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 sorted by relevance for query haywire. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query haywire. Sort by date Show all posts

Friday, December 5, 2014

Letters to a Mocker: Response to Scientism, Part 1

This is a different kind of article, mostly written by someone else. His material appears further down the track. The was originally sparked by Haywire the Stalker, a militant anti-creationist who insists on spamming people who do not have any interest in hearing from him, as well as mailing other anti-creationists who are predisposed to agree with him. My friend asked to be removed from the spam list, and there was additional correspondence. He gave me permission to use his material, but I am not using the Haywire letters to which he is responding. They are unnecessary, tedious — and I didn't ask permission (even though he is willing to post the contents of correspondence without permission, which may be illegal).

Many anti-creationists like Haywire believe themselves to be brilliant, yet their material is full of emotional language, ad hominems, straw men, repeated assertions (he "proved" I am an "unrepentant liar for God" because he said so over and over, for instance), lack of science comprehension, double standards, circular reasoning, and many other misuses of logic. Also, it's amazing that these owlhoots want to call someone "evil". Okay, so what if we were? Why can't we act like atheists? After all, they have no foundation for morality. They have no basis for calling anyone evil! Atheism is incoherent, lacking the necessary preconditions of intelligibility. In addition, the religion of evolution has the same failings as atheism. Biblical Christianity has the necessary preconditions of human experience.

The way many anti-creationists "refute" the evidence and reason we present is to simply say, "That's not true", and then paste evolutionary propaganda links. Then the scoundrels claim to have dealt with whatever item was under discussion. Ironically, they often cite outdated or even erroneous material that knowledgeable creationists can refute. When they get obnoxious, many get banned from sites, forums, groups, and so on. Then they resort to childish tantrums like, "I regularly expose their lies and evasiveness", "they can't handle logic", "afraid of the truth" and other jaw-droppingly bad assertions.

Seriously, who could resist having dialogue with someone so logical and gracious? Click for larger.
In addition, Haywire is like so many others (such as Bill Nye the Evolution Propaganda Guy) who disingenuously equivocate "evolution" with "science", but deny that they make logical fallacies. Whether they are hopelessly deceived, unable to discern between historical and operational science, maybe something else, I can only speculate.

Those people loathe presuppositionalists. I reckon it's because we not only presuppose the truth of the Bible, but most of us won't compromise on it — God means what he says. The irony is that atheists and evolutionists are hardcore presuppositionalists themselves, what with most of them being materialists and all. For them, they assume that our beliefs are wrong, and reject them out of hand, often with mockery. But they can't justify their own belief systems and worldviews, nor can they account for knowledge — or even the laws of logic, which they torture mercilessly through misrepresentation, ad hominem attacks, false dilemmas, unsubstantiated assertions, circular reasoning, presupposing evolution is true, and other logical fallacies. They "know" we are wrong, mainly because they said so. And yet, they believe in things that are unobserved, unobservable, untestable, unrepeatable and so on. Both atheism and evolution are arbitrary, irrational and self-refuting.



Atheists, evolutionists and other anti-creationists are so wrapped up in their presuppositions that evidence threatening to their worldviews is viciously attacked; they cannot accept the fact that evolution is a subjective belief system that tries to use scientific methods about what is observed in the present, then speculates backward to explain the past. These people also display their inability to understand science, and don't seem to give a hoot that assertions are nothing without support.



The challenges below not only apply to Haywire the Stalker, but to many other anti-creationists as well, since the bad thinking is common among them. I have edited the material by removing items that were specific to the issues at hand (though they were sparked by an article from Creation Ministries International), having left intact principles that people like this need to address — but are disinclined to do so. Also, I edited some wording. Bold text is in the original.

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen
You have stated that my repeated claim that distant past events are "unobservable" are "meaningless mantras about the 'unobserved' past". This bizarre statement pretty much sums up why Sorensen and creationist scientists cannot take you seriously.

In order to prove it is "meaningless" I request that you provide me and others with "the" testable and "verifiable" scientific method you use to empirically observe "unobserved" past historical events. Thus we can all repeat your experimental method and make the very same observations for ourselves.

Just like you, Dawkins also claims he can observe unobserved past events. So, maybe you could check with "Dawk" to find out exactly what testable and verifiable experimental scientific method he uses to "observe the unobserved", More important, ask Dawk if he has taken any pictures of these observed unobserved historical events that he and you can share with us.

If you do provide us with direct observations of unobserved past events we need never again rely on purely SUBJECTIVE opinion based evolutionary presuppositions, assumptions, inferences, contrived 'explanations, conjecture, and purse speculation as to what supposedly happened in the unobserved past. No! We will all have real "experimental" science and "direct observational" evidence go by — I wait with bated breath!
This is you big moment of truth. Let's us all see what real  testable and verifiable empirical science you "actually have" to substantiate that you can observe unobserved past events.  Along with testable and repeatable scientific evidence to substantiate each and every stage of the "hypothetical" evolutionary continuum. As we all need to see that evolution is "in fact" based on experimental and observable science. And is NOT based on mere subjective OPINIONS as to what SUPPOSEDLY happened in the distant past. So, give us testable and verifiable science for the origin of the universe, the DNA double helix, complex genetic coding, life, consciousness, and every other essential stage of the evolutionary continuum. We want to see what testable and verifiable science you actually have to substantiate all these "evolution did it" subjective assertions and assumptions.

Here's the rub! If you fail to do this, it will be reasonable to continue to conclude that you're nothing but "hot air", and that your hypothetical evolutionary worldview is founded on a huge number of "vastly improbable" undirected chance events for which there is "no known observable or verifiable scientific answer".  Of course, this blind faith hypothetical evolutionary premise actually turns out to be the definition for "magic and miracles".  Namely, "vastly improbable" events for which there is no verifiable scientific answer. You also need to know that another name for this godless "metaphysical" evolutionary premise is SCIENTISM.

