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

Showing posts with label Fraud. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fraud. Show all posts

Friday, March 9, 2018

The Peppered Moth and Evolutionary Fake News

On the plus side, Darwin bots can get away with bad science, dishonesty, and outright fraud for decades. However, the down side is that the embarrassing truth is often discovered. Those of us who appreciate truth in science (and science reporting) do not cotton to being deceived for the sake of getting us to believe in evolution.

Peppered moth evolution was never real, and has been further shown to be fake news
Light and dark varieties of peppered moths
Credit: both from Wikimedia Commons / Olaf Leillinger (link to top is here, link to bottom is here)
One of the oldest "proofs" of evolution is the peppered moth. Essentially, the dark version supposedly alighted on soot-covered trees in England and were left alone while the light version was victuals for birds. The population of the lighter critters decreased. "Aha! Evolution! Hail Darwin, blessed be!" Actually, no. Most of the story was fake news.

Actually, it may have been an example of natural selection (a concept that creationists also accept), but they were still moths. Nothing changed into something else. I get to cognating that people are very gullible when it comes to what "scientists say", whether real ones or failed television comedians. Basic observation should tell practically anyone that there were no significant changes. Asking questions about research to back the assertions would have been helpful, whether street waif or scientist, and anyone in between.

On a similar note, Dr. James White says that we must "demythologize scholarship". Just because someone has a bunch of letters after their name does not mean you cannot challenge their presuppositional errors.  

A more recent genetic study confirms that there was no evolution. Yippie ky yay, secularists! Moths were created to be moths, and not to turn into something completely different.
Back in 2003, ICR founder Dr. Henry Morris explained a few ways evolutionists themselves criticized the use of the peppered moth as an example of evolutionary beliefs. New genetic research validates those criticisms.
The moth earned fame as a key player in a classic evolutionary story in the late 19th century. In England, a population of peppered moths supposedly shifted their coloring from mostly white to mostly black after soot from the industrial revolution darkened their tree-trunk homes. According to the tale, bird predators had a difficult time seeing the now-camouflaged dark moths, so those moths began to thrive.
That story helped rescue Darwin's conception of natural selection from a round of early 20th century criticisms, such as a lack of supporting field evidence.
To read the rest of this rather short article, click on "Peppered Moth Still Not Evolving".

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

Monday, January 8, 2018

Telling Evolutionary Whale Tales

One of the strangest Just-So Stories told by Darwin's true believers is that of whale evolution. It was bad enough telling us that rain washed minerals from primordial rocks, life originated, then evolved in the sea, moved to land, and here we are. It becomes more absurd when some critter took the notion that life on land isn't such fun after all and went back to evolving for sea life. That is where whales and their relatives came from. Not hardly! You get tales of whale evolution, but they have no actual scientific or logical basis.

Secularists cannot provide a plausible scientific model for whale evolution
Credit: Freeimages / Kym Parry
I'll allow that I oversimplified the evolution story, but we've got things to do, and you get their version of it easily enough. For example, you can go to the museum of Darwinist indoctrination — I mean, natural history — and see the exhibits. Of course, they won't tell you about fraudulent exhibits (see "Faking the Fossil Whales"), nor the duplicity of atheopaths in protecting evolutionism from scrutiny and their admirers (see "Faking the Fossil Whales — Revisited"). The airbrushed version of whale evolution leaves out a prairie schooner full of very important considerations, which if included, might cause people to question evolution and realize that life was created by the Master Engineer. Secularists can't allow that, no siree!


I have a couple of items by Brett Miller for your consideration. First:
How would you identify a whale as a whale? Evolutionists think that a small land dwelling creature called pakicetus was a whale. The question is, what is it about the pakicetus that makes them call it a whale? If you saw a pakicetus in a line up with a blue whale, a humpback whale and a dolphin you’d laugh at how simple it was to dismiss it from the group. But Evolutionists insist that it’s a whale.
To read the rest (be sure to come back for the next item), click on "Walking the Whale".

