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, February 12, 2021

Rules for Radicals and Question Evolution Day

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Subjects like radical and Saul Alinsky are not exactly what one would expect for the tenth annual Question Evolution Day, but hopefully this article will be interesting. This is in no wise an endorsement of Alinsky or Rules for Radicals, but there are some things that can be learned.

In this unique article, some of Alinsky's rules are examined. We can see how anti-creationists use these against us and prepare ourselves to respond.
Modified with a graphic from Photos Public Domain
The word radical is frequently thrown around with little regard to its original meaning. It is quite often used as a pejorative. Nowadays it can have connotations of people with Molotov fire bombs or doing other acts of violence. It is used to label extremist views (making Charles Darwin a radical because his views were not readily accepted at first). The true meanings of radical are quite different, including holding to a foundation or basic principle

Saul Alinsky was friendly to communist views and leftist government, but did not seem to promote actual violence. What I read of Rules for Radicals was interesting and unpretentious. He was a community organizer/activist and his rules (sources vary between 12 and 13) were intended for empowering communities. They have been used by many people for various purposes. Hillary Clinton and B. Hussein Obama were quite fond of Alinsky, and several of his tactics are incorporated by political leftists. Several of those are worth examining here.

He was a Jew, but apparently his religious leanings were more agnostic than Jewish. Many of Alinsky's views were Marxist. (Karl Marx himself was born Jewish and raised Lutheran, but became an atheist and evolutionist early in life.) Indeed, dedications at the beginning of Rules for Radicals included Lucifer, the first rebel against the establishment. (Ironic that the counterculture of his time became the establishment and they fight to preserve it.) Some ideas that Alinsky promoted were not original with him, and can be traced to Marxist and Nazi propaganda. Except for the violence, Alinsky is comparable to Machiavelli in reverse: taking power away from those who have it.

Biblical creationists, Christians, Intelligent Design proponents, and also political Conservatives encounter these rules, often without knowing it. I will not say that there are significant "community activists" among atheists and evolutionist who are organizing these things. However, it seems that many of those people are aware of some of these rules. Other creationists and I have encountered such tactics.

Let's examine some and put them in our context.

Never go outside the expertise of your people

Atheists use the same boilerplate copy 'n' paste reactions, making it difficult to find original thought from them. Similarly, evolutionists rely on writings and research of other evolutionists, usually presupposing naturalism. They even use retracted peer-reviewed papers and build upon them! Instead of blackballing creationists and insisting on naturalism, they would do well to learn from creationist scientists instead of evolutionary evangelists and their propaganda. Building their wall..."Mother, did it need to be so high?"

On the other hand, creationists do go outside our own group. We learn where evolutionists are coming from and use their material; evolutionists are actually working for creation science! Also, the ID people deny being creationists (although many creationists are involved in the ID movement), but creationists use intelligent design arguments that reveal the expertise of the Master Engineer. 

Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules

It is common to find atheists attacking the Bible and saying how God is a big meanie that tells us not to kill, then does killing his ownself. They conveniently forgot the contexts they cite. Also, they neglect that he's the Creator, he makes the rules, and his judgments are righteous. It has been rightly said that the god atheists hate is not the God of the Bible — a straw god, if you will.

There have been times that I have been accused of "lying about evolution", and this attack has been leveled against other biblical creationists. They essentially say that we are violating the Bible we claim to believe. As I have said in the past, just because a statement hurts someone's feelings, they dislike it in someway, or simply disagree with it does not make it a lie. When I have pointed out this truth, it's been ignored. 

Taking an approach based in presuppositional apologetics, I have asked, "Suppose what you said is true. Is it rational for those of us who serve a holy and righteous God, who hates lying, to lie to get people to believe in him?" (Wouldn't they find out that we were lying and reject God anyway?) Going further, "In your materialistic worldview, why would lying be wrong? If I believe it helps me to survive and thrive, I should be able to do so". Their responses are brown noise, indicating that they have no consistent moral standard.

Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon

This almost needs no discussion, but the subheading would look silly sitting there all by its lonesome. Atheists and other anti-creationists, especially on teh interwebs, are fond of trolling and ridicule (anonymity is an asset for keyboard "warriors" like that). Related to this is the fallacy of appeal to ridicule — a threat similar to a child saying, "If you do that, I'll tell on you!" I have long believed that this is a form of censorship. If you study on it a spell, ridiculing someone so they run and hide gives folks like that a sense of victory. A voice is silenced, at least for a while. By the way, note that they cannot take a joke themselves.

Keep the pressure on and never let up

Those dealing with Atheism Spectrum Disorder rely on evolution for their creation myth and help them to feel "intellectually fulfilled". When evidence refuting evolutionism and supporting recent creation is presented, they often recruit others to swarm creationists. There are times when something may have started out as a discussion between two people on social(ist) media, but it degenerates into a food fight;  many attackers piling on to intimidate the creationists. There are many who absurdly seek their identities in attacking the God they reject who go on secularist jihads against creationists and Christians (such as this bunch). While Alinsky had secular goals for communities, the relentless harassment from naturalists is a spiritual problem rooted in rebellion against God, our Creator and Redeemer.

The tenth annual Question Evolution Day
Image courtesy of Why?Outreach

Bonus: Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty

This has been attributed to Saul Alinsky, but I did not find it in Rules. It probably originated elsewhere. He may very well have expressed something similar because it is in keeping with the other rules. It is obviously a form of the tu quoque fallacy ("Yeah, but you do it too!"), which is an attempt to point out someone's hypocrisy. However, even if the counter accusation is true, it does not invalidate the original claim.

Many times, the accusation is simply false, such as when I was accused of "lying about evolution". Instead of dealing with a subject, an emotional reaction is provoked and the one on the receiving end may be put on the defensive. Keep them on topic. I've even said things like, "Yes, and I cheat at solitaire. Can you respond to the subject?"

Ruling the rules

Obviously, I am not advocating that Christians and creationists utilize the teachings of Alinsky. It is helpful to learn from them (which means violating the first rule mentioned and learning from the opposition). We can also see tactics used by fundamentalist Darwinists to avoid questioning evolution and to shun evidence that is not on their approved reading list.

Scientific findings come and go (as do creation science models), but our ultimate authority is God, who has explained himself in the Bible. He makes the rules, and we are the radicals because we emphasize the foundations of the faith. We believe in science when it is not filtered through materialistic presuppositions and is interpreted properly. Indeed, to be a biblical Christian is radical and brings opposition. We must focus on the Word and stay close to God.



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

Thursday, February 11, 2021

Cave Paintings and Evolutionary Timelines

As we are coming up on the tenth annual Question Evolution Day, we can hope that some believers in atoms-to anthropologist evolution may begin to realize that the narrative has problems. Consider the news about older cave art than previously known.

Once again, observed fact do not fit the evolutionary narrative. Ancient cave wall paintings and the timeline go against what we know of human nature.
Credits: Unsplash / Max Saeling, modified with PhotoFunia

Out Indonesia way is the island of Sulawesi. Paintings of animals were found there, and secularists gave kinda-sorta-maybe dates that were older than the famous Chauvet (the Ardeche region of France) cave art. There are many facts to consider, and they should give a thinking evolutionist a passel of reasons to ask questions.

Tenth annual Question Evolution Day
According to evolutionary timelines and fact-free speculations, intelligence "emerged" eventually after we were done evolving from some apelike critters. Nobody knows when that allegedly happened, nor do they know about the "emergence" or self-awareness or artistic expression. Those scrawls from the Ice Age didn't help their belief system, either. For all these things, the timeline is off.

Human nature urges us to build things, be creative, and so on. Still getting the big picture? Another part to consider is that humanity came a long way in a short time, but for a whole whack of Darwin years our ancestors sat around watching bugs crawl? Not hardly! It has been pointed out before that humans were made in God's image, and were intelligent from the get-go. That's why observed facts don't fit the narrative.

After painting a pig on a cave wall, what did these artists do for five times all of recorded history?