I am well aware that you are among those who have an absolute "blind faith" commitment to evolution and scientism. And that no evidence against evolution would ever persuade  you otherwise. As such, all evidence presented on creation.com is thus rejected from the outset. This blind faith commitment to evolution and scientism is why you repeatedly make bizarre claims you cannot possibly justify, and therefore regularly trip yourself up. Meaning, you have yet to discover that your feet are planted firmly in midair. Thus, my suggestion is that you broaden your perspective beyond the "unproven" narrow atheistic framework of "metaphysical" naturalism and scientism. Get a copy of the new CMI DVD titled: "Evolution's Achilles' Heels". I brought 30 copies a week ago and they went like hot cakes, with people waiting for delivery of the next batch.
My friend received another response. (Naturally, since Haywire is verbose, and everyone is entitled to receive his opinion, whether they want it or not.) But since this is rather long, click here for the conclusion.






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

Saturday, December 6, 2014

Letters to a Mocker: Response to Scientism, Part 2


This is the promised conclusion of the last article (I urge you to read Part 1, here). To recap, I was included in some replies to spamming rants by Haywire the Stalker, and received permission to show his responses. Last time, I made some introductory comments and presented the first part of his responses. I have edited both of them a little, but the substance is intact. Note that Haywire is typical of his ilk, dodging the important matters and attacking the person.

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen


Your response affirms my statements, including the fact that no one can "observe" the unobserved past events. Thus,this is not "meaningless mantras" but a repeated statement of scientific "fact". 

I further note that you have addressed none of issues I raised, and provided NO "testable" and verifiable "experimental" science to substantiate any of the necessary stages of the "hypothetical" evolutionary continuum. Nor have you provided any "directly observable" scientific evidence for your godless religious beliefs. So, it is you, and not Bob or any other creationist, who mischievously engages in disinformation and attempts avoid providing science to substantiate your assertions.

As such, I could well conclude that you mislead others by misrepresenting and embellishing the facts. You mistakenly, or knowingly, promote a evolutionary theory as science when you have no real testable and verifiable science to support ANY aspect of your hypothetical "historical" theory.

You misrepresent and embellish the facts by mistakenly, promoting godless "metaphysical" religious beliefs as science. So I remind you that many scientists, including the Nobel Committee, have openly acknowledged that evolution is a "hypothetical" historical theory that has nothing to do with "experimental" or "observational" science. Principally because verifiable "empirical" science and the scientific method plays no part in the evolutionary historical framework.And, moreover, has no place in the "metaphysical" religious beliefs on which evolutionary theory is founded. Namely, that of "metaphysical" naturalism and godless materialism, better known as Scientism.

As such, there is no empirical science available to "learn a fair amount about the unobserved recent or distant past from the evidence that past natural events leave behind". And no testable, verifiable science to support your godless evolutionary worldview.  Meaning, evolutionary theory is nothing more than a historical theory founded entirely on SUBJECTIVE opinions and interpretations of unobserved past events — all of which operate on unverifiable godless presuppositions, assumptions, inferences, invented 'explanations', contrived interpretations, conjecture, and sheer speculation as to what SUPPOSEDLY happened in the unobserved past. None of these can be substantiated by the scientific method or real testable empirical science.

If you can prove otherwise provide me with the testable and verifiable science that I have asked for, and never got.

You falsely state, "Science can highlight with confidence that certain things happened and eg date rocks that are associated with certain fossils including animals or plants that are now extinct. It can also rule proposed past events out due to the necessary evidence not being found anywhere."  

Yet again misrepresent and embellish the facts, by"deliberately blinding yourself" to the reality that "testable" or "verifiable" empirical science plays no role in this subjective "opinion" based hypothetical evolutionary framework. So yet again I must remind you that all evolutionary "historical theories" about the unobserved past all involve SUBJECTIVE opinions and interpretations which operate on unproven godless presuppositions, assumptions, inferences, invented 'explanations', contrived interpretations, conjecture, and sheer speculation as to what SUPPOSEDLY happened in the unobserved past. None of which can be substantiated by the scientific method or real testable empirical science, and thus have no experimental or observational basis. This is also true of the many assumptions underlying dating methods.

In reality there is that there is no instrument know to science that "directly" measures the age of any historical relic. Thus,  every method used by science to measure age involves "untestable" and "unverifiable" assumptions and inferences, without exception.

He asks, "Why don't you address the evasiveness of Jonathan Sarfati?" [Note the loaded question, he said "evasiveness", which is not proven. -CBB] 

I have already addressed this issue but you again failed to notice. I plainly stated that "no scientist" was there to observe what actually happened, nor were you. As such, it all comes down to untestable and unverifiable "opinion" as to how it happened. 

Your rambling and garbled statements reek of  misrepresentation, misinformation and embellishment. Again I have yet to see any testable and verifiable scientific evidence to substantiate your many assumptions.

Then you glibly state "That Achilles Heel promotion video is also stuffed full of lies and half-truths. I could elaborate."

Please do elaborate. But when you elaborate we expect you to provide "testable" and verifiable science, not your usual assumption-based opinions. I have already asked you to provide this and you have failed to do so. In this regard you state, "You ask for perfect knowledge of the past from your opponents - and then want to crow "I win" when they admit they cannot provide it. As indeed I cannot - and have never claimed."

I have never asked for perfect knowledge, only testable and verifiable science to substantiate the multiple stages of the evolutionary continuum. Which you repeatedly claim is based on science. However, you now openly admit you have not provided real experimental or observational science because you cannot.  Thus you have again "tripped yourself up" by making claims you cannot substantiate. Thus again substantiating that your claims are purely 'subjective' and just 'hot air'.