Second, and even more startling:
While studying whale evolution and looking at what type of evidence is presented, I found that no macro evolutionary evidence was presented from a biological process for several critical integrated biological systems. The evidence was mainly from homology and fossil placement and it assumed undocumented and unexamined biological changes throughout millions of years. Evolution was given credit, without scientific analysis of biological processes. Of course, this is typical of evolutionary science.
No mutational evidence was presented, but many things could be attributed to genetic malfunction rather than genetic innovation. For instance: hind legs and pelvis withering away or the esophagus and trachea failing to join together in the embryo stage, or in skull development, or fin development being a mutated outgrowth of blood vessels. The critical timing of these changes to make them work together was not addressed. Most evolutionists must therefore believe by faith, that through fortunate mutations, they arose when they were needed. But whales are not malfunctioning land mammals. How could the biological process of mutation account for the innovative features in whales?
I hope you take the time to read the rest of this thought-provoking article. Just click on "Whales Evolved Not".

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

Thursday, January 19, 2017

The Science Industry Supports Abortion

Regular readers know that I keep emphasizing that scientists are not the dispassionate automatons that many people think. They are not running around, gathering facts, then following where the evidence leads. Rather, they are human, having their preconceptions as well as good and bad character traits. It's been more obvious lately (or has the trend increased?) that the secular science industry has a definite leftist penchant (see references 7,8,9 at this link). It gets worse.

The science industry has serious problems with its moral compass, and is becoming increasingly activistic for abortion.
Image credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
The scientific establishment also has some intrinsic moral problems, and needs to borrow a moral compass. Moral concerns of scientists would definitely be improved by biblical Christianity, especially since left-learning science institutions are increasingly activistic for the murder of unborn humans in the womb. If you study on it a spell, you'll see it's not all that surprising, since they deny God the Creator (therefore, denying that we are created in God's image), and try to make evolution a creator. It also follows that evolution has been used to justify abortion on demand, with "It's just a tissues", or, "It's in a fish stage of recapitulation", which was based on the fraud of Haeckel the jackal.

Is the feeling of justification by science part of the reason that pro-abortionists make their view a "rights" cause? My speculation is that science feeds society which feeds science in areas like this. Lena Dunham regrets never having had an abortion, which would apparently give her more credibility in her support of murder of a child that was created in God's image. 

Is the ending of human life trendy? Maybe we'll see combination hair, tattoo, and abortion salons soon. Albert Mohler has some insightful comments on this in his January 9, 2017 episode of The Briefing (you can listen or read the transcript). Further, Dr. Mohler discussed how religious people, including ultra-liberal "Christians", Hindus, and others, blessed an abortion clinic as "sacred. See or hear the January 12, 2017 episode of The Briefing for more about this immoral behavior.

Society is trending toward such casual treatment of human life, and the immoral views of the science industry fit right in. Meanwhile, there are still those of us who believe that defending the defenseless are some of the hallmarks of a just society

Further, the hysterical asperity spewed forth in a Nature editorial rivals that of cyberstalkers. They are demonizing those of us who believe that unborn lives should be protected, wanting access to baby parts in the name of "science". Secular scientists are objective? That'll be the day!
Is there any logical or empirical reason why science journals and secular reporters should always take the pro-abortion position?

Pardon, Big Science, your bias is showing. When it comes to abortion and other ethical controversies, secular journals and science editors almost always throw in their lot with the leftist, progressive, liberal crowd who chant for abortion on demand, unlimited access to embryonic stem cells, funding for Planned Parenthood, and other Democrat Party platform positions. Why is that? Don’t they realize they themselves could have been aborted? Do they have any scientific evidence that an unborn baby is not a person? No. The bias is clear; any restrictions on abortion are viewed as bad. Any limits on access to human embryos and fetal tissue are presented as a step “backward” for society. Here are some examples.
To see the examples and commentary, click on "Big Science Leans Pro-Death".

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

Saturday, December 17, 2016

Resource — Lucy the Ape Continues to Fall

I wasn't going to post about "Lucy" again so soon, but more information has come in and this will be a link-loaded resource, including articles and a new video.

The hands at the Darwin Ranch have been mighty glum lately. News about the alleged transitional form known as Lucy have been going from bad to worse, and it's not only because of biblical creationists. That's right, even evolutionists are admitting that Lucy's status upright-walking link is poor. Some of Darwin's Cheerleaders will deny the evidence (preferring outdated material and uninformed opinions to credible evidence). Do they know that one of the bones assigned to the creature was actually from a baboon?

A new article, new video, other links to show that Lucy was not our evolutionary ancestor.
Modified from a public domain image at Wikimedia Commons
First, an article. Further studies show that this extinct ape was swinging from the trees, but they still cling to their story and say that maybe perhaps somehow she spent part of the time on the ground. Pretty desperate to promote lack of evidence as science in order to deny the fact that we were created, and not the product of random chance evolution, isn't it? To read the report from Creation-Evolution Headlines, click on "Lucy Lived in the Trees".

