tales and even outright deception instead of admitting that they have insurmountable problems. Of course, the end justifies the means, so fraud and lying are acceptable in their fundamentally flawed worldview.

The facts in this story are opposite what a BBC headline promises.

Why do they get away with it? Because like Stalin-type totalitarian regimes, they run the science, the schools and the press. No one is ever held accountable.

"New light shed on Charles Darwin’s ‘abominable mystery’" (BBC News). Helen Briggs re-illustrates the DAM Law, that any article about flowering plants will mention the phrase, ‘Darwin’s Abominable Mystery.’ With the customary salute to the great master of evolutionary theory, she begins with acceptable artwork of Charlie’s hoary face and handwriting. The light never comes.

To see an unmasking of evolutionary deception, visit "Darwinists Lying to the Public".



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

Monday, February 15, 2021

The "One Gene, One Trait" Myth

For many years, it has been taught that our traits are the result of our genes. Did Ellen touch the cleft in your chin after you were putting up the Christmas lights, Sparky? That crease was caused by a gene, they say.

One of the many outdated myths that persist in textbooks is of one gene for one trait. Handy for evolution, but we were created and it is complicated.
Credit: RGBStock / Helmut Gevert

Eye and hair color, straight or curled, sizes of various body parts, other things — a gene for each. While this idea is useful to advance the particles-to-paralegal storyline, it is not true. Unfortunately, bad science ideas (especially those that support evolution) tend to remain in textbooks.

The truth is much more complicated; Dr. Robert Carter said, "If life were really simple, evolution might be possible"; evolution is increasingly less possible relative to the complexity of life. Several genes are involved in traits and trait expressions, and other factors come into play. Indeed, our Creator likes variety, and he gave us many factors to express our individual characteristics.

I taught college level human genetics and was chagrined to learn that the textbook/workbook I used for a decade until 2017 incorrectly claimed the older, now-refuted, view that common examples of traits were produced by a single gene was valid. A number of claimed examples were researched, finding the expression of all of them were influenced by many genes. Of these examples, 10 were selected and summarized. This finding supports the fact that to produce new traits, even seemingly simple ones, requires several genes as a set, increasing the complexity significantly and reducing the likelihood of producing these new traits by random changes in the genotype as postulated by evolution.

Although this is a bit technical, I reckon that people trained in biology as well as us reg'lar folk can get something out of it. To do that, click on "Common examples of ‘one gene, one trait’ exposed".



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

Saturday, February 13, 2021

Deplatforming Darwin in the Cancel Culture

Of the currently popular movements that this child finds nonsensical, deplatforming and its ugly brother cancel culture are especially baffling. They seem to be a means of punishing people for making statements or having views that are currently unpopular. Why are they not taking shots at Charles Darwin?

People try to cancel and rewrite history, punish people - past and present - for having wrong views. Much is about racism, but Darwin still stands.
Assembled and modified from
various components, including some at Clker clipart
That's right, people who are dead can be punished. Mayhaps it's revenge. In many instances, people just want to destroy. These mindless mooncalves even tore down statues of abolitionists like Frederick Douglass and Hans Christian Heg. Much of the current hatred is directed toward not only slave owners in the formerly United States, but regarding racism.

Why not deplatform and cancel Darwinism? It would be consistent. One big problem is that evolutionary thinking is prominent in the scientific community and academia, and the Marxist groups are actually living out Darwinism! Evolutionists are known to offer up the excuse that Darwin was a product of his time, but the cancel culture folks are not offering the same excuse for other historical figures. His worldview affected his philosophies, and from there, his followers through today.

Indeed, I sided with C. Richard Dawkins who was deplatformed at Berkeley a few years ago for saying things about Islam that resulted in hurt feelings. Whether or not his statements were correct as immaterial, it was about political correctness.

There are basic reasons to not try to rewrite or attempt to erase history, including that of Darwin. People need to study and learn from the past and see the big picture, and learn. Those of us with a biblical worldview know that people are created in God's image and that there is only one race.
Racism has been a hot-button issue in the United States for the last year or so with violent riots rocking many major cities across the country. In response, a wave of censorship and appeasement occurred on a nationwide scale, resulting in deplatforming of people whose ideas were not in step with the mainstream narrative. However, the issue has been around for a long time: it is hardly unique to 2020. In fact, if we are going to deplatform people who are deemed racist, it seems very hypocritical not to start with one of the most well-known racists of all time: Charles Darwin.