Your misguided attempt to falsely equate evolution with "eyewitness testimony" also warrants comment. As someone who has been to Law School and studied criminal law, I can tell you that "Eyewitness testimonies" of past events are based on actual "observations" by witnesses of these past events. They are records of what people observed, not what SUPPOSEDLY happened in regard to unobserved past events. Archaeologists and historians likewise observe recorded inscriptions and messages left by observers and people of that time. None of this can be equated with evolutionary theory. Fossils and all other such relics from the unobserved past have "labels" describing what actually happened. As such, scientists operate on presuppositional "assumptions" as to what SUPPOSEDLY happened in the unobserved past. And therein lies the problem for evolutionists.

There is an ocean of difference between "observed" past events, and "unobserved" past events: A reality that must be faced by you and all evolutionary minded advocates in the international scientific community who actively embrace and promote godless "metaphysical" naturalism and scientism.

Moreover, as a strong advocate of BCSE [The ironically named British Centre for Science Education, an evolutionary indoctrination group. -CBB], you well know that the atheist and Humanist spawned censorship, suppression and ridicule is being done by evolutionists.  Nonetheless, I can assure you that in spite of all this censorship, creationist scientists will not only endure but eventually prevail. Indeed, the rapidly growing impact of creationist scientists affirms that the future belongs to the "science of Theism", as was the case with the pioneers of modern science. The writing is already on the wall for the currently entrenched "Scientism of atheism",  for reasons CMI's new production Evolution's Achilles' Heels well demonstrates. 

I won't comment on the rest of you opinion based comments as they are merely your subjective opinions based on "hot air", I have made my point so will leave it at that. I cannot waste any more time on people who misrepresents creationists, refuse to provide scientific evidence to substantiate their claims, embellish the facts supposedly supporting evolution, cannot discern the ocean of difference difference between evolutionary "history theories" and testable and verifiable science, and cannot discern the decisive difference between science and scientism.

Nonetheless, you are entitled to your own misguided opinions and I don't begrudge you that. My advice is that you need to stop lying to yourself, and join the real world.

I believe that these two articles provide a strong challenge to anti-creationists: We don't need rants and opinions asserted as facts. Try using real science, and understand how science operates. Something that they utterly reject is that God has given us revelation in his written Word, not only for spiritual guidance and salvation, but about the age and creation of the universe.

Yes, Haywire did reply to those letters, but again, I did not seek permission to reproduce them, and all they did was prove my friend's points. Haywire has been a tremendous source for my illustrations of logical fallacies, bigotry and hatred, as you have seen. 





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

Friday, January 24, 2014

The Dating Game, Assumptions and Creationist Tactics

A few months ago, I was included in a reply to mail from Haywire the Criminal Cyberstalker. (He is blocked from my account, but I was included in the reply because he was attacking me as well as other creationists.) This served as my introduction to John Heininger. 

Haywire was commenting about John's "tactics". John replied, "I always relish people who can appreciate "my tactics"... I hate to think that I go to all the trouble of devising clever tactics that no one appreciates or notices. So, I have again reattached "The Dating Game Assumptions" article in PDF format for you to share around." I was given permission to reproduce it, and did some minor editing of formatting, a couple of typos and such.




HOW TO PLAY THE DEEP-TIME
"ASSUMPTIONS" DATING GAME

How to use ASSUMPTIONS to determine the age of the universe and the earth! 

ASSUMPTIONS are extremely important when you don't have any solid facts to prove your "assumptions". As noted by New Scientist in The Dating Game, "Figuring out the age of the universe involves a SERIES OF ASSUMPTIONS about its geometry, expansion rate and composition." [Emphasis made]. However, knowing exactly how and when the universe was formed involves even more assumptions. As acknowledged by Kiri Bielby in The Coreshine Effect, "Astronomers know very little about the beginning of star life. . . . So when it comes to the birth of a star astronomers have been left in the dark - literally" (Cosmos Issue 36 December 2010 p.16) 

Of course, based on all these assumptions, everyone and his dog knows that the universe is 13.57 Billion years old, and that the earth is 4.5 billion years - and, by extension, the solar system is not much older. These dating ASSUMPTIONS are really 'rock solid', and send the Bible "literalists" into a spin, placing them into an impossible position to defend. As unverifiable "assumptions" can be dreamed up to cover any and every situation. Which is why "explanations" of "unobserved" past events, using unverifiable "assumptions", work so well. As "explanations" as to what supposedly happened in the unobserved historical past allow endless variation and flexibility.   

How the dating "assumptions" game is done:

Of course, the key dating element is "assumptions", and the key word is "time". Which you will "assume" has been uniform and constant throughout all "time". 

The Tools:

First, get your bag of unverifiable naturalistic presuppositions, inferences, predictions, explanations, conjecture, and speculations out. Then get your Uniformitarian "assumptions" clock machine ready. 

Now its dating "assumptions" time.

THE METHOD: First make some preliminary "assumptions" to exclude anything other than "natural" causes. As these will destroy your entire dating assumptions and methods. So, you  start with the unproven "blind faith" assumption of philosophical naturalism and godless materialism. And this unsustainable unproven "belief" will be your equivalent of the creationists revelational authority. Which you no doubt already regard as absolute.  

1. Assume that God does not exist, and never created anything. 
2. Assume that God was never involved at any time, in any way. 
3. Assume it's "impossible" for God to create a fully functional universe. 
4. Assume that the natural material world is all that exists, or can exist. 
5. Assume that the universe made itself, and naturally formed everything. 
6. Assume that "science alone" can determine the true nature of ultimate reality. 

Note: Of course, you need to know that the above "assumptions" are based on the "blind faith" beliefs, and the unverified ideological assumptions, of "metaphysical" naturalism. And that the belief that science alone is the only source of knowledge and truth is the definition of "scientism", not science.

Now, add your Uniformitarian cosmological "time" assumptions. 