Next, we have a new video ("webinar") from Genesis Apologetics, the people that brought us the "Debunking Evolution" material. The first part establishes that this is a biblical creation science organization, and gives some other creation science information that people who are not so familiar with the origins controversy may appreciate. Later, Lucy gets the treatment — mostly from evolutionists. One of my favorite video scenes is included, where a cast of the bones are modified to fit together the way they're "supposed" to be! Again, we see that scientists have presuppositions, and sometimes those cause them to tamper with the data. To see "Lucy's Fall from Science", click here and select the last of the four videos.

Here are some other articles to help you put the ape back in the trees:
Yippie ky yay, secularists!

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

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Still Using Haeckel's Drawings to Lie for Evolution

A proponent of Darwinian evolution was Ernst Haeckel, and he was so het up about proving evolution, he made some drawings about it. Ever heard of "ontology recapitulates phylogeny"? That's the fantasy that an embryo goes through the various stages of evolutionary history, and Ernie illustrated it. With fake drawings. The concept has been lassoed and hog-tied for a mighty long time.

Ernst Haeckel wanted to prove evolution, so he made up fake drawings to illustrate a false concept. Although long disproved, the drawings are still used to indoctrinate people today.

But "science" must prevail, even if dishonesty is necessary! So, even though government school indoctrinators and textbook writers know that Haeckel's material was proved to be fake, they use them anyway! Some people have tried to redeem him. I've even had people comment that it doesn't matter if they drawings are fake, what they show is true. Sure, Poindexter. I bet you believe in square circles, too. Can't let people know there's a Creator God, now, can we? Mayhaps they keep bringing this nonsense back is because they use it to support abortion.

There are superficial resemblances to gill slits, tails, and the like. Let's have an honest medical doctor explain.
“Generations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel.” Science magazine is referring to Haeckel’s sketches of diverse animal embryos first published in 1874 (Figure 1). They report that Haeckel fraudulently minimized major differences between animals at the earliest developmental stages. This fraud is peculiar because it is being “rediscovered” by new research. Remarkably, Science notes that some embryologists of Haeckel’s day had doubts about the drawing’s accuracy, and his peers actually got him to admit he used “artistic license.” Yet these drawings (or similar reproductions) have been incorporated into nearly every major biology textbook ever since. So, unlike Piltdown Man, Archaeoraptor, and other evolutionary frauds that only temporarily duped everyone, Haeckel’s blunder misleads to this day.

Thus, present biology students are still deceived by a complicated tangle of misleading ideas that clever evolutionists regularly attach to Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings.
To read the rest, click on "Major Evolutionary Blunders: Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination". You may also want to see "Haeckel, Fraud, Deceit and Evolutionary Education".


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

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Archaeoraptor and Learning from Mistakes

Proponents of particles-to-poultry evolution have an unpleasant habit of seeing things that they want to see — even though there's nothing there to see. We keep seeing announcements about some or other"discovery" supporting evolution, only to find out that evolutionists saddled up the wrong horse again. Funny how the retractions don't get nearly as much press as the original objects of excitement, isn't it?

Both the Piltdown Man and Archaeoraptor frauds that fooled scientists have something in common.
Modified Piltdown Gang by John Cooke (1915) with image from openclipart
The most notorious example of seeing what isn't there is probably the Piltdown Man fraud. That sidewinder fooled much of the scientific establishment for over forty years! Somewhat less famous was another fraud, Archaeoraptor. When this one was discovered, it was dubbed the "Piltdown Chicken". Something they have in common is that materialists were so intent on making the Creator irrelevant that they believed lies. (Perhaps they rush into believing nonsense because there's no real evidence to support their paradigm?) Here's a hint, fellas: follow the money and the glory, since you're giving neither to God.
Scientists still don’t know how the Archaeoraptor specimen was smuggled out of China and ended up in the United States. We do know that in 1998 Stephen Czerkas, curator of the Dinosaur Museum in Utah, purchased it for the tidy sum of $80,000. Czerkas labored with Xu Xing of China’s prestigious Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology and Phillip Currie to study the specimen. The National Geographic Society sponsored the project.

