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

Friday, January 8, 2016

Anti-Creationists and Faulty Worldviews Part 1

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Things were surprisingly quiet at The Question Evolution Project over Christmas. But New Year's Day and afterward, some owlhoots from the Darwin Ranch rode over, full of beans and ready to slap leather. (From the quality of their comments, they had too much firewater during their celebrations and weren't ready to deal with polite society yet.) Fortunately, their comments were helpful resources for writing this article, and I saved a heap of screenshots.


A common problem for biblical creationists is dealing with anti-creationists who insist that we're wrong. Unfortunately, many do not understand our worldview — or their own.

One of these troublemakers had a wagon load of assertions based on his presuppositions, but was jawing about nothing rooted in fact. I'll omit his insistence on using the irrational, disingenuous redefinition of atheism as "lack of belief" and stick with the evolutionism comments:
Evolution is directly predicated on the scientific method. To state otherwise is illogical. It requires peer review and falsifiable evidence, like all scientific disciplines.
It's directly predicated on the scientific method? No, evolutionism is an ancient religion, and people who believe in philosophical and methodological naturalism latch onto it as an explanation of origins for people who want to justify their rejection of God the Creator. Also, the "scientific method" is a process or tool for interpreting evidence — depending on which "scientific method" is chosen.

"To state otherwise is illogical". An attempt at intimidation for people who would disagree with him.

Peer review? Yeah, sure. I told him, "Peer review has been shown to be a massive failure in the "good ol' boys club", with numerous recalled papers (including some that have passed that were entirely computer generated). You'd better start examining the actual evidence instead of arguing from your fundamentally flawed presuppositions." Secular peer review is agenda driven, and has serious problems, see "Sacred Cows and Herd Mentality".

After another comment containing a link to the real definition of atheism, he came back with another series of erroneous assertions:
Conspiracy theory is irrelevant. Evolution is directly predicated on the scientific method. It isn't a belief system. That's like stating that gravity is a belief a system. No belief in deities is not a redefinition. Atheism is inherently that, no belief in deities. Evolution has nothing to do with belief. Belief is irrelevant to the evolutionary theory. Being religious or nonreligious doesn't affect evolution whatsoever.
I don't recollect why he was talking about conspiracy theories. His insistence that evolution has nothing to do with belief is absurd, since everyone has a worldview by which they interpret evidence (see "Who is REALLY at War with Science, Creationists or Darwinists?") Richard Lewontin and George Wald are two of several scientists who admit that they have a commitment to naturalism, which means that they will not consider that the evidence points to God. 

He came back later with some other fool's gold, including this:
Let's try this slowly. Evolution has nil to do with a belief system. Unless you disregard peer-review as a necessity of the scientific method, then you're not concerned with scientific evidence, you're concerned with your belief system being "true", to the exclusion of evidence otherwise.
Can'tcha just hear the sneer? He stays with his affirmations, and elevates peer review to a magisterial level, demonstrating his blind faith in secular science and his ignorance of the problems that scientists admit exist in the peer review process. Then we see a straw man argument and an appeal to motive fallacy, wrapped up in a subtle ad hominem attack.

