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

Thursday, August 11, 2016

Stories as Science for Fun and Profit

One problem we have in dealing with Darwin's Drones is that they believe yarn-spinners in the science industry, then they spread that stuff as if it was genuine scientific research. It's bad enough that they believe unsubstantiated conjectures such as the Oort cloud (gotta keep the universe old, Pilgrim), but they spread tentative findings as well. The science press doesn't help matters much, what with spreading propaganda and all.

Evolutionary scientists and their partners in the science press have been spreading "Just So Stories" for years. Now they brag about it.

The criticism that common-ancestry scientists are telling Just So Stories is appropriate, since they've engaged in Making Stuff Up® for many years. Many times, the stories have village evolutionists stampeding to their keyboards to spread the "news", and then they are forgotten. Other times, false science ends up in textbooks, where discredited material languishes for years. Now scientists are flaunting their storytelling abilities (and getting paid for not doing serious science) in their efforts to deny the Creator. Again, who pays these people?
Some evolutionists not only own up to just-so storytelling; they parade it.

Evolutionary biologists have been shamed about storytelling for decades, often by their own colleagues. For instance, back in 2004, George Williams—an influential evolutionist—expressed his disgust with some of his colleagues who exchanged scientific rigor for ad-hoc scenarios (5/31/04). The storytellers would claim that any adaptation “had evolved because it provided some benefit” to an individual or population. Anyone can imagine a benefit leading to a trait, but where is the connection between cause and effect? In fact, as we have pointed out, it’s illogical to say something “evolved to” do something, because natural selection is supposed to be blind and purposeless. One case Williams heard about was the notion that dying of the elderly “evolved to do it so we get out of the way, so the young people can go on maintaining the species.” He called this “absolute nonsense” and called on his fellows to act more scientific. This was also a theme of the late Stephen Jay Gould, who dubbed the storytelling habit “Darwinian fundamentalism.” The phrase “just-so story” is itself pejorative to Darwinism, reflecting a caricature of explanation like the childish stories of that name written by Rudyard Kipling for children. Scientists are supposed to do better.
To read the rest, click on "Evolutionists Boast of Storytelling". Also recommended: "Silly Stories Demean Science".


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

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Ethics, Scientism, and an Evolutionary Worldview

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

What kind of ethics can we expect in science from people who have an evolutionary worldview, where we are not made in God's image because they believe there is no Creator God in the first place? Scientists discuss ethical boundaries, but it's difficult to want to accept those from people who do not have an absolute moral foundation and believe that we are just another animal.

What kind of ethics can we expect in science from people who have an evolutionary worldview, where we are not made in God's image because they believe there is no Creator God in the first place? They're making modern "chimeras" from various embryos, including human.
Chimaera image credit: Wikimedia Commons / ArthurWeasley
In mythology, a Chimera (or Chimaera) was a vicious critter made of parts of several other critters. Depending on the myth, some were fire-breathing dragons of sorts. Nowadays, you can hear the word in serious scientific material. This is due to CRISPR genome editing. It's one thing to be tampering with making hybrid animals, but scientists are also adding human embryos to the mix. Since they have subjective morality, they are asking for changes in legal limits so they can experiment a bit longer on creatures they develop.

People have an admiration/distrust relationship with scientists and science in general, but some people are strict empiricists. That is, with materialism as a foundation, all knowledge (therefore, all truth) is to be obtained through the empirical scientific method. If you study on it for a spell, you'll see that it's self-refuting: the idea itself cannot be obtained from empirical methods, it's abstract in nature. The adoration of science is Scientism, which is materialistic and atheistic in nature.

I disremember where I read it, but I thought that an atheist had proposed not only doing away with "religion", but to have an atheistic "benevolent dictatorship". Sounds similar to what Neil deGrasse Tyson is promoting in his concept of "Rationalia". Well, having professing atheists in charge based on their version of "reason" has been tried. Just look up "Reign of Terror".