Archaeoraptor’s debut was accomplished with widespread publicity. National Geographic’s November 1999 press release used language remarkably similar to other fossil forgeries—such as the 1913 description of Piltdown Man and the 2009 description of Ida, a lemur-like animal thought to document human evolution. In the Archaeoraptor press release, Czerkas states, “It’s a missing link that has the advanced characters of birds and undeniable dinosaurian characters as well.”
To read the entire article in context, click on "Major Evolutionary Blunders: The Imaginary Archaeoraptor". For additional in-depth information, click on these two: "The Frauds Of Evolution #11: Frauds Of A Feather –“Feathered” Dinosaurs, Homology And The Archaeoraptor Hoax" as well as "The Frauds Of Evolution #12: Frauds Of A Feather — NationalGeographic’s Archaeoraptor Hoax Part 2".

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

Friday, August 19, 2016

The Mysticism of Peer Review?

Creationists frequently encounter atheopaths and other Darwinistas who make inane demands resembling, "Show me just one peer-reviewed creationist paper!" You can tell up front that they don't want answers, otherwise, they'd be doing their own research and finding out that yes, creationists are indeed published in noted journals. (I recently gave one tinhorn a link to "Creationist Scientists and Journal Publication", but he preferred to make childish attacks and refused to click on it. I reckon some people don't want answers.) Many folks expect that peer review is a guarantee of accuracy, and that something is established science if it undergoes peer review. Not hardly!

There are people who act like peer review is a guarantee of quality. Not only is secular peer review full of problems, but some are saying it should be eliminated. One scientist says it borders on mysticism.
Modified from an image at Clker clipart
Creationary scientists have their own peer review systems and seek to honor God as well as strive for excellence in the process. Although all scientists are human after all, secularists seem more prone to plagiarism, misconduct, fraud, bias, and other problems. Do we trust them to be ethical and have integrity? (Well, secular scientists are making chimeras with human embryos, that should give you a clue.) One scientist is adding his voice to the others who say that peer review is no good.
A reviewer of peer review says our reverence for the practice borders on mysticism, not science.

Drummond Rennie has had a lot of experience reviewing peer review. He has seen the seedy side: fraud, plagiarism, destroyed careers. In Nature, he calls to “make peer review scientific” — a startling appeal about a practice assumed to represent a hallmark of science.
To read the rest, click on "Peer Review Is Unscientific". 


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

Thursday, April 7, 2016

Chinese Fossils, Facts, and Fraud

Interesting that there's a whole heap of fossils in the Jehol Group (northeast China), and that seems to be the biggest source of alleged bird-to-dinosaur transitional forms. Lots of nice sedimentary rock to find things in, and then they commence to re-dating the layers when the fossils don't fit their paradigms.

Have you noticed that Darwinistas don't let the facts get in the way of a one-sided propaganda rant? Those owlhoots don't just cherry-pick the data, they move entire cherry trees of data! Re-dating, a flock of fake fossils (notably, Archaeoraptor), secular scientists who think the whole dino-to-bird thing is garbage, evidence that interferes with their own theories — yep, the future is bleak for evolutionists. So, they deal from the bottom of the deck so they can claim they have the winning hand. Ain't happening. Creation still wins.
In recent years the Jehol Group of China has provided evidence of catastrophic burial that contradicts current evolutionary hypotheses. Instead of adjusting the hypotheses to fit the new discoveries, evidence has been forced to fit the prevailing paradigm, sometimes through misleading interpretations and occasionally through apparent fraud. The subjective evidence of feathered dinosaurs is widely promoted by the science media. The Jehol Group was originally dated to the Jurassic. However, it has recently been assigned to the Early Cretaceous despite the known equivocal nature of the biostratigraphic evidence that contains dinosauria from the Triassic to the late Cretaceous.
To dig in deeper, read the rest of the article at "Chinese fossil layers and the uniformitarian re-dating of the Jehol Group". 

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

Saturday, January 30, 2016

Fraud and Evolution

When evolutionists commit fraud and do bad science, they're simply living up to their worldview. But we don't have to like it. Here are links to a series of four articles on the frauds of evolution.

The Evo Sith will argue from their worldview, we get that. Many are committed to naturalism, and reject any possibility that they are accountable to our Creator. Recent creation? Global Genesis Flood? Easier to teach a sidewinder to herd cats than to get many of these folks to even consider the possibilities.