Moving on to another:
I won't be goaded into a debate with a brick wall. I'll leave with this: if there are 100 scientists in a room and 99 of them agree on something then that is a scientific consensus. If you then take the one scientist who disagrees on the subject and put him in a debate against another single scientist then you create the appearance of a "controversy". To the ignorant observer it would appear as though both arguments where equally validated 50/50. This is why a serious scientist debating a creationist is dangerous. By taking on the debate it adds credibility to baseless claims and furthers the myth of controversy. I'll not respond to this any further for the same reasons. You seem slightly desperate and unhinged. Also possibly very young although I can't be certain. Good luck to you and your mission here. While you may gets some pats on the back from your immediate community, over time you will be increasingly marginalized by society at large as a fool. Perhaps you can then play it off as being a martyr for your beliefs? Who knows. In the meantime keep up the good work on this and your Bigfoot websites. Good day to you.
Amazing. He beings with the insult that someone commenting is a "brick wall", and then proceeds to make a lengthy comment anyway. Makes perfect sense. Actually, none of it make sense. He appeals to consensus, which is ridiculous because scientific truth is not decided by majority rule; asserting consensus is a faulty appeal to authority as well. Scientific consensus has been wrong before, and will be wrong again. He is very sneaky, using loaded terminology, ad hominems (by the way, those are required in the Atheist Handbook™), bifurcation ("to the ignorant observer", implying that intelligent observers will agree with him), appeal to motive, appeal to ridicule, genetic fallacy, prejudicial conjecture, and more. Good thing he is not in a position of authority in a scientific institution, as science needs challenge, not protection through misrepresentation and ridicule of contrary viewpoints.

Here is someone else unclear on the concept:
Excellent thesis and data collection but lousy application ( attempting to apply it to evolution) small scale evolution has been observed and repeated, for an example: go out for a box of kfc. A typical chicken takes 6 months to reach full size. In 1900 there was little variation from that. Broiler chickens have been specifically bred to mature in only 9 weeks. Yes we humans were the motivation for this change but this is still a massive and observable change in the chickens biology. Another example is the aquarium trade. Many if not most of the fish at your petstore come from a wild version that is much more plainly colored. We have directed their evolution aka selective breeding, to produce what we want. Anyone who can look at all of the mounting evidence and just blow it off in favor of an invisible man IS in fact a science denier.
Analyzing this one is actually trickier than it looks. He decided to throw down and start shooting, but at the wrong target. He's talking about variations and a little about speciation (creationists agree that speciation happens), and then committing equivocation; we see variations, so fungus-to-fishmonger evolution must be true. Not hardly! The stuff he's carping about is really a red herring stuffed in equivocation and mounted on the wall as incontrovertible fact.

Interestingly, none of those in the Darwin Ranch troll invasion resorted to reflexively saying, "You're a liar!" whenever someone disagreed with them, or showed when it was stated that Bill Nye the Propaganda Guy is deceptive. Some people resort to emotional manipulations (such as calling someone a liar) instead of realizing that people have differing interpretations of evidence. But I digress.

What we have here is far too common among anti-creationists. They want to challenge us, but disunderstand the philosophy and methodology of science, have blind faith that evolution is true (but do not understand it), have no grasp of logic, plus lots of emotion and enthusiasm to disseminate their propaganda.

They also show not only ignorance of what creationists believe, but unwillingness to learn what it is. Dr. James White recently commented on The Dividing Line that when people want to enter into debates, they should do their research and understand the other side's position. Interestingly enough, vehement misotheist Bill Maher did his homework on differences between Christianity and Islam, and wouldn't let Charlie Rose get away with prejudicial conjecture. That's a notable exception to the way other misotheists and anti-creationists act.

Although some of these people claim that we are "debating" which is inaccurate, having a serious discussion and disagreement with someone else should entail learning how to accurately understand and present their position, and show respect for them as people. Creationists need to remember that anti-creationists and atheists are lost sinners in need of repentance, but are still created in the image of God.

This is fun, but we've all got other things to do. However, if you've a mind to read it, Part 2 is here.






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

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Ashes to Ashes, Cosmic Dust to — PLANETS?

Secular astronomers are much out of little, and in this case, they're making a planet. Not really much of a surprise, since they conjure up stars from "dark matter" that only exists on paper. Why not use mighty sketchy evidence to build "LkCa 15b"? There's a passel of guesswork and speculation going on, but it's asserted as something they know is happening.


Secular astronomers use sparse data and proclaim that they know a planet is forming, but they are denying the science they supposedly support.
Image modified from Clker clipart
Supposedly, the dust around a distant star is making a planet. However, there is not much to go on other than speculation, when direct observation is needed. They are also ignoring science, which is a grave mistake. Worse, they are ignoring God's Word, which plainly tells us that the universe was created recently, and is not creating itself through cosmic and other forms of evolution.
A team of astronomers claims to have direct evidence that a giant planet is in the process of forming. How strong is this claim?