You can finish reading the article over at "Deplatform Darwin". Also, you may find another article quite helpful, "Should We Cancel Darwin?"



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

Friday, February 12, 2021

Rules for Radicals and Question Evolution Day

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Subjects like radical and Saul Alinsky are not exactly what one would expect for the tenth annual Question Evolution Day, but hopefully this article will be interesting. This is in no wise an endorsement of Alinsky or Rules for Radicals, but there are some things that can be learned.

In this unique article, some of Alinsky's rules are examined. We can see how anti-creationists use these against us and prepare ourselves to respond.
Modified with a graphic from Photos Public Domain
The word radical is frequently thrown around with little regard to its original meaning. It is quite often used as a pejorative. Nowadays it can have connotations of people with Molotov fire bombs or doing other acts of violence. It is used to label extremist views (making Charles Darwin a radical because his views were not readily accepted at first). The true meanings of radical are quite different, including holding to a foundation or basic principle

Saul Alinsky was friendly to communist views and leftist government, but did not seem to promote actual violence. What I read of Rules for Radicals was interesting and unpretentious. He was a community organizer/activist and his rules (sources vary between 12 and 13) were intended for empowering communities. They have been used by many people for various purposes. Hillary Clinton and B. Hussein Obama were quite fond of Alinsky, and several of his tactics are incorporated by political leftists. Several of those are worth examining here.

He was a Jew, but apparently his religious leanings were more agnostic than Jewish. Many of Alinsky's views were Marxist. (Karl Marx himself was born Jewish and raised Lutheran, but became an atheist and evolutionist early in life.) Indeed, dedications at the beginning of Rules for Radicals included Lucifer, the first rebel against the establishment. (Ironic that the counterculture of his time became the establishment and they fight to preserve it.) Some ideas that Alinsky promoted were not original with him, and can be traced to Marxist and Nazi propaganda. Except for the violence, Alinsky is comparable to Machiavelli in reverse: taking power away from those who have it.

Biblical creationists, Christians, Intelligent Design proponents, and also political Conservatives encounter these rules, often without knowing it. I will not say that there are significant "community activists" among atheists and evolutionist who are organizing these things. However, it seems that many of those people are aware of some of these rules. Other creationists and I have encountered such tactics.

Let's examine some and put them in our context.

Never go outside the expertise of your people

Atheists use the same boilerplate copy 'n' paste reactions, making it difficult to find original thought from them. Similarly, evolutionists rely on writings and research of other evolutionists, usually presupposing naturalism. They even use retracted peer-reviewed papers and build upon them! Instead of blackballing creationists and insisting on naturalism, they would do well to learn from creationist scientists instead of evolutionary evangelists and their propaganda. Building their wall..."Mother, did it need to be so high?"

On the other hand, creationists do go outside our own group. We learn where evolutionists are coming from and use their material; evolutionists are actually working for creation science! Also, the ID people deny being creationists (although many creationists are involved in the ID movement), but creationists use intelligent design arguments that reveal the expertise of the Master Engineer. 

Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules

It is common to find atheists attacking the Bible and saying how God is a big meanie that tells us not to kill, then does killing his ownself. They conveniently forgot the contexts they cite. Also, they neglect that he's the Creator, he makes the rules, and his judgments are righteous. It has been rightly said that the god atheists hate is not the God of the Bible — a straw god, if you will.

There have been times that I have been accused of "lying about evolution", and this attack has been leveled against other biblical creationists. They essentially say that we are violating the Bible we claim to believe. As I have said in the past, just because a statement hurts someone's feelings, they dislike it in someway, or simply disagree with it does not make it a lie. When I have pointed out this truth, it's been ignored. 

Taking an approach based in presuppositional apologetics, I have asked, "Suppose what you said is true. Is it rational for those of us who serve a holy and righteous God, who hates lying, to lie to get people to believe in him?" (Wouldn't they find out that we were lying and reject God anyway?) Going further, "In your materialistic worldview, why would lying be wrong? If I believe it helps me to survive and thrive, I should be able to do so". Their responses are brown noise, indicating that they have no consistent moral standard.

Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon

This almost needs no discussion, but the subheading would look silly sitting there all by its lonesome. Atheists and other anti-creationists, especially on teh interwebs, are fond of trolling and ridicule (anonymity is an asset for keyboard "warriors" like that). Related to this is the fallacy of appeal to ridicule — a threat similar to a child saying, "If you do that, I'll tell on you!" I have long believed that this is a form of censorship. If you study on it a spell, ridiculing someone so they run and hide gives folks like that a sense of victory. A voice is silenced, at least for a while. By the way, note that they cannot take a joke themselves.

Keep the pressure on and never let up

Those dealing with Atheism Spectrum Disorder rely on evolution for their creation myth and help them to feel "intellectually fulfilled". When evidence refuting evolutionism and supporting recent creation is presented, they often recruit others to swarm creationists. There are times when something may have started out as a discussion between two people on social(ist) media, but it degenerates into a food fight;  many attackers piling on to intimidate the creationists. There are many who absurdly seek their identities in attacking the God they reject who go on secularist jihads against creationists and Christians (such as this bunch). While Alinsky had secular goals for communities, the relentless harassment from naturalists is a spiritual problem rooted in rebellion against God, our Creator and Redeemer.

The tenth annual Question Evolution Day
Image courtesy of Why?Outreach

Bonus: Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty

This has been attributed to Saul Alinsky, but I did not find it in Rules. It probably originated elsewhere. He may very well have expressed something similar because it is in keeping with the other rules. It is obviously a form of the tu quoque fallacy ("Yeah, but you do it too!"), which is an attempt to point out someone's hypocrisy. However, even if the counter accusation is true, it does not invalidate the original claim.

Many times, the accusation is simply false, such as when I was accused of "lying about evolution". Instead of dealing with a subject, an emotional reaction is provoked and the one on the receiving end may be put on the defensive. Keep them on topic. I've even said things like, "Yes, and I cheat at solitaire. Can you respond to the subject?"

Ruling the rules

Obviously, I am not advocating that Christians and creationists utilize the teachings of Alinsky. It is helpful to learn from them (which means violating the first rule mentioned and learning from the opposition). We can also see tactics used by fundamentalist Darwinists to avoid questioning evolution and to shun evidence that is not on their approved reading list.

Scientific findings come and go (as do creation science models), but our ultimate authority is God, who has explained himself in the Bible. He makes the rules, and we are the radicals because we emphasize the foundations of the faith. We believe in science when it is not filtered through materialistic presuppositions and is interpreted properly. Indeed, to be a biblical Christian is radical and brings opposition. We must focus on the Word and stay close to God.



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

Thursday, February 11, 2021

Cave Paintings and Evolutionary Timelines

As we are coming up on the tenth annual Question Evolution Day, we can hope that some believers in atoms-to anthropologist evolution may begin to realize that the narrative has problems. Consider the news about older cave art than previously known.

Once again, observed fact do not fit the evolutionary narrative. Ancient cave wall paintings and the timeline go against what we know of human nature.
Credits: Unsplash / Max Saeling, modified with PhotoFunia

Out Indonesia way is the island of Sulawesi. Paintings of animals were found there, and secularists gave kinda-sorta-maybe dates that were older than the famous Chauvet (the Ardeche region of France) cave art. There are many facts to consider, and they should give a thinking evolutionist a passel of reasons to ask questions.

Tenth annual Question Evolution Day
According to evolutionary timelines and fact-free speculations, intelligence "emerged" eventually after we were done evolving from some apelike critters. Nobody knows when that allegedly happened, nor do they know about the "emergence" or self-awareness or artistic expression. Those scrawls from the Ice Age didn't help their belief system, either. For all these things, the timeline is off.

Human nature urges us to build things, be creative, and so on. Still getting the big picture? Another part to consider is that humanity came a long way in a short time, but for a whole whack of Darwin years our ancestors sat around watching bugs crawl? Not hardly! It has been pointed out before that humans were made in God's image, and were intelligent from the get-go. That's why observed facts don't fit the narrative.

After painting a pig on a cave wall, what did these artists do for five times all of recorded history?