When they rely on evolutionary thinking, it shouldn't come as a surprise that they hide cards and deal from the bottom of the deck to not only promote their own careers, but to convince people that their paradigm is pristine and proper. It's survival of the fittest, isn't it? We shouldn't be surprised at all the storytelling and outright bad science used in the promotion of evolutionism, nor should be be surprised when fraud is involved. (Many people say that Piltdown Man was a "hoax", but I insist it was a fraud, and fooled many people for about 40 years.) But aren't scientists above such unconscionable acts? Not hardly! They're sinful humans in need of the Redeemer, just like the rest of us.

Here is a series of four articles by Tom Shipley that are worth your attention.

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

Thursday, October 15, 2015

Penguin Eggs Put Evolutionary Thinking on Ice

A long, long, time ago, on a continent far, far away, a scientific expedition met its demise. In addition to trying to reach the South Pole, the Scott expedition wanted to prove Darwinian evolution by observing Haeckel's "law of recapitulation" in action with Emperor penguin eggs.

One purpose of the 1912 Scott expedition to the Antarctic was to observe Haeckel's "law of recapitulation" and support evolution. They saw that it was false.
Emperor Penguins / Photo credit: Dr. Paul Panganis, National Science Foundation
Looks like the telegraph lines were down, because they were apparently unaware that Haecke's embryo drawings were known to be faked. The "law of recapitulation" was never true. Still, the expedition found out for themselves that recapitulation doesn't work. That's because there is no particles-to-penguin evolution, the facts support creation.
During January–March 1912, Captain Robert Scott and four other optimistic members of the British Antarctic Terra Nova Expedition braved the bitter-cold summer weather of Antarctica’s Ross Ice Sheet, hoping to be the first to discover the South Pole. Another hope of his team’s quixotic quest was to acquire early-development-stage emperor penguin (Aptenodytes forsteri) eggs for marshaling scientific evidence trying to prove the so-called “law” of phylogenetic recapitulation, which holds that embryos reflect the stages of their evolutionary past as they develop. Many assumed this theory, championed by Ernst Haeckel and Charles Darwin, would provide the missing mechanism for justifying Darwin’s natural selection theory.

It was Captain Scott’s second—and last—expedition to Antarctica. One survivor, Apsley Cherry-Garrard, called it “the worst journey in the world.”
To read the rest, click on "Penguin Eggs to Die For".


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

Saturday, August 8, 2015

Human Evolution Still Lacks Evidence

There are people who insist that bacteria-to-blogger evolution is a fact. Most are deceived by the word games of evolutionists, redefining small changes as evolution when they're nothing of the sort. In addition, sloppy science practices lead to improper allegations of "proof" of evolution, and scientists themselves are often so locked into their worldviews that they are susceptible to fraud.

Despite the claims of proponents of evolution, there is no evidence that humans evolved. There is a great deal of bad science and even fraud in that area, however.
"Piltdown Gang" by John Cooke, 1915 / Public Domain / modified
One of the greatest frauds (generously referred to as a "hoax") in evolutionary history was truly super. "Piltdown Man" fooled much of the scientific establishment from 1912 until 1953. "Nebraska Man" was foolishness where that character, his family, environment, and so on were constructed from a single tooth — and that tooth turned out to be that of a pig that was extinct in the area! These, and more "proofs" of human evolution can be found, with supporting links, at "Willingly Deceived by Evolution".

The fact is, there are no facts supporting evolution. Lots of assertions, but not evidence. Darwin expected evidence to turn up in the fossil record (which was an assertion of his faith), but it has never happened. But boy, do the Darwinistas insist that it happened anyway! I reckon they just don't want to admit that the trail they're riding leads to creation, not evolution.
But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. (Mark 10:6)
Most of us have been exposed to the illustration depicting the ascent of man from an apelike ancestor to a modern human. This concept has been taught to generations of young people as scientific fact and is now so integrated into Western culture that not only the vast majority of people but also the vast majority of scientists simply accept it as fact without bothering to investigate the actual observational evidence that supports or refutes it.

In the early 19th century the opposite was true—i.e., most people believed that God created man and woman on the sixth day of creation. So what happened in the last century and a half to change that? Charles Darwin published his landmark book The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859. The secular humanists, who were searching for a hypothesis of human origins that eliminated the need for God, seized the opportunity and quickly integrated the evolutionary principle into their philosophical foundation. They proceeded to identify their philosophy with science itself and systematically persuaded several generations to believe that macroevolution, naturalism, and uniformitarianism were all scientific facts.
To read the rest, click on "No Bones About It! There's No Evidence Humans Evolved".

