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

Tuesday, November 24, 2020

Those Other Senses in Animals

Most people have and use their five basic senses, so it may be surprising to learn that many animals could be considered to have sixth senses. This is not about occult things, but it is clear that the Master Engineer built special features into creatures.

It may be surprising to know that many animals have senses beyond our basic five. These testify of the Master Engineer and cannot be evosplained away.
Credits: Original photo from Unsplash / Yu-chuan Hsu, modified at PhotoFunia
A quick aside before we move on, just an unscientific opinion. Sometimes things are considered psychic or a sixth sense in humans, but I think that some of these are based on lost abilities. Many abilities have been undeveloped or negated by industrialized societies where our ancestors would rely on and interpret input from their senses. Even now, we may realize that an air current has changed or a change in lighting and shadows indicated that someone drew near. Just wondering how much may still be built into us but has faded over time and disuse.

Let's get to cognating on the critters, shall we? The beaks of pigeons have particles of magnetite that are linked to their brains, helping their navigation. As many people know, some organisms can see light waves beyond those that the human eye and brain can detect. Ever use night vision goggles or see them in use on television? Some animals have built-in thermal imaging. Or consider the fact that animals can hear sounds that are far above or below what we were designed to hear — and communicate with them.

Darwin's disciples cannot give rational explanations of plausible models for the numerous abilities. They evosplain that such things had to evolve by time, chance, natural selection, dumb luck, and so on. Nor can they provide believable models. No, it makes much more sense to give appropriate credit to the Creator.
We rely on our senses to tell us accurately about our surroundings. However, our five senses cannot detect everything. The world is full of information beyond our reach, but many animals have “sixth senses”—super senses that enable them to experience other dimensions of our world. These bonus senses help these creatures survive and thrive in their habitats.

I hope you have sense enough to read the entire article over at "Sixth Senses in Animals". You can also download the MP3 version by my favorite reader.

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

Monday, November 23, 2020

Reworking the Quote Mine

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Centuries ago, I wrote "Working in a Quote Mine" about accusations by anti-creationists of "quote mining" by biblical creationists. That is, taking remarks by a proponent of molecules-to-miner evolution out of context, misquoting, or other trickery for our own ends. 

When creationists quote evolutionists who admit their belief has problem, we are usually accused of quote mining. Such an accusation is usually fake.
Credit for image of burros at silver mine ca. 1900: LoC / Photochrom Collection

The main advantage of mining for quotes over mining for nose gold is that it's easier to share the quotes. Even better, however, is that using quotes by evolutionists who admit that their belief system has serious problems is a technique in law called statements against interest.

One of the tricks atheists use to dehumanize Christians and creationists is to lie about us. A lot. To say that we are digging up quotes to imply that some materialists suddenly announced, "My pals and I ain't riding for the Darwin brand no more" is sheer fatuousness. I reckon that anti-creationists make this charge for a couple of reasons. One is that their faith is shaken, "Galileo Figaro! Thunderbolt and lightning! Frightening me very!" The other reason is their desire to vilify creationists through poisoning the well and negate the truth of what we have to say.

I'll allow that there are mistakes, and biblical creationists should have a very high standard, what with being human and all. We cannot pass around a quote of a quote of a quote like secularists using non-reproducible peer-reviewed papers. I have discarded quotes myself when I could not find a reliable source. (We don't need hearsay because the facts are on our side anyhow.) Sometimes feral atheists will accuse us of lying because of a wording imperfection or using other typo pouncing. Other times, inefficient research yields an imprecise quote that works against us. Stop that.

In "That 'Quote Mining' Monkey Business", I quoted George Wald. Misotheists went ballistic, calling me a liar and so on. Their accusations were based on ignorance of the subject matter, their own poor research, and variations on Wald's statements. In this case (and in general) it is up to the accusers to back up their claims, showing that the creationist was disingenuous, incorrect, and embellishing the quote so we can make a straw man argument. 

What follows below is an article by Dr. Jerry Bergman from 2004. He was maligned by someone who did not have his own facts straight, beclowning himself through ridiculous attacks. This analysis is helpful to see how anti-creationists (who often are unskilled in science and ignorant of their own mythology) become desperate to hogtie creationists. Also note that the source of the attack was not from a reputable source, but just another propaganda mill that is revered by anti-creationists.