7. Assume that "time" has been UNIFORMLY CONSTANT throughout all of time. 
8. Assume that Einstein's Theory of Relativity does not relate to time. 
9. Assume that Relativistic Time Dilation plays no part at any time, at any place. 
10. Assume that Cosmological Relativity never affected "time" in any way. 
11. Assume that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, including the rapid inflation of the universe, which all scientists conclude happened in less than a second.

Now, add your "unalterable" Uniformitarian geology clock time "assumptions". 

12. Choose only a naturalistic clock, and ignore all the conflicting dating methods. 
13. Assume only slow processes involved throughout all of time. 
14. Assume initial conditions, set time at zero. 
15. Assume that there were no major factors or catastrophes involved. 
16. Assume nothing else has ever interfered with clock. 
17. Assume the clock was always same gradual speed. 
18. Assume that you know everything about what happened in the past. 
19. Assume that there is nothing you don't know about how things age. 
20. Assume your uniformitarian dating methods and results are confirmed. 
21. Interpret all data to conform to deep time, even though this is false.
22 Ensure the same "assumptions" apply to all your dating methods. 

Note: Of course, you well know that this is like asking people around you for the correct  time, and they all give you vastly different answers. So, pick the one that fits with your deep time "assumptions", even though you know that the clocks indicating a young earth would be more trustworthy. This is because while decay rates can be rapidly "increased" or "accelerated" by internal and external factors, they can never be reduced or slowed down.  

The ASSUMPTION Dating Game Outcome:

You can now ASSUME that it all happened by natural events and material process alone, to the exclusion of God. 

And ASSUME that God is no longer needed to account for the universe or anything else, as it all happened by itself naturalistically. 

Thus, you can ASSUME that the universe and earth are "really" old.

More important, you can now ASSUME that you know exactly how the universe and everything else formed, including all living creatures, and even the Hawaiian Islands. Even though you have no way of ever knowing whether it happened that way, and not some another way. As it's impossible to "observe" something that happened millions and billions of years ago in the distant past. 

None-the-less, these "assumptions", together with multitude of unverifiable "assumptions" underlying philosophical NATURALISM and DARWINISM, will enable you to engage in elaborate mental gymnastics and verbal semantics to show that the "inferences" underlying your many "assumption" are fully supported by all the other "unverifiable assumptions", including all those above. 

NOW FOR A "TIMELY" WARNING!

You will need to know that if any of the above assumptions are wrong - you're dead. 

As you CANNOT prove that God does not exist or was not involved - YOU'RE DEAD! 

You're dead empirically because:

Unobserved and unrepeatable past events can never be verified by the scientific method. Thus, your hypothetical naturalistic "assumptions" will always be based on unverifiable "inferences", as there is no possible way of ever establishing that "unobserved" past events happened a particular way, and no other way. 

You're dead philosophically because:

The delusion of NATURALISM is founded on an unrealistic and unachievable quest! As it is impossible to achieve a Theory of Everything while ever unresolved mysteries and issues still exist, as they do, and invariably will. Said philosopher Jean-Paul Sarte, "A finite point without an infinite reference point is meaningless and absurd." Meaning, all your godless assertions and deep-time dating assumptions are meaningless and absurd.  

Thus, it is impossible for you to ever establish that life and existence is solely the result of natural events and material process alone, to the exclusion of God and other transcendent realities. As your insights will always be "limited" by "finite" human knowledge and understanding. Meaning, that you will never ever be in a position to know, that you really know, that you really know. In which case all your naturalistic assumptions have no rational or scientific foundation. 

NOTE: If you ever establish that you can empirically scientifically verify ALL the above deep-time dating assumptions, then the young-earth creationists may start to take you seriously, until then have a good day.





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

Sunday, September 9, 2012

Bill Nye Fallout and Debate Challenge Part 2 — Evolution's Junior Stormtroopers

Edited 10-29-2012


I've experienced this evolutionist dogmatic attitude many times.

Part 1 is here.

To reiterate:

There is now a public challenge to a debate between Dr. Purdom and propagandist Bill Nye. Is Bill Nye going to accept the challenge? Oh, sweet suspense! (Fundamentalist evolutionists are already making excuses for Nye, of course. Reminds me of the fiasco of Richard Dawkins' excuses to avoid debating Christian philosopher William Lane Craig.) It appears that the debate is not about hardcore science per se, but more along philosophical lines. If Nye wants to attempt to do science, I am certain that Dr. Purdom will accommodate him.

Now for a couple of my own experiences.

Because I expressed support on Facebook by commenting on posts by Dr. Purdom as "The Question Evolution Project", an angry anti-creationist went wild. Normally, I detest naming small-time trolls because they crave attention, but when they become so aggressive and petulant that they begin Internet stalking, spamming and other harassment, I will make an exception today.


The above material was a recap from Part 1. Now, regarding harassment...

There are many kinds. Getting blasted in forums and on Weblogs is common, and to be expected. They are exercising their freedom of speech, even though they seldom have anything interesting to say.

But sometimes they kick it up a few notches, even to the point of stalking.

A fellow claiming to be a physicist at a junior college was rather annoying, wanting my attention on his highly forgettable blog-o-fallacies, which included an oft-repeated lie about the Catholic Church and Galileo, which is easily refuted (Galileo was criticized by the scientific community of his time, not "religion"). It is "a given" that people like this with poor reasoning abilities use ridicule and logical fallacies to attack people rather than concepts all the time.


He became aggressive on Facebook. I reported and blocked him. Then he sent me annoying e-mails, which I reported and blocked. Then he used another of my e-mail addresses to continue to harass me, so I reported and blocked him again. Other measures are in the works that I will not divulge. But I do wonder about the standards of a junior college that will tolerate such unprofessional antics of someone who claims to be on their faculty; I certainly would not want someone bringing down the name of my establishment. So, this priest of peevishness got what he wanted, which is a few lines of attention from me.

Moving on...