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

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Putting a Spin on Dinosaur Feathers

Many evolutionists are so precommitted to their worldview that they state opinions as facts. This is happening with scientists and their eager press regarding an alleged "feathered velociraptor".

We expect Darwinists to argue from their worldviews, everyone does that. But when they commence to stating opinions based on their philosophical precommitments as scientific facts, that's over the line. Many evolutionists insist that dinosaurs evolved into birds despite contrary scientific evidence. Their rampant speculations have caused them a heapin' helpin' of trouble several times in the past (such as Archaeoraptor, the fraud from Liaoning, China). They're setting themselves up for another possible fall again.

A good fossil that they called Zhenyuanlong has been found, so scientists and their sensationalistic press are stampeding to make wild-eyed claims of a feathered velociraptor. There are several problems with the scenario, including the fact that it came from fossil Souvenir Central in (wait for it) Liaoning, China. Lots of fake fossils come from China. The origins of this one are suspicious, and scientists are not in unison that it's a feathered dinosaur, it may (if the thing is real in the first place) be just a flightless bird. These people really need to learn both humility and restraint, since those qualities fit true scientific investigation.
Discoverers admit this could be a flightless bird. That’s not the only problem.

A near-complete skeleton of a “feathered dinosaur,” dubbed Zhenyuanlong, has been announced from China’s Liaoning province. The open-access scientific paper by Junchang Lu and Steven Brusatte appears in Nature’s journal Scientific Reports. Once again, it was donated by “a local farmer, who is not willing to reveal his identity.” The five-foot-long creature has modern-looking feather impressions on its body, arms and tail, but its arms are too short, the authors say, to have allowed it to fly. A Chinese artist’s painting of a toothed creature running through a forest with a variety of multicolored feathers was quickly reproduced by the news media.
To read the rest, click on "Feathered Velociraptor? Untangling the Spin".

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

Saturday, July 4, 2015

Faking the Fossil Whales — Revisited

Back on May 6, 2014, I posted about "Faking the Fossil Whales". The subject was how Dr. Carl Werner documented altered whale fossils that were sold to museums, and the admission to altering was made in a video. Naturally, this generated heat from some owlhoots who were protecting their religion of evolutionism. After all, whale evolution is supposedly well documented — if you call storytelling from bits and pieces "documentation". I was attacked, Dr. Werner and radio show host Bob Enyart were impugned as well; it's a mite irritating to be called a liar by liars in the course of their lying.

Whale evolution stories are in further trouble. Not only is the evidence against them, but faking fossils only hurts the cause of evolutionism.
Rodhocetus skull at University of Michigan Museum of Natural History / Wikimedia Commons / ellenm1
Some tinhorn came out of the gate with libelous accusations, and claimed that he had corresponded with Phil Gingerich, one of the people Dr. Werner interviewed on his video. Gingerich allegedly wrote in part, "I have been criticized for speculating that Rodhocetus may have had a fluked tail when I didn't have the whole tail, but this was clearly identified as speculation or expectation and not known fact. Subsequent discovery of Maiacetus shows definitively that Maiacetus lacked a tail fluke and contemporary whales like Rodhocetus at this early stage probably lacked a tail fluke too." So it's all a misunderstanding? I reckon not! If Gingerich was misrepresented in a video, he's had over a year to take action and set the record straight. More interesting to me is that this jasper used an image of photographer Jonathan Daniel Pryce for his profile photo. We're defamed by someone using a fake profile picture, and hearsay "evidence". Ain't buyin' it, Benjie. Dr. Werner wrote to me and said that the videos are so straightforward, it's hard to misrepresent those guys. Interesting how some sidewinders will go haywire, taking the word of some stranger because what he says fits their presuppositions, instead of dealing with the documented evidence in front of them. But Darwin's Drones do that kind of stuff.

Now for the best part: the saga continues! Same show, four parts to the interview. Whale evolution speculation is in serious trouble with increasing evidence against it and with tampering. You can listen to or download each episode free (listed below, under the graphic), but don't forget to check the abundance of whale-evolution-refuting material as well. Yippie ky yay, secularists! Declare your independence today from the tyranny of evolutionism, get your freedom by accepting the truth that the Creator has given in his Word!