The religion of chimera-makers and advocates of Scientism have materialism as a foundation. The reject the authority of God's Word, as well as the scientific evidence for recent creation. Instead, they prefer to saddle up and ride the old nag of evolution, and the trail takes them — and us — to some mighty dark places. Especially when they have political power, and we already know that we don't fit. Do we want their ethics and boundaries? This child says, "Not hardly!"

What made me put the bit in my teeth and gallop away with this article was a podcast I heard from Albert Mohler called "The Briefing". It has a Christian perspective on various news and political items, so I was startled when the podcast was on my own homestead. It's only 22 minutes, and I really hope that you'll listen to it. Free to listen or download, just click on "Will our brave new world include human-animal chimeras? NIH proposal erases ethical lines".

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

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Rethinking Evolutionary Indoctrination

A common lie that Darwinistas tell is along the lines of, "You don't believe in evolution because you don't understand it". Those owlhoots conveniently ignore the fact that there are many scientists who do understand evolution and have rejected it — some prominent biblical creationary scientists are former evolutionists.

There was a satirical cartoon posted at The Question Evolution Project, and someone came along saying that it indicates that we don't understand evolution. Some Darwin devotees tried to explain it to us, including the catch-all expression, "Evolution is change in allele frequencies", which is too broad a definition to be useful, and that creationists accept those small changes anyway. But people like that try to deceive us by equivocating "small changes" with "descent from a common ancestor". What's interesting is that many times, creationists have to correct evolutionists on their own pseudoscience!

Evolutionist educators are upset because not enough people believe in evolution and believe in creation. They are looking into new ways to indoctrinate people.
Image credit: Morguefile / thesuccess
Evolution educators are on the prod because too many people are thinking for themselves and rejecting Darwin Party propaganda. (My answer is that common-ancestor evolution is false, it's as been and still is promoted by fraud, and wild-eyed conjectures are used instead of actual scientific research. Some people aren't buying it.) So, the indoctrination into evolutionism must increase. Find new ways, be "seeker sensitive" to catch their eye. Gotta catch 'em all, can't let any reject secularist views of origins and believe in God the Creator!
“Why doesn’t everyone believe in evolution? It’s a fact!” A recent article from the University of Pennsylvania, “Following in Darwin’s Footsteps to Teach the Public about Evolution,” highlights this confounding problem for secularists. According to a recent national survey conducted by the university, approximately 25% of those surveyed were some form of creationist. How could this be?

Penn researchers Michael Weisberg, professor and chair of the philosophy department, and Deena Weisberg, a senior fellow in the psychology department, decided to look into the issue in search of a solution. They recruited a team of undergraduates who conducted interviews with the general public. The goal was to determine the “misunderstandings” of evolution deniers. Their broad conclusion? “A lot of people have no idea what evolution is.”
To finish reading, click on "Evolving Tactics for Teaching Evolution". 


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

Monday, August 8, 2016

No Place Like Earth for Life

Nice planet we have here. Why would we want to leave it? More than that, there's a great deal to show that Earth was made for life — nothing else is like it.

Some folks are excited about the possibility of sending a manned vehicle to Mars, and that would require a long period of time in space. Activity on the International Space Station is helping to ascertain what long periods in microgravity can do to a person, and it's not pretty. People have done some impressive things in space travel, but we've spent most of that time still benefiting from proximity to Earth. Those planet-sized deflector shields that God set up have protected us for a few thousand years.

Space is a dangerous place. There's a great deal to show that Earth was made for life — nothing else is like it.
Image credit: STS-116 / NASA
Even this close to Earth, spacefarers are exposed to high levels of radiation. Wonder what will happen between here and Mars, and on Mars? Meanwhile, over Venus way, the electric field is five times that of earth. Scientists wonder why. The moon Titan as well as Venus are losing metric tons every year, which is a problem for devotees of deep time; the solar system can't be as old as secular scientist say it is, and this electrical activity would have destroyed any water, if it had ever existed on Venus.

There are several other items that help illustrate that our Creator put us in a special place, and designed it to protect us. Also, Dr. Coppedge has increased his list of "habitable zone" items up to fourteen. To find out more, click on "Only Earth Is a Life Haven".