"Mr. A. Haworth-Roberts" (I named him "Haywire the Stalker") spammed my e-mail with personal attacks (and sent CCs to dozens of other people). When I blocked and reported him for spamming and harassment, he promptly used another of my e-mail accounts, just like the alleged physics professor mentioned earlier. (This kind of behavior indicates that they have little regard for the rights and sensibilities of others.) He gave a self-promoting link to his diatribes at a board called "British Centre for Science Education", which I will not bore you with. I have records of his stalking as well as his IP address.

But I will show you some of what Haywire sent to me. He began by quoting a comment that I made on Dr. Purdom's Facebook post. Since he did not confront me there, I think it is likely that he was banned from that Page as well. His comments are in black, and in a font called "Georgia".
"Perhaps Cowboy Bob Sorensen aka The Question Evolution Project...would like to deny that anybody asking a question he cannot answer is to be deemed 'arrogannt' or manipulative?'"
Although I do not like to "typo pounce", if someone wants to be taken seriously, certain basic words like "arrogant" should be spelled correctly.

There are several assumptions here. First, he assumes that I cannot answer the question. Second, that there is only one Admin on that Facebook Page. Third, that whatever question he was asking was perfectly innocent and not breaking our rules as listed in the "About" section. (As to what the alleged question was, I have no recollection.) Fourth, he is assuming it was worth answering in the first place (we get people who want us to be their servants instead of doing any research themselves). Finally, he is making a straw man argument.
"THIS MESSAGE IS BEING COPIED TO BILL NYE'S EMAIL ADDRESS FOR INFORMATION
Please see my posts in this open discussion thread during the last 22 hours or so:"
No, I'm not helping you in your relentless drive for self-promotion except for exposing your emotive and illogical remarks. No link for you.
You will see how these particular creationist Christians are apparently rattled by Mr Nye - and by way of 'response' resort to lying about science, undermining science in the name of Christianity, bad logic and personal attacks, accusations about secularists (who like me read blatant lies), claims that evolutionists "don't have evidence to support their view", half-baked arguments and pure propaganda (backed up with handy scriptures), and deliberate CENSORSHIP of all challenges made on Facebook - see the example which I saw and quoted at the BCSE Community Forum, JUST BEFORE it was removed. The message I quoted in full included the challenge to Dr Purdom: "A molecular geneticist knows this, so the only conclusion I can come to is that Dr. Purdom is using her credibility in the field of biology to deliberately mislead people; and even worse, she does not allow for open dialogue of her own statements. She censors debate about ideas she claims to uphold as truth instead of subjecting them to scrutiny. Is this the way a scientist should act? I dare you to let this comment stand."

But don't just take all this from me! Check what I claim - and judge for yourselves.

Mr A Haworth-Roberts
That rant is not worth a lengthy examination, I just wanted you to see that it is saturated with logical fallacies (including emotive language, straw man, assumptions with incomplete information, abusive ad hominem attacks, and so on) and a great deal of whining. Many people like this seem to think they have the "right" to ridicule creationists or others who do not accept evolutionary orthodoxy — an entitlement mentality. And yet, he is using a forum for his personal soapbox, so he still is able to freely express his malignant opinions.

After being blocked, reported and informed, he e-mailed me at another account (which was blocked and reported as well). This article is long enough already, so I will just show some highlights:
You seemed proud of your refusal to accept any comments under your blog posts/weblog. I was asking why you have such a policy and whether it was because you receive questions that you cannot successfully answer. I did not resort to any Ad hominem.
He resorted to ad hominem attacks, as shown above.

By the way, there is nobody under a name resembling "A. Haworth-Roberts" on my block list. It seems reasonable to assume that he was using a different name on Facebook that was blocked, or that this one is fake. Or both. Edit: His e-mail address shows an account on Facebook that was created under his name on the same day that this article appeared. Adds to my theory that is he using multiple accounts, and that he is deranged. Later, he took out another account and began harassing me from that one, which I also blocked. He claims dissatisfaction with his original account, but when I get forwarded messages from him, the original e-mail account is still there.

"You seemed proud of your refusal to accept any comments under your blog posts/weblog." Nope. "I was asking why you have such a policy and whether it was because you receive questions that you cannot successfully answer." Appeal to motive fallacy, and he changed his wording. Originally, it was an accusation, as shown above.
I HAVE called Georgia Purdom a liar at the BCSE Community Forum, which I linked to in my PREVIOUS email (not the one first copied to you). I have also pointed out how she deleted more than 200 posts to her Facebook page - I cannot believe that all of them were 'vile'. 
Dr. Purdom was subjected to many vile comments that had to be deleted and commenters were blocked. My fanboi was helpful in documenting and even bragging about his remarks. (Amusingly, I was caught up in the ban-sweep myself, and was later reinstated. It happens.)

He is showing an attitude that people of this nature have the "right" to say whatever they want on other people's Weblogs and such. Calling Dr. Purdom a liar is a despicable, libelous and absurd attempt at emotional manipulation. That is, unless he can offer sufficient evidence that she is intending to deceive people. This ploy is frequently used by Darwin's Cheerleaders in their efforts to protect fundamentalist evolutionism. It is also contrary to the attitudes of true scientists! People can say that someone is wrong, that they disagree on the interpretations of the facts, show errors in their reasoning, find flaws in their models — that is a part of doing science. To call someone a "liar" in an effort to shut them up is anti-science and beneath contempt.
This one, which I saw before it was deleted, wasn't [vile]:
"The lack of faith which Dr. Purdom has in these principles is evident by the fact that she deletes polite and thoughtful responses instead of simply repudiating them. Well, what about 'new information'? Say I have a list of sequences: (1,2) and (3,4). Then I add the new sequence (1,4) to the list -- is this new information? Well, sure! It's new with respect to the previous sequences -- but it's not new, because it's just a simple combination of the old sequences. A molecular geneticist knows this, so the only conclusion I can come to is that Dr. Purdom is using her credibility in the field of biology to deliberately mislead people; and even worse, she does not allow for open dialogue of her own statements. She censors debate about ideas she claims to uphold as truth instead of subjecting them to scrutiny. Is this the way a scientist should act? I dare you to let this comment stand."
On my Page, I would have deleted that nonsense as well. Not only is the reasoning faulty, he resorts to more logical fallacies. In addition, he is attacking Dr. Purdom's character. (Remember, this is the same Dr. Purdom who would like to debate Bill Nye, a hero of "Mr. A. Haworth-Roberts" who wrote this stuff.) As far as "censoring debate" — well, again, he does not have the "rights" that he is assuming. People have Pages, Weblogs, whatever, and do not have to bow to the wishes of evolutionists who want to "set them straight" or fire off ridicule; we are under no obligation to give them a platform. Again, I am amazed that someone like this presents himself as a brilliant but innocent victim when all he does is rail at people. Do not want.