Dr. Carl Werner, Bob Enyart, Whale Fossils, evolution, Real Science Radio


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

Saturday, March 7, 2015

Agenda-Driven Peer Review Forensic Science

Unlike operational science that we use every day, spores-to-special-agents evolution is forensic (historical) science. Crime scene investigation attempts to reconstruct the past by finding evidence, interviewing witnesses, and so on so they can have present it in court. Evolution speculates about the distant past with no witnesses and very little evidence. For that matter, creation science is also forensic in nature, but has the foundation in the Bible, not in naturalism like most evolutionists use.

Peer review is an ostensibly good process, but goes bad when human avarice is involved.
Image Credit: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Peer review is a process where papers are submitted and, like the name says, reviewed by peers. Creationists have peer review along with their secular counterparts. However, secular peer review is loaded problems, including recalled papers, bias, bad science, and even fraud. The biggest problem seems to be that secular peer review is driven by agendas. An ostensibly good process can put a burr under everyone's saddle when human avarice gets involved. The following article shows a different example, but still pertinent, to problems with peer review.
In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, a house stood in ruins. What destroyed it? Did Sandy “total” it, or was it structurally defective well before the storm struck? Surely forensic science can help answer such questions, since it is supposed to be an objective process that seeks out and finds the truth about past events—and specifically cause-and-effect events. But even forensic science can be frustrated when selective biases or subjective agendas corrupt the analysis of the facts.

Hurricane Sandy, the largest Atlantic hurricane in U.S. history, wreaked havoc in October 2012. Scores suffered the complete destruction of their homes, and hundreds of others filed flood insurance claims.
You can read the rest by clicking on "Forensic Science Frustrated by 'Peer Review'".

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

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Makes a Compelling Case

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

In yesterday's post, points were made that atheists and evolutionists blatantly misrepresent the biblical creationist position in their efforts to control education. They present evolution as indisputable scientific truth. One of the main problems with this is that people will simply accept such statements as accurate, and then expect creationists to defend positions that we do not hold.

Educators present only the good side of evolution, often including (sometimes from ignorance) outdated and inaccurate information from textbooks. Indeed, some textbooks also contain fraudulent material. Creation science and Intelligent Design materials are actively suppressed, and evolution is sometimes required to be presented with no contrary information. Add this indoctrination to the additional problems that people tend to "think" with their emotions, and that students are not taught to think critically. Then we have Darwinoid Drones arguing with creationists using bad information and worse logic, not even knowing what creationists teach!

There are many testimonies of people who did not know anything about creation science, and when they investigated the information for themselves, they realized that they had been misled. (Of course, there are others who will read creationist material and chant their mantra, "Creationists are liars", so there is little hope for their minds.) The majority seems to have little chance of learning or thinking, since they get the material presented in the biased evolutionary way.

I remember an old cartoon.

A big dumb hound dog that is hunting a fox so he can cut its tail off, so Bugs Bunny puts on a fox costume. Later, he's using an ink pad and rubber stamp to make fox tracks. We see the dog sniffing along and comes across the stamped tracks. He says, "Fox tracks!" and follows them, sniffing along. 
Suddenly the fox tracks stop and train tracks begin. The hound says, "Train tracks!", sniffing along again. He finds Bugs in the fox costume leaning against the entrance to a train tunnel, grabs and shakes him. "Daaaah, now I gotcha, ya little old fox! I'm gonna cut your tail off!" 
Bugs slaps the hound's hands away from him. "Just a minute there, Bub! Just what type o' tracks was you followin'? 
"Uh...uh...uh...train tracks!" 
"Now then. If yer followin' train tracks, you must be trying to catch a train. Right?" 
"Yahyuh, yahyuh, dat makes good sense!" 
"Then if it's a train you're after, he went thataway!", pointing into the tunnel. 
"He did?", the dog says. Then he shakes Bugs' hand. "Gee, thanks a lot, pal, thanks a lot!" He "catches" the train and is extremely pleased with himself.
(If the embed works below, you can see this cartoon. The bit I'm quoting starts at the four minute mark.)

My point with this fun stuff is that people will learn "evolution", then go try to cut off the creationist's tail, use bad reasoning and then think they've done something spectacular. Learning only the evolutionists' skewed and false views will give them an unrealistic sense of accomplishment when they attack creationists.