The claim by Darwinists that  “misquoting” by creationists is universal, or close to it, was investigated in this paper, and a specific example was examined and shown to be incorrect.  Specifically, the claims of Jim Foley were evaluated and were shown to be totally erroneous.  The case I examined, Foley claimed, was one of the worst cases he has identified of creationist misquoting.  I have also evaluated at many other cases of alleged creationist misquoting and concluded the claim of misquoting is usually actually an attempt to misrepresent the creationist, although in some cases it was due to typographical errors, sloppiness, or was in a few cases actually contrived by anti-creationists.

You can read the rest at "An Evaluation of Alleged Misquoting by Creationists—the Case of Jim Foley".

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

Saturday, November 21, 2020

Misotheists Dehumanizing Christians and Creationists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Making fun of an institution through satire and parody can be found throughout millennia to illustrate perceived absurdities of belief systems. These are used for various targets, but the most common seem to be political or religious. 

We have seen that militant atheists attack God, Christians, and creationists. Part of what they are doing is a part of tribalism; dehumanizing us.
C. Richard Dawkins ridiculing Ray Comfort, image credits:
Flickr / David Shankbone (public domain), modified with FotoSketcher
So why attack individuals instead of ideas? It seems like practically everyone does it. Just ask the uncool kids in school. This is far beyond satire or persuasion. A quote commonly (but probably erroneously) attributed to Socrates is, "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser". This child sees a useful principle in that statement.

Although it is common to encounter proponents of atheistic naturalism ridiculing biblical creationists in rallies, books, videos, and so on, it is greatly intensified on social(ist) media. With the option of anonymity, attacks increase with impunity and vitriol. Note that when a professing atheist makes demands on a Christian, there is usually a great deal of sneering and loaded questions.

These tend to sound like:
  • Why do you st00pid creatards hate science?
  • Prove to me God exists. You can't because he doesn't. (Ironically, previous statements made using the falsehood that atheists "lack belief" are conveniently forgotten, as is the fact that atheism is a religion.)
  • Give me evidence that the Genesis Flood happened. You can't because it didn't. In both of these, viciously circular reasoning as well as ad hominem attacks are utilized.
  • I won't read that material because it's not from a reputable scientific journal (the genetic fallacy). When attempting to provide answers, atheists and evolutionists generally refuse to read the material or watch videos because they're not from "reputable scientific journals". This usually means material based on atheistic naturalism, and peer-reviewed creation science journals are rejected.
  • A creation scientist who has a degree in astronomy has no business discussing geology. Never mind the evidence, and never mind the double standard of pretending that Dawkins and other well-heeled atheists are skilled in theology or other fields in which they are not degreed.
  • Creationists don't do science and are not real scientists.
  • Your views on creation don't count because you have the wrong political beliefs.
Just a few other things to consider:
  • When cornered, anti-creationists tend to ignore what was said or offered, then change the subject and attack the person.
  • Constantly attempting to keep us on the defensive. One fellow was asking questions at The Question Evolution Project, and I was giving answers. Suddenly, he said, "But you still can't prove your God exists". Another kept demanding evidence, and I asked him what kind of evidence he wanted. His was that we should produce what we have and he would evaluate it. Doesn't work that way. Besides, to demand empirical evidence for the existence of God is a logical fallacy called the category error.
  • Refusal to admit that because they disagree with someone, that does not justify an accusation of lying.
  • Many of these people exhibit disdain for the laws of logic, an understanding of basic science, and even of minerals-to-misotheist evolution.
  • Evolution is a cornerstone of atheism, so they fight, red in tooth and claw, to keep it going.
These lists can much longer, but that would be excessive.

We have discussed numerous times that we all have the same evidence, but it depends on our worldview-based interpretations of it. Also, evidence aside, a big problem is spiritual: atheists and evolutionists reject the authority of God's written Word, so they suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18-23). Another problem is something I learned about recently from Dr. Todd C. Wood, who was a big part of inspiring this article. A short video presentation by him is at the end.

Tribalism has an "us and them" mentality. After all, we're only ordinary men and women. Atheists have the spiritual problem of hating God (and therefore, God in his people, 2 Tim. 3:12, John 15:19). This intensifies their tribalism into dehumanizing those who do not share their views.

Some time ago, someone named Mr. Gordons posted in an anti-creationist forum, asking if anyone there could say anything nice about a creationist. There was no response. Apparently, that would be acknowledging their personhood. Indeed, although my Author/Public Figure Page on Facebook is monitored by misotheists, the humorous or public service posts have not been acknowledged. It may be against the rules in the Atheist Handbook®.