This is one of my favorites:
I will draw my own conclusions if you fail to respond to my question.
That stuff is hilarious! I have lost "debates" on Twitter because I was not even there to answer. In this case, and in Junior's, here, it is an argument from silence fallacy. He can draw all the conclusions he wants, but the fact is that I do not want to waste my time on someone as fallacious, manipulative and juvenile as him. He may appear to be a hero to his equally obtuse friends, but will not gain respect from people who actually think.

Time to wrap this up. It's enough of a typical example of the kind of thing that creationists deal with all the time. I expect that the full-time creation science ministries have it a thousand times worse than I have, but I still accepted advice to give these vacuous stalkers some attention this time.

Hope my students in "Logic Lessons" as well as other readers were able to get something out of this. It was not difficult for me to refute, so I doubt that others had problems with it.




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

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Biology and the Young Earth

The propaganda mill of the secular science industry has been effective in convincing people that Earth is billions of years old. True believers point to tendentious (but highly unreliable) numbers from radiometric dating to support their viewpoint, ignoring evidences for the young earth using their own methods against them (such as ocean salinity, for example). You might be surprised to learn that there are biological evidences for our blue marble being young.


Although there are many evidences for a young earth in geology, there are also biological evidences. These refute deep time and evolutionary claims.
Background image credit: RGBStock / Tomislav Alajbeg
Sure, biblical creationists have a passel of evidences from geology and other sciences. I reckon a planet's age would most likely be inferred from geology. Physical sciences to not stand alone, but interact with each other. When we bring up examples from science, anti-creationists go haywire and pretend they do not exist. Here are just a few instance from biology for Earth and life on it being recently created.
What does the Bible tell us about the age of the earth? Not only does the Bible describe how God created Earth and its life forms in six days, Genesis also contains detailed genealogies and chronologies. Based on the Hebrew Masoretic text, one can deduce Earth’s age to be about 6,000 years. In contrast, evolutionists believe Earth is 4.6 billion years old and that life here got going about 3.5 billion years ago.

While the evolutionary story is just naturalistic speculation, the Bible gives a fairly complete history and timeline that provide the basis for what is often called a young-earth creationist view. But do the scientific facts demonstrate a young age for Earth? This article will show that a young earth is well supported by the biological data.
To read the rest, click on "Six Biological Evidences for a Young Earth". A similar article may be of interest, "Circular Reasoning Surrounds Human Origins, but Even a Broken Clock Is Right Twice a Day".






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

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Evolutionists Upset by More Early Fossils

Rusty Swingset, the ramrod over at the Darwin Ranch, is considering hiring a staff counselor or facilitating an anger management course. That is because evolutionists keep getting upset over findings that do not support evolution or deep time. Problems for evolutionists are seen in out-of-order fossils. More recent fossil finds have them screaming like the simian ancestors they think are in our ancestry.


More fossils that upset evolutionists and foul up deep time and evolutionary beliefs
Modified from an image at openclipart with hologram malfunction effect
It's mighty easy to simply assign a value to fossil ages using the Fit the Narrative Method™. Problem is, when folks pick and choose what they like, and then something else is discovered that conflicts with the earlier assigned value, panic ensues. You often hear, "Earlier than we thought". That's because secular origins science is based on numerous fundamentally flawed presuppositions, including deep time and that evolution happened in the first place. Mayhaps they should stop asking how something evolved, but if evolution happened at all. Likewise, since there are so many discoveries that wreck the evolutionary timeline, secular scientists should honestly consider getting more accurate, honest, and realistic dating methods.

South Africa is turning into a place for digging up dinosaur fossils. A very large sauropod fossil fouls up their thinking about quadrupedalism. Yep, walking on all fours happened "earlier than thought". It changes what they "know" about how walking evolved in these critters. That takes a great deal of blind faith, as walking requires many things to be in place at the same time, or the organism takes a dirt nap. Sorry, old son, but you really don't know anything about the evolution of walking.

To keep the dead Bearded Buddha happy, Darwinists are throwing around the idea that quadrupedalism "emerged", then disappeared, and then reappeared later on. (Sort of like a hologram in s science fiction show that flickers, blinks out, and reappears, I suspicion.) Then these owlhoots are indirectly appealing to Gaia, who has intelligence and makes choices. That ditzy goddess was apparently experimenting with evolution in this case! Who needs evidence or plausible models when we have speculations from people who paid to get degrees? I'll allow that the name assigned to the dinosaur is impressive, translating to "giant thunderclap at dawn". But I'm a guy that liked the name "thunder lizard", too.

Heavy drinking commenced at the Darwin Ranch when one of Darwin's worst nightmares crawled out from under the bed: flowering plants. These were found "earlier than thought" by 15 millions Darwin years. Trying to deal with flowering plants (specifically, angiosperm trees) in the first place was difficult, but now this! Then they tried to wrangle global climate change into the discussion. Oh, boy.