The news media are all claiming that the oldest cave art of animals has been found – not in Africa, not in Europe, but in Indonesia, on an island. In a hard-to-reach cave on Sulawesi, an island off the coast of Borneo that is about as large as Florida, archaeologists found paintings of wild goats, pigs and hand prints of the artists. The researchers claim some of the paintings are at least 40,000 years old (older than the famous Chauvet cave art which is said to be 30,000 to 33,000 years old). The oldest one, a “hairy, warty pig,” is claimed to be 45,500 years old. See Live Science for pictures of the art, and BBC News for a video clip inside the cave, and comments about the “emergence” of art, which evolutionists interpret as a sign of evolving intelligence. The narrator says,

To learn about it, sail on over to "Cave Art Dates Contradict Human Nature".



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

Wednesday, February 10, 2021

When Evolutionists Use the Bible Against Creationists

Biblical creationists are accustomed to being called upon to defend their views when challenged by supporters of universal common descent. Unfortunately, some of these are theistic evolutionists. When these and misotheists saddle up to ride for the Darwin brand, they occasionally try to use Bible against us.

Misotheists and theistic evolutionists alike misrepresent the Bible and try to use it against creationists. They beclown themselves and are refuted.

Something I have learned and then stated many times is that when choosing to slap leather with an opponent, it is important to learn the other side's views (see "Debate Challenges" for more about this). If one misrepresents the other or does not do proper research, that person is beclowning himself. Atheists and evolutionists do this to biblical (young earth) creationists frequently, but humiliate themselves when facing knowledgeable opponents.

One owlhoot in particular, Michael Jones, got his ownself a YouTube channel, and people wanted his challenges to creationists answered. Like other deniers of the truthfulness and authority of the Bible, he misrepresents it. Also, he does not seem to understand his own sources for his arguments. Jones also has something common with many atheists today: the belief that somehow they are the geniuses to come up with something that hasn't been thought of by others who have tried to discredit God's Word over the centuries. Jones really shoots himself in the foot.

Can young-earth creationism be debunked just by a careful reading of Scripture? This is the claim made by popular YouTube apologist, Michael Jones, in a video posted to his Inspiring Philosophy channel on 11 December 2020. Numerous correspondents have asked CMI to respond to this video, titled, “TOP TEN Biblical Problems for Young Earth Creationism.” Jones is a theistic evolutionist, but does not try to refute CMI’s stance in this case by appealing to scientific evidence that allegedly proves evolution or deep time. Instead, he maintains:

To read the rest, head on over to "Top Ten Biblical Problems for Young Earth Creationism— Answered".



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

Tuesday, February 9, 2021

Brain Development and Faulty Evolutionary Logic

There is a formal logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. If one condition is shown to be true, then what follows is also true: If it is raining, the grass will be wet. The grass is wet. Therefore, it is raining.

Evolutionists examined brain folds in baby humans and mice. Using bad logic, they determined that it can help them understand evolution.
Credit: yodiyim at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
If you noticed in the example, affirming the consequent also leaves out other possibilities such as neighbor kids having a water balloon fight, someone left on the sprinklers, and so on. One more: If it is snowing, it is cold outside. It is cold outside. Therefore, it is snowing.

The above error in reasoning was applied in a study of the development of the brains in mice and human babies. Human brains are all wrinkly. Actually, those are folds called convolutions. These give the brain more space in which to perform complex thinking, and critters have less of this folding or none at all. It was discovered that a specific gene that affects this folding is common to both humans and mice.

Purveyors of evoporn presupposed evolution, then saw commonality between us and mice. By studying mouse and human brain development, they can learn about evolution. I reckon that they are affirming the consequent. In the example regarding wet grass and rain, other possibilities to explain the wetness were not considered. Commonality of traits, genes, and so on are not evidence for evolution; they can just as easily be explained by the Master Engineer using similar traits in different organisms.

Human brains have the space to accommodate and process a great deal more information than the brains of animals because of the myriads of folds—called convolutions or gyrations — that increase the surface area of the cerebral cortex. The cerebral cortex is the part of the brain responsible for cognitive functions, and experts believe the marked folding of the human cerebral cortex is what makes complex thinking possible. The brain is also folded in some mammalian animals but to a lesser degree than in humans. A study published in Cell reports that a protein produced in both mice and humans influences this process of gyrification (folding). Researchers believe their discovery could help explain the evolution of the human brain.

You won't strain your brain by reading the rest of this short article over at "Brain Convolutions in Mice and Men". Also for your consideration, "The Human Brain Testifies of Creation".



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

Labels