The planet, known as LkCa 15b, is one of two or three bodies thought to be orbiting the star LkCA 15, about 450 light-years from Earth. The discovery of planets around distant stars isn't new. Roughly 2,000 exoplanets are confirmed to exist. Many of these exoplanets have features that are extraordinarily difficult for secular scientists to explain.
To finish reading the article, click on "A New Planet from Cosmic Dust?"





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

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

DAWN, Bright Spots, and Salt on Ceres

Way up yonder between Mars and Jupiter is the asteroid named Demeter — oh, sorry, that's the Greek version. The asteroid is Ceres, named after the Roman god of agriculture. That must explain the wheat and corn fields on it. Actually, it was large enough to be considered a planet from 1801 when Giuseppe Piazzi discovered it, and reclassified as an asteroid in the 1850s. A passel of asteroids have names, but Ceres is the most impressive.


Asteroid Ceres is surprising evolutionary cosmologists again, and is not cooperating with formation of the solar system ideas.
Occator Crater on Ceres in false colors.
Credits: NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA/MPS/DLR/IDA

Another impressive feature is the way Ceres causes serious consternation for secular astronomers. Yet again, cosmic evolutionary expectations are not met, and scientists receive surprises — surprises that indicate a recently-created universe. I reckon the dwarf planet makes them grumpy, and not happy, Doc. You can read about the surprising salt, bright spots, DAWN spacecraft, and how Ceres is upsetting evolutionary cosmology. Don't be bashful, click on "Want Salt on Your Ceres?"

 



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

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Redefining "The Great Dying"

For some reason, a whole heap of critters died off in a thing that is called the Permian extinction or "The Great Dying", but secular geologists are hard pressed to come up with a reasonable explanation. Indeed, there are differing ideas as to what happened, when it happened, and how long it took. Geologists examining a fossil of mostly-toothless Tillie Dicynodon are cognating on how other geologists have the whole story backward.


Evolutionary views are changing again, this time regarding the Permian extinction. However, creation science Genesis Flood geology is a far better explanation.
Pencil drawing of Dicynodon by Nobu Tamura / Wikimedia Commons CC BY 3.0
We know that scientists change their ideas when new information comes to light, but evolutionary ideas change very rapidly because their dust-to-Dicynodon paradigm is faulty to begin with. Creationists also change their views according to the evidence, with one major difference: models can come and go, but the starting point of the Word of God stands. Genesis Flood geology is a far better explanation than the material that secular geologists present, and the following article gives an overview of creationist views.
One long-standing evolutionary “tale” is that toward the end of the Permian period (conventionally dated 252–299 million years ago) 90% of marine creatures and 75% of terrestrial organisms were wiped out in the most devastating mass extinction in all of history. This supposed mass extinction, sometimes called “The Great Dying,” is said to have happened over the course of 15 million years (or 200,000 years, depending on which evolutionist you ask!) and is said to have decimated shallow-water marine invertebrates, which make up the bulk of Permian fossils, as well as some aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates. Other groups, including some reptile and amphibian species, supposedly underwent serious decline during this time as well. There are many different stories of what caused the Permian extinction, but it has generally been agreed that this supposed extinction event was devastating to land and aquatic species. However, the interpretation of new research on Permian fossils challenges this story.
To sink your teeth into the rest of the article, click on "The Evolution of the Permian Extinction?"





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

Monday, January 4, 2016

Truth and Evolutionary Weeds

An article from 2003 shows the attitudes of the uninformed toward creationists. (If you study on it, you'll see that anti-creationists and evolutionists in general have worse attitudes toward biblical creationists nowadays.) It's common for them to misrepresent us, which is unfortunate because if you want to debate an opponent, you should at least understand and present what he actually says instead of making straw man arguments. Indeed, I've seen stuff attributed to me and wondered, "Where'd he get that?", which did not deserve a response. But then, many of these people aren't exactly known for their cogitating skills.