Biblical creationists do not need to constantly modify timelines, resort to fraud and obfuscation, or just ignore inconvenient truths. We have the account given to us by our Creator — the same account that secularists go haywire trying to circumvent.

To read the inspiration for this post and get some details on the items above (plus one more), click on "Fossils Show Up Earlier than Evolutionists Thought". Below is a piece of evolutionary propaganda, with many faith-based assertions. However, it tells about the discovery, measurements, and so on that seem interesting. Dramatic music, too.







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

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Research Shows Limestone Forms Rapidly

One of the key doctrines of uniformitarianism is that geological features formed slowly, often taking millions of years. There have been many instances where secularists have been forced to backpedal on their belief system and grudgingly involve a form of catastrophism (rapid watery processes), such as the Lake Missoula flood. Something else to get them a mite ornery is when their insistence on deep time is refuted like we recently saw regarding the Coconino Sandstone.


Limestone has to form quickly, which supports the Genesis Flood.
Stream in limestone cuts, image credit: RGBStock / YS Wong
You would probably expect that secular geologists are correct when they insist that limestone had to form over millions of years. Actual evidence shows us that carbonates (oxygen atoms married up with carbon atoms) such as limestone are formed by rapidly moving water. This is yet another bit of strong evidence for the Genesis Flood as predicted by creationary geologists, and another confutation of old earth beliefs.
Secular science has long taught that sedimentary rocks were deposited slowly over vast ages, but what does the research show? . . .

For example, clay, the most common sediment on Earth, doesn’t slowly settle out of still water to form rocks. It must be deposited in energetic settings by moving water. These results match the predictions of creation geologists, who interpret clay, the resulting mudstones and shales, and nearly all sedimentary rocks as rapid deposits that occurred during the year-long Flood.

A second finding has uniformitarian geologists scratching their heads.
To read the entire article, click on "Rapid Limestone Deposits Match Flood Account". Something else to make ancient earth devotees go haywire is "Scientists Prove Limestone Can Form Quickly".







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

Thursday, June 7, 2018

Consensus, Climate Change, and the Scientific Process

Consensus does not mean science or truth.
As we have noticed on this site alone many times, peer review is not a guarantee of truth or even accuracy. In a like manner, scientific consensus is not a guarantee of truth or accuracy, either. Browbeating consensus skeptic is not conducive to the scientific process. Labeling someone as a "science denier" is a childish way to avoid examining legitimate objections to majority opinion, you savvy?

The coming ice age — I mean, global warming — I mean, global climate change — has deep political motivations, including globalism and taxation to force people into submission. It also is based on materialistic evolutionary beliefs including deep time and that there is no sovereign God who is in control. Climate change is definitely not an established fact, old son. People indulge in groupthink and listen to yahoos like Bill Nye the Stalinist Guy (who believes in throwing "climate change dissenters" in jail) to support their beliefs. Climate change enthusiasts wave away those who dare to disagree with their views.

Secular scientists have a habit of cherry-picking data and neglecting information that do not fit the narrative they wish to promulgate. We recently saw how Charles Darwin's demented stepchildren finally admitted that dinosaurs have no evolutionary past, ignore possible alternative explanations for effects attributed to dark matter, having nothing to study but still calling astrobiology a science, the evosplaining of diatoms, terrible explanations for the "faint young sun paradox" — and those are just a few examples of incompetent evolutionary science presented on this site. Follow those links to additional links and you'll soon have a wagon train-load of material.

Is climate change "settled science"? Not hardly! In reality, thinkers have been pointing out numerous flaws in it over the years, including fraudulent data adjustments. Of course, feral activists will go haywire and basically say, "That's not true! They're all liars!"



That is simply an attempt to avoid inconvenient truths. To compound the problem, the secular science industry is blind to its biases.

We see secular scientists ignoring or twisting information to promote the narrative. After all, tell those in control of the grants what they want to hear, and you bring in those big simoleans. It's who they are, and what they do.

Volcanoes put out gasses and ash, but "dirty thunderstorms" that are fed by ash from wildfires can put as much carbon smoke in the air as a volcano. But scientists have not studied these very much. Tiny particles in the sky and the clouds that form around them reflect light back into the sky, which may contribute to global cooling. These are not understood very well. Add anthropogenic combustion iron and that microbes eat rocks and give of carbon dioxide to the neglected mix. Many things that may affect the climate have not been sufficiently studied, yet activists feel compelled to blame humans for things these doom merchants do not understand. By the way, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but plants that our Creator put here use it and give back oxygen. Do secularists want people to know basic science? No, they suppress critical thinking! Just shut up and obey. Believe the consensus.
We hear it all the time; 99% of scientists agree. All it takes, though, is one overlooked fact to tumble a consensus.
Occasionally we take a look at matters other than creation and evolution, when they are instructive about the scientific process. The scientific consensus on climate change (previously known as “global warming”) is a case in point. Scientists have been so dogmatic about it they have convinced most major world governments to enact draconian measures to counteract it. Climate has changed drastically in the past before humans evolved, they will admit, but they insist that the current climate excursion was caused by people trying to increase their happiness and reduce their suffering. . . .
We don’t quote climate “denialists” to get into the mud on this issue. We just look at the secular news itself, which is almost uniformly on the side of the climate consensus, and ask questions. . . We pass over the ridiculous stories about what’s coming with global warming, like this headline on Phys.org, “Competition between males improves resilience against climate change.” Claims like that nobody could ever know for sure. Instead, we focus on the epistemology of the consensus: how do they know what they claim to know about human culpability for a warming climate? Did the consensus take the following factors into account?
Some of the "following factors" mentioned were briefly mentioned above. To read the entire article and learn some important details, click on "More Reasons to Doubt Scientific Omniscience". You may also want to see "Craziness in Climate Consensus".