Many of us have similar experiences when someone is given one side of a story by a biased presenter, then learns that there is more to the story after all. For instance, the cultist "creationist" that I wrote about was railing about me, and someone simply accepted the cultist's account without bothering to see my side of the story:

Translation: Yahyuh, yahyuh, dat makes good sense!

Evolution "education" is biased indoctrination. That's right, I said it! They suppress contrary evidence, misrepresent opponents and even present false information. (The logical conclusion of their evolutionary "we're all just bundles of chemicals that happened by chance anyway", so almost anything goes.) The rest of us will strive to present the truth (I'm doing so from behind my unregistered assault keyboard), hoping and praying that people will examine the evidence that we present and realize that the things that seemed to make sense about evolution do not withstand scrutiny. God is the Creator, the evidence supports this conclusion, he makes the rules, we are accountable. And that is something the Evo Sith fear.

Merrie Melodies - Foxy by Proxy (1952) by Cartoonzof2006

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

Monday, July 21, 2014

Finding Anti-Creation Facebook Fakers

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

EDIT: Please also read this related, more recent article, "Faker Alert for Facebook".

Enemies of creation science are not content to deal with the topics. Instead, they want to "protect" what they call "science" (which includes equivocating "science" with "evolution"), attempt to outlaw the its teaching in schools, misrepresentation, ridicule and other ways to silence us.

In addition, they use other nefarious tricks. Earlier today, I helped sound an alarm about fake Facebook accounts impersonating Creation Ministries International and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (which have since been removed after action from CMI). This is nothing new, since there are often warnings made about impersonations of Ken Ham, Eric Hovind, Ray Comfort and other Christians and creationists. (It happens to "regular" people and ministries as well as the "big names".) Atheists and evolutionists are not content to have anti-Christian and anti-creationist Pages, forums, sites, Weblogs and so on, but have to resort to fraud. "Good without God"? No, what they are doing is lying, and it is illegal as well. One atheopath criminal extends his evolutionary jihad to the Intelligent Design community as well; the comments at this link are very interesting. Edit: In my opinion, the many atheists and evolutionists who know about this stuff going on and do not raise objections are giving tacit approval.

This is written specifically about Facebook. I do not have knowledge about such things on Google Plus or other social media, but believe that Twitter is low risk.

"But Cowboy Bob, what's the harm in taking a friend request?"

Too many people are careless in that. Some "friends" can access your information and see your other friends. (My wife had a "friend" say that she had problems with her account, so she made a new one and sent new friend requests. Then my wife was spammed.) I recommend doing "friends only" for most posting, and not letting the public see who your friends are. Carelessly "friending up" people is one of the causes of identity theft.

How can we tell if someone is trying to fool us? While nothing is foolproof, there are some things to keep in mind. First, two graphics. The fake Creation Ministries International, followed by the real one:

Click for larger. Older style Page format, not an indicator of deception, though.

Click for larger. Newer style Page format, not a guarantee that it's genuine, though.
Here are some things I found in my explorations of fake Pages and troll accounts:
  • The Page is fairly recent; CMI shows several years in its Page's history
  • Check the number of "Likes", as fake Pages are usually pretty low in Likes; CMI has over 36,000
  • Page activity may be sparse or have several posts loaded up within a short time, but the time stamp can indicate when things were posted
  • Sometimes fake Pages and those pretending to be real people have spelling errors (for instance, Jonathan Sarfati may be written as Sarfatti)
  • Content that is inconsistent with what you would expect from the real Page
  • Criminal impersonation of personal timelines are often very new, with little history
  • Check for mutual friends, there may be few or none at all
  • Trust your instincts, especially if you've been around Facebook for a while
While there is probably very little harm in liking a Page, it gives them attention and publicity through your own timeline. Making friends with fakers is very risky, as I described above.

"What if I turn down a friend request or do not like a real Page?"

If it's a real friend, he or she may respect your caution and is unlikely to dislike you for not responding in a hurry (some "friend"), so take your time. If the Page is legitimate, you can probably check it out later. I've long maintained that haste is one of Satan's tools. Even if you don't believe that Satan exists, you can accept the principle that rushing into things without due consideration can be disastrous. The more important the issue (including money you have to spend), the more important it is to take your time. Free bonus helpful hint from Cowboy Bob.

What this all comes down to is to be cautious, take your time, check for indicators like those mentioned above. These atheopaths do not respect you, your beliefs, God, the Bible or the law. 

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