Evolutionists found an allegedly new species of weed, and claimed that it proved creationists were wrong. No, but it did show that they know little about creationists, and not much about doing science, either.
Prairie groundsel / Image credit: US National Park Service
There are several varieties of groundsel, and depending on your point of view, they can be wildflowers or noxious weeds. Yeah, keep your horses and yourselves from common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris), it's poisonous to your horses, cattle, and yourself. Not so sure about the prairie groundsel pictured above, but it's not usually a good idea to be thinking strange plants are good eats.

Anyway, scientists found a new groundsel "species". Yee ha yawn. It may not be a new species. Not only did the scientists let their evolutionary enthusiasm get in the way of doing actual science, but they acted like children with their foolish "we showed you"-type statements. I sorta wonder if they were smoking the weed instead of studying it. Besides, the Creator built in variability, and it would have been helpful if they knew about that before sneering that they disproved creation science, wouldn't it?
Two British scientists have just reported their findings of a new species of a type of weed known as a groundsel. The title of their paper seems innocuous enough, merely stating that this new weed—Senecio eboracensis—is a hybrid between two other groundsel species. Yet a commentary in The Times of London proudly proclaimed this as a demonstration of ‘evolution in action’. Furthermore, in a not-too-subtle stab at believers in Biblical Creation, the author stated that the weed’s discovery confirms that ‘Darwin was right and the creationists are wrong’!
To read the rest, go to ground at "A new weed species—does it prove Creation wrong?"





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

Saturday, January 2, 2016

Traveling in Time?

Most people have probably indulged in woolgathering about going forward or backward in time, maybe to warn Wild Bill Hickock to sit with his back to the wall in that poker game, warn yourself to stay home instead of going out on a certain night, cheating on the lottery numbers, or somesuch. Time travel has been the subject of many science fiction stories in printed and visual forms. But can it be done? There are things to deal with in physics, logic — and theology.


It's fascinating and fun to consider time travel. Is it possible? It may come as a surprise that there's a very qualified "yes", but there are logic, physics, and theology items to consider.
Restored police box in Glasgow, Scotland / Image credit: Freeimages / Jon Stout
There are many logical problems involved with going back in time that can make for interesting campfire discussions, but the paradoxes are insurmountable. Going forward in time? A form of that is possible according to Einstein (and was a key part of the Joe Haldeman novel The Forever War), but probably not in quite the way many people might think.
What an experience it would be to have a time machine! Just imagine traveling into the future, seeing technological marvels that have yet to be invented, and meeting our distant descendants. What will the world be like in 50 years? Or 100? Consider visiting the earth before the global Flood or encountering a living dinosaur. What would it be like to meet the apostle Paul, Moses, Noah, or Adam? And what Christian could pass up the opportunity to talk with Christ during His earthly ministry?

Science fiction abounds with time-travel stories. This perhaps reveals a fundamental aspect of human nature: We are fascinated with time. Animals live in the moment, but humans are made in God’s image. We have a sense of eternity that God has placed in our hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11), so it’s not surprising that adventures through time captivate our imaginations. But is time travel really possible?

As is often the case, truth turns out to be stranger than fiction. Scientists have discovered that time travel is indeed possible. Furthermore, time travel has even been documented. But lest anyone have fanciful hopes of traveling through time in a flying DeLorean, we must understand that real time travel is far more limited than the unrestrained freedom enjoyed by characters of science fiction.
I hope you have time to read the rest of the article. Just click on "Time Travel".





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

Friday, January 1, 2016

Continuing the Creation Journey in 2016

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Wishing you all a Happy Calendar-Changing Day! Well, there's nothing all that special about New Year's Day, and many cultures past and present established different dates and customs for their new year. Although I believe in setting goals and enacting them at the best possible time, January 1 is convenient in some ways — especially since those late-year holidays that many of us observe are taken care of. I'm ready to begin 2016 with my unregistered assault keyboard and hoping to equip all y'all who are willing to read.