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

Monday, May 7, 2018

"Genesis: Paradise Lost" Video Review

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

The idea of making Genesis: Paradise Lost dates back ten years. It began in 2007 when Eric Hovind of Creation Today had a discussion with Ralph Strean, who would later become the director and a producer. They wanted to reach younger people with the truth of the gospel and its foundation in creation. After years of writing, CGI work, filming, and fund raisers, the project was completed and released in cinemas for one-night showings on November 13, 16, and December 11, 2017. Now it is available for the rest of us. This is the first part of a proposed trilogy, and is focused on the opening chapter of Genesis.


The movie Genesis: Paradise Lost i takes a unique approach to presenting the truth of Genesis
Image courtesy of Creation Today
"Did you say fundraisers, Cowboy Bob?"

Yes, yes I did. After all, they don't have a $200-400 million USD budget like secular film studios have.The internet and its surly kid brother (social media) are conducive to many activities, including this kind. Several sites are established for these purposes. (For that matter, Dr. G. Charles Jackson, who is a speaker in this movie, has one going for a project called Quantum, which is a biblical creation science alternative to evolutionary propaganda.) Crowdfunding for all sorts of things is becoming increasingly popular.

The final title of Genesis: Paradise Lost was decided late in the process. If you've noticed, the web site is Genesis Movie, which I believe was the original title, and then it was going to be called Genesis 3D to emphasize the graphics. However, most people would not be able to see it in 3D outside of select cinemas. People can still watch it in that format if they have a Blu-ray 3D player, get the Blu-ray 3D disc, and have a current-model television. I watched it a standard format.

Making the movie in 3D was a major part of getting people interested in watching it. After all, CGI is dominant in the film industry nowadays because that's what people want. The production crew went to great lengths in making scenes of the creation and the early earth visually appealing. They also wanted to stay true to the Bible. Since there are not many details given in the Bible, some artistic license was necessary, but constrained by not violating scriptural principles.

Genesis: Paradise Lost is not just a special effects fest. Not hardly! There are several reasons that this movie takes a unique approach to presenting the truth of Genesis. We begin viewing a map of sorts, and Voddie Baucham begins his narration. (Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, and others are good, but I wouldn't trade Voddie for either.) The view zooms in on Eden while we hear Pastor Baucham saying, "...until we go back to the beginning". At this point, we're seeing the CGI early earth and some brief credits.

Then, we are in Answers in Genesis' Creation Museum to listen to some of the dozen or so speakers, including scientists, educators, theologians, and so on. This happens very quickly, in a sentence or two (sometimes they cut to another speaker who continues the same thought). Then we are returned to the graphics and narration.

It is interesting that a newer approach was taken in speaking parts: not looking at the camera. Different angles are used, but I didn't notice anyone talking to the camera. I have seen this used with increasing frequency, though not as extensively as it was here. I thought this approach added something to the film.

Each narration and CGI segment covers a section of Genesis 1, then we are returned to the discussions. While there is science and theology, we are not overwhelmed with technical lingo. We are given the creationary interpretation of scientific evidence, and shown how Darwinian interpretations do not withstand scrutiny. 

Yes, we hear about dinosaurs, and get some excellent graphics involving them. Atheists and other evolutionists object to this concept, unwilling to set aside their materialistic presuppositions and tolerate creationists making presentations from the biblical perspective. The Bible describes dinosaurs, and they were made on Day Six. Some of us are not going to compromise the plain reading of Scripture in favor of atheistic interpretations of science.

Biblical kinds and natural selection are discussed, and how there is no observable science for Darwinian evolution. Natural selection is a limiting factor for what is already in existence, not a cause for vertical change into something else. After all, God did not say, "Go ye and change into something else", but instead, see Genesis 1:24-25.

Our alleged evolutionary ancestors such as Lucy the extinct ape are discussed in a bit more detail. As regular readers of this site have seen, Neanderthals are demonstrated to be fully human. When examined, the human evolution timeline and evidence is absurd even on the surface. I thought Dr. G. Charles Jackson had an excellent remark about the lack of speaking ability of monkeys: "They have the hardware, they just don't have the software drivers to actually talk".

When we reach the segment on the creation of man, I found the graphics startling. (Elsewhere, the CGI of birds in flight seemed a bit odd to me.) Getting on to the other animals and Earth before sin, the graphics were very impressive again.

The last few minutes of Genesis: Paradise Lost tells us why it all matters. Genesis tells us about creation, sin, and the promise of the Redeemer. The Fall was a real event with real people, and it affected us all. The gospel message is clearly presented. I'll offer a speculation: mockers will not see this film or others like it because they hate the gospel, and their worldview is threatened by the truth. They are likely to go haywire, calling us all "liars" and seeking succor from evolutionary excuse mills. I'll allow that a few may be intellectually honest enough to consider the content, however.

Although I did not mention all of the subjects that were discussed, such as paleontology, geology, radiometric dating, and others, I do recommend this movie. (My omissions were not from dissatisfaction, but in the interests of time, because this article is getting a mite long.)

There are several ways to order or view it. As I mentioned, there's the 3D option that requires specific equipment. Not everyone is into that — some people cannot watch 3D for any length of time. (I took the 2D option and still had a good viewing experience.) You can also get it on 2D DVD and Blu-Ray. I took another option that was just introduced: I bought my copy at Christian Cinema (you can also rent it from them). I hope you'll get a copy, which can be obtained from the movie site, Creation Today, Answers in Genesis, and probably others. Also, the site has several resources available, including a free discussion guide. Watching the video with that on hand should get you thinking, old son.

Someone may be watching and shout, 'Prove it!" after every claim that a creationary scientist or theologian makes, but Genesis: Paradise Lost was not made to prove every point. Yes, evidence was presented, but not footnotes. For honest seekers of the truth, there are several creation science ministries to seek out that will provide scientific and theological evidence. The science is on our side, and in evolution is unfounded.







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

Labels