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

Saturday, August 6, 2016

Anti-Creationist Overgeneralizations

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

During my years on teh interweb, I've seen many things and encountered a passel of things presented as arguments — many are dreadful. Something that really burns my prairie schooner is the way anti-creationists and atheists use prejudical conjecture, and make sweeping generalizations about biblical creation.

One example is the controversial Ica stones that supposedly show dinosaurs, which some creationists have used as possible evidence for dinosaurs existing with humans. Although the jury is still out regarding the authenticity of the Ica stones, scoffers boldly assert that they are fake, claim that we commonly use them as evidence for our views, and then use this assertion against biblical creation science as a whole. Although some of the stones are undoubtedly fake, such a sweeping generalization is logically fallacious.

Anti-creationists tend to find a flaw, real or imagined, and overgeneralize against biblical creation science as a whole. That's the opposite of rational thinking.
Ica stones image credit: Brattarb / Creative Commons CC BY-SA 3.0
How about the Loch Ness Monster? I'll allow that although this is tangential to creation science, it is occasionally discussed in cryptozoology presentations and the like. The most famous photo of Nessie was revealed to be a fake, so that apparently gives some people license to overgeneralize, discarding 1,500 years of reported sightings, including those of reputable people in more recent times. Again, such "reasoning" is fallacious.

Some creationists have used the idea of rock art depicting a pterosaur as evidence that man and dinosaurs lived together. This was debunked, so we move on — again, it was not a major pillar of creation science, but we encounter tinhorns that gleefully generalize and mock creationists (see previous link, and the one that follows). While being fallacious, the author of this article admits that the rock art was endorsed by a minority of creationists. Then he ridicules all of us. If you're looking for logic, look elsewhere. Meanwhile, there is a great deal of other evidence that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time

Those three are nowhere near the primary evidence for a young Earth and against evolution, but they help illustrate the point that people jump on the small things to discredit the whole of biblical creation science. More common is to see anti-creationists disputing scientific evidence against evolution (some sidewinders even call us "liars" when they dislike what creationists present), and find online material to "refute" the creationists' material. Some even cite abstracts from scientific journals (often with material much older than the creationist evidence being challenged), even though they show no ability to understand such material. (I believe scholarly evolutionists are not likely to be trolling the Web on a secularist jihad like the village Darwinista is wont to do.) The overgeneralization here is that since creation evidence is not proven to an individual's satisfaction, none of it is valid.

I reckon that much of the anti-creationist complaining is based on argument from personal incredulity, a form of argument from ignorance. That goes something like, "I cannot or will not believe what the creationists' say, so it must not be true, so I'll reject all possible evidence supporting the peripheral possibilities that an individual presents". Some presuppose that it's not possible to give evidence for recent special creation, so they seem to use personal incredulity along with the genetic fallacy to reject creation science.

Another example is based entirely on personal experience, and I am not going to track down the lecture that I heard this from, so no supporting links, no naming names. A somewhat popular Christian apologist expressed hatred for the biblical creationist position. This old Earther quoted a creationist who was not exactly in a leadership position, claimed that he was wrong (or may have even accused the creationist of lying, I disremember which), gave cherry-picked "evidence" against him, then wrote off all biblical creation science. And this guy dares to teach about logic and honesty? Even if the cited creationist was wrong or lying, that's just one guy.

Sometimes we make mistakes, sometimes people find exceptions to possible evidence, sometimes they reject it out of hand because it threatens their a priori evolutionary and old Earth paradigms. Overgeneralizing to dismiss creationists because of rejected information is completely irrational and disingenuous. How about being intellectually honest and examining the strong evidence that biblical creationists present instead of going after the low-hanging fruit?

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

Friday, August 5, 2016

The Term "Living Fossil" Seems Offensive

Darwinists tend to get a mite riled when biblical creationists use the term living fossil. Probably because it reminds them of evolution's failure. (One reason I chose "Piltdown Superman" for this site is to remind molecules-to-machinist evolutionists of the Piltdown Man fraud that fooled many scientists for about 40 years.) So, isn't it the trend these days that if someone can't handle the truth, try to get them to stifle themselves about it?