I agree with other writers who have said that people like some of the personal stuff, so this article will have a bit more of that than usual. 


2015 was a great year for creation science, and I'm looking forward to 2016. Here are some points that have been emphasized on this site, and a personal view on what lies ahead.
Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/SSC, who would certainly not endorse the contents of this site!
But — why me? Why am I doing this? Seriously. There are many people with more intelligence, charm, good looks, skill, education, and experience than I have who say some of these things far better than I. (Someone told me that my Asian name is Sum Dum Gai. Everyone else laughed. I still don't get it.) In fact, I expressed this puzzlement about "why me?" to someone who said that maybe I'd say something that somehow "clicks" with a reader, even though he or she has read the ideas elsewhere. Could be. At any rate, I believe that God has called me to this online creation science ministry, so I intend to remain faithful until he tells me to stop, or brings me to that final roundup. Anyway, I put a passel of links up in about 1,300 articles on this site, hoping that people will follow them to the important material. Or at least, some of them.

It's exciting to be a creationist, and there has been a whole whack of evidence falling into place that supports our views — and upsets evolutionists. 

Over the past few years (and it seems more so in 2015), I keep on seeing how people interpret evidence according to their worldviews. This is extremely evident when dealing with origins science. Darwin's ranch hands often insist that science is something monolithic, standing on it's own merits. Something like, "We have science, and you have religion" is said. Such a statement displays ignorance, because science is a philosophy of interpreting evidence; the "scientific method" varies. Secularists interpret evidence through philosophical and methodological naturalism, and biblical creationists believe that the Bible is true, organized complexity in nature testifies to this, and the observable evidence supports the recent creation and the Genesis Flood.

Regular readers know that I emphasize how evolutionary thinking is actually harmful to scientific research (for example, in "Cancer Research and Evolutionary Thinking". In a recent episode of Genesis Week, Ian Juby discussed how evolutionary bias has scientists portraying ancient people as something recently evolved but were stupid. In fact, this is probably behind the view that Noah and company were not able to build the Ark, because they were too "primitive". Biblical creationists believe that God made man intelligent from the get-go. I recommend Ian's video, "Ppl R smrt".

There's an example of one thing that I emphasize: people argue from their presuppositions and worldviews. But there are other things that people need to be aware of:
  • Being aware of the logical fallacies that atheists and evolutionists employ to bully Christians and creationists helps keep you from being intimidated.
  • One major logical fallacy is the bait 'n' switch of conflation (or equivocation) on definitions. There are many definitions for evolution, and some are vague. Because fruit flies or bacteria "evolved" (showed change), this is proof of evolution. Wrong-o! That sneaky trick is used to get people to think that simple variation is evidence of microbes-to-microbiologist evolution, which is false.
  • Neo-Darwinism is assumed to be true by many scientists, but they are not unified in their beliefs, and there are many scientists who reject such evolutionism.
  • The science press makes outrageous proclamations, sometimes without the support of scientists that they quote
These, and more, appear on this site and the major creation science sites that are linked here. Part of my calling is to equip Christians to stand up for the truth of biblical creation, because the science supports our view far better than the uniformitarian, deep-time views of the secularists and the religious compromisers who support them. Another thing is that we need to stand firm and uphold the authority of Scripture. Also, I hope that honest, inquiring evolutionists (not the anti-creationists) will begin to think about some of these things and ultimately come to terms with the Creator.

The year of our Lord 2015 was a great year for creation science and evidence for a recent creation, as were previous years. This extends from dinosaur soft tissues to DNA to radiometric dating and meteorites to discoveries in space that shocked secular cosmologists, and much more that is discussed on this site and others that are linked. I'm looking forward to bringing you information, Question Evolution Day, and things to ponder in 2016, to the glory of God.





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

Labels