Related to dehumanizing is the logical fallacy of poisoning the well; why listen to someone when someone is not a real person because he or she is not "one of us"?

I suggest that you keep this concept of dehumanizing in mind when reading or hearing militant atheists. Christians and creationists must use discernment to decide how much time and intellectual energy to spend on anti-creationists. On one hand, we may be able to help remove stumbling blocks so they will be more receptive to the gospel message and possibly inform others who listen or read our responses. On the other hand, many are hard hearted, intent on wasting our time and justifying their rebellion against God. After all, he's the Creator and he makes the rules — we must learn what he has to say.

EDIT: Within an hour or two after posting this, angry militant atheists swarmed like gadflies and managed, with their boilerplate rhetoric and vituperation, the accuracy of this article.

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

Friday, November 20, 2020

Ordinary People Can Challenge Evolution

With the tenth annual Question Evolution Day less than three months away, what follows is a useful article to get people thinking. It is not long or complex. When people think it is indecent to question universal common descent evolution, we have some points to raise and questions to ask.

We do not need advanced degrees to ask some pertinent questions of evolutionists. Also, we can catch them using dreadful logic and bad science.

If we have the unmitigated gall to doubt Darwin, fundamentalist evolutionists often say, "Are you a scientist? Where did you get your degree?" These are the same sidewinders that say creationists don't do science, and scientists who are creationists are, therefore, not scientists. Note the double standard that defenders of evolutionism that are encountered online seldom have degrees themselves! It's acceptable to promote their views without degrees, but we must have degrees to question them. This is simply bullying and a kind of appeal to authority. It's who they are and what they do.

What really grinds their goats is when we show that we have some knowledge and reasoning skills. (Some of us who are not scientists catch them dealing from the bottom of the deck where logical fallacies are concerned.) While they scoff at the concept of specified complexity (everything has to be functioning properly in an organism or nothing works, nothing makes sense), they can do little more than evosplain it with nonsensical jargon, lines on charts, and weasel words. "Scientists think...it could be...maybe...perhaps...convergent evolution..." and so on explain nothing. They go to great lengths to deny the Creator's work and also deny his rightful place.
It’s one thing to simply draw a line on a paper between two animals’ pictures to express a belief that they’re related, but how can we know for sure? One test offers a hard stop to evolution between basic kinds: all-or-nothing body systems.

Body parts integrate into body systems. Each part, and each piece that makes up that part, needs the right shape, size, and strength of material to do its job. That’s why brains aren’t made of enamel but of interconnected nerves.

Some body parts can change a little and still allow the system to work. For example, human legs come short and thick or long and thin and every variety in between. But the imaginary process of transforming fish fins into human legs would leave the in-between creature either unable to swim or unable to walk. It would die, as would its evolution. Take enough of a fish’s fins away on its supposed journey to land life, and it loses its ability to track down dinner before it becomes dinner.

To read the rest of this useful article, see "How Can You Refute Evolution?" Also, this eleven-minute video clip is interesting:

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

Thursday, November 19, 2020

Science, the Bible, and GMOs

Folks are a mite confused about this GMO thing, and there are strong passions on both sides of the issue. Some see this genetic manipulation as evil, so some food merchandisers proudly proclaim, "No GMOs!" Others see it as a tremendous scientific boon.

There is a great deal of concern and fear about GMOs. They may alleviate food shortage problems. We need to know if they are biblical and safe.
Both images found at Pexels
Angry fox: Vinicius Altava; Statue facepalm: karatara
There are views all over the map, and a great deal of emotion. Some people who are against GMOs manipulate emotions and say that they're dangerous, and this child suspects that most people have no knowledge of the controversy. What's the hubbub, Bub, about Genetically Modified Organisms?

I'll allow that genetic modification where people modify the gene itself has not been happening for all that long, but a form of genetic modification has been around for millennia. There are foods that we eat that are the product of artificial selection (Darwinists consider artificial selection a form of how natural selection causes evolution, but neither of those are true). Eugenics is an attempt to cause artificial selection to happen in humans so that they "best" humans continue to thrive. If you have a purebred dog or cat, for instance, that is the result of selective breeding, which is also artificial selection.

There are very fine people on both sides of the GMO issue, including Christians. This issue seems to be a darling of leftist "progressive" politics. Scare tactics abound. Instead, people should learn that food safety is not the issue, and we can use our minds and quite possibly use science to utilize what our Creator has given us. It would be great if we could use this science to help alleviate food shortages.