Those things called "living fossils" have been an embarrassment for evolutionists since Darwin's day. One seems offended by the term and wants it dropped. Ain't happening.
The Wollemi pine is considered a living fossil
Wollamia Nobilis image credit: Fritz Geller-Grimm / Wikimedia Commons
Briefly stated, a living fossil is something that shows up in the fossil record, hasn't been seen, then is discovered alive and well. Embarrassing to evolutionists, and some invoke the spirit of stasis, a ridiculous attempt to say that things didn't change because they didn't have to, despite dramatic environmental changes over millions of Darwinspeak years. So, someone's offended, it appears, and wants the phrase dropped, and his "reasons" have some falsehoods. We ain't dropping the term, old son. People have to realize that evolution is false, and the evidence points to creation. I reckon that if some people have their way, facts against evolution and affirming special creation will be considered "hate speech" soon, since so many weak people are "offended" over every little thing.
Mark Carnall at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History recently wrote an article for the UK newspaper The Guardian. He argues that we should stop using the term "living fossil." What does his argument reveal about evolutionary thinking?

Charles Darwin first used the phrase in the Origin of Species to describe life forms that look essentially the same today as their fossil versions, even though their fossils are absent from intervening rock layers.

Carnall called the coelacanth fish the "living fossil poster child." When early evolutionists first saw its fossils in Devonian rocks, they thought the creature represented a long-extinct missing link—the fish that might have crawled onto land on its way to evolving into the first amphibian. That all changed when a researcher happened to discover a freshly caught coelacanth in a fish market in 1938. Marine biologists have since identified two populations of the deep-water dwelling fish. So what's the problem with the term "living fossil"?
To read the rest of this short article, click on "Should We Drop the Term 'Living Fossil'?


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

Thursday, August 4, 2016

Yaks at the Top of the World

One time, people at the workplace were getting a mite talkative. I said, "Sounds like a herd of Tibetan pack animals". After they gave me a blank stare, I said, "Yak yak yak!" Yeah, I know, supposed to be spelled "yack", but I just had to make a play on words. But have you ever considered the big, shaggy beast?

Yaks have been equipped by their Creator to adapt to the harsh conditions at the top of the world.
Image credit: Pixabay / Simon
When you look at the picture, you can see that they are related to cattle. They are used in the same way: milk, cheese (hard to find around these parts), hides, food, pack animals, and so on, so they're important for the survival of the humans up there. In fact, yaks can interbreed with the more common kinds. But don't be looking for cowboys bringing them to Texas for beef and saddling up because they don't do well in lower temperatures. Not only did God give them the ability to adapt to the thin air, but also the cold temperatures that they prefer. There are some fascinating inner mechanisms that they've been equipped with, including specialized hemoglobin. Evolutionists cannot give a plausible mechanism for their existence.
The Tibetan plateau is the roof of the world. Rising three miles into the sky, the air is intolerably thin, water is scarce, and temperatures regularly plummet to –40°F. No trees peep above the rocky, windswept landscape. Even hardy shrubs struggle to survive.

Yet there they are, lots of them—massive hairy yaks munching away on meager scraps of grass and herbs, seemingly oblivious to their impossible situation. Wild males can be over 10 feet (3.25 m) long and tower over 6.5 feet (2 m) at the shoulders; their average weight is around 1 ton (1,000 kg).

With its dense, woolly undercoat and shaggy outer hair coat, the “grunting ox” (Bos grunniens) is well prepared to endure the raging cold that is characteristic of this remote region of Asia. Yaks can easily withstand temperatures of –40 degrees, that numbing condition where the Fahrenheit and Celsius readings are the same... if the thermometer goes that low. They have been seen bathing in lakes and rivers, regardless of the temperature.
To read the rest, click on "Yaks — Living the High Life". 


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