Here in the formerly United States as well as many other countries, there are government agencies that regulate food production and safety. Why do you think you need a license and have health safety inspectors approve of your home baked goods business? Let's get educated on this, and not let emotionalism or faulty theology cloud our judgments. Find out if GMO deniers are really promoting food safety, and if their statements are valid.
Today’s food battle typically wages against seemingly wholesome foods containing “corn, soybean, cotton, wheat, canola, sorghum, and sugar cane seeds.”1 What is common to all these seemingly wholesome foods is that they typically are genetically modified in the US—their DNA has been changed. Currently, the FDA has no requirement to label foods made with these ingredients, and there have been no recalls. But have they acted in a safe and responsible fashion? Or is there anything really wrong with these common “all natural” products? Are GMOs ethical?

 Although I seldom use book chapters here, I reckon this one is very helpful and interesting. To read the whole thing, get comfy for about a half an hour, then head on over to "Are GMOs Ethical?"

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

Wednesday, November 18, 2020

Can You Copy the Cat?

I miss Basement Cat. Can you make a copy? We have pictures and even a video or two for reference. Oh, you need more to work with. What about if you make a copy using a living cat for reference, will that work? 

I miss Basement Cat. Can someone make a copy? Of course not. Evolutionists say living things are the products of accidents. No, all are created.

Where are you going? I do not appreciate that look you gave me! What does it take to make a copy, anyhow? Let's back up a mite. Since believers in universal common descent insist that every living thing is the product of time, chance, random processes, mutations, and accidents. Shouldn't be to hard to do a cat from scratch (heh, she scratched me in rough play a few times!), you just have to get the parts.

What, they're not available at the bit chain retail store or even on those big internet retailers? I could let you off the hook and say you don't have to build the entire feline machine, what with fast reflexes, sensitive olfactory apparatus, radar ears, inquisitive nature, and all that. Could you copy a cat then?

Well of course not! Even if you tried, your result would be cat-astrophic. As we saw yesterday, cells are extremely complex, and we know that living things are even more complex. Cells, cats, dogs, plants, people — it takes a passel of faith to believe in evolution.

It takes far less time to copy than it does to create, and far less thought.  For instance, you can copy the sheet music of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony on a copy machine in a few minutes, and never even know about inverted Cmaj7 chords.  Being able to create it, however, would take years of training and practice, thought and inspiration.

You can copy a video of a movie in minutes, but it takes years of training and months of filming for actors, directors, writers, producers, stuntmen and cinematographers to film the movie.

So there is a giant leap between copying and creating.

There is also a major leap between inability to copy and copying.

To copy Tolstoy’s War and Peace you must have the ability to read and write, ability to make paper, a printing press, ink, typesetters and printers.  A stone age tribe in South America could not copy War and Peace, or any other book.

So what does this say about our inability to copy a cat? Our best scientists can’t even copy a potato. This is embarrassing.

You can read the rest at "Kitty Copying and Evolution". I miss Basement Cat.

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

Tuesday, November 17, 2020

Inner Mechanics of the Cell Cycle

Back when I went to school, I was fortunate when I could hitch a ride on a passing Stegosaurus. Another fiction of bygone days is that cells were simple. As science progressed, complexities of the cell became more and more apparent.

Scientists are continuing to learn that the simple cell is not simple after all. Its complexity defies evolution and affirms the genius of the Creator
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / NHS National Genetics and Genomics Education Centre (CC BY 2.0)

Believers in muck-to-mycologist evolution are confounded by explaining the origin of the first cell, let alone the irreducible complexity of the cell cycle. Before a cell can get its motor running and head out on the cell-division highway, it must go through several stages. It must duplicate its DNA, and those tiny molecular machines minimize mutations so cells don't run out of control. The entire process testifies to those who can understand of the Master Engineer's genius.

The cell cycle is one of the most important biological processes. It describes how cells multiply in number by duplicating the information in the parent cell before dividing into two daughter cells. There are over 10 trillion cells in the human body, and the cell cycle must work efficiently and accurately to increase and differentiate different types of tissues.

Evolutionists admit that the origin of the first cell is one of the most difficult problems for their theory. This is because the very first cell had to include a fantastic amount of stored information. It had to have a substantial number of complex molecular machines to maintain the cell, produce energy, and more. And it had to be able to reproduce itself by dividing. The cell cycle is present in all life forms, from simple bacteria to humans. It is a design element that is necessary for all living things.

To read the rest, see "The wonderfully designed cell cycle".

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