The news media are all claiming that the oldest cave art of animals has been found – not in Africa, not in Europe, but in Indonesia, on an island. In a hard-to-reach cave on Sulawesi, an island off the coast of Borneo that is about as large as Florida, archaeologists found paintings of wild goats, pigs and hand prints of the artists. The researchers claim some of the paintings are at least 40,000 years old (older than the famous Chauvet cave art which is said to be 30,000 to 33,000 years old). The oldest one, a “hairy, warty pig,” is claimed to be 45,500 years old. See Live Science for pictures of the art, and BBC News for a video clip inside the cave, and comments about the “emergence” of art, which evolutionists interpret as a sign of evolving intelligence. The narrator says,

To learn about it, sail on over to "Cave Art Dates Contradict Human Nature".



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

Wednesday, February 10, 2021

When Evolutionists Use the Bible Against Creationists

Biblical creationists are accustomed to being called upon to defend their views when challenged by supporters of universal common descent. Unfortunately, some of these are theistic evolutionists. When these and misotheists saddle up to ride for the Darwin brand, they occasionally try to use Bible against us.

Misotheists and theistic evolutionists alike misrepresent the Bible and try to use it against creationists. They beclown themselves and are refuted.

Something I have learned and then stated many times is that when choosing to slap leather with an opponent, it is important to learn the other side's views (see "Debate Challenges" for more about this). If one misrepresents the other or does not do proper research, that person is beclowning himself. Atheists and evolutionists do this to biblical (young earth) creationists frequently, but humiliate themselves when facing knowledgeable opponents.

One owlhoot in particular, Michael Jones, got his ownself a YouTube channel, and people wanted his challenges to creationists answered. Like other deniers of the truthfulness and authority of the Bible, he misrepresents it. Also, he does not seem to understand his own sources for his arguments. Jones also has something common with many atheists today: the belief that somehow they are the geniuses to come up with something that hasn't been thought of by others who have tried to discredit God's Word over the centuries. Jones really shoots himself in the foot.

Can young-earth creationism be debunked just by a careful reading of Scripture? This is the claim made by popular YouTube apologist, Michael Jones, in a video posted to his Inspiring Philosophy channel on 11 December 2020. Numerous correspondents have asked CMI to respond to this video, titled, “TOP TEN Biblical Problems for Young Earth Creationism.” Jones is a theistic evolutionist, but does not try to refute CMI’s stance in this case by appealing to scientific evidence that allegedly proves evolution or deep time. Instead, he maintains:

To read the rest, head on over to "Top Ten Biblical Problems for Young Earth Creationism— Answered".



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

Tuesday, February 9, 2021

Brain Development and Faulty Evolutionary Logic

There is a formal logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. If one condition is shown to be true, then what follows is also true: If it is raining, the grass will be wet. The grass is wet. Therefore, it is raining.

Evolutionists examined brain folds in baby humans and mice. Using bad logic, they determined that it can help them understand evolution.
Credit: yodiyim at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
If you noticed in the example, affirming the consequent also leaves out other possibilities such as neighbor kids having a water balloon fight, someone left on the sprinklers, and so on. One more: If it is snowing, it is cold outside. It is cold outside. Therefore, it is snowing.

The above error in reasoning was applied in a study of the development of the brains in mice and human babies. Human brains are all wrinkly. Actually, those are folds called convolutions. These give the brain more space in which to perform complex thinking, and critters have less of this folding or none at all. It was discovered that a specific gene that affects this folding is common to both humans and mice.

Purveyors of evoporn presupposed evolution, then saw commonality between us and mice. By studying mouse and human brain development, they can learn about evolution. I reckon that they are affirming the consequent. In the example regarding wet grass and rain, other possibilities to explain the wetness were not considered. Commonality of traits, genes, and so on are not evidence for evolution; they can just as easily be explained by the Master Engineer using similar traits in different organisms.

Human brains have the space to accommodate and process a great deal more information than the brains of animals because of the myriads of folds—called convolutions or gyrations — that increase the surface area of the cerebral cortex. The cerebral cortex is the part of the brain responsible for cognitive functions, and experts believe the marked folding of the human cerebral cortex is what makes complex thinking possible. The brain is also folded in some mammalian animals but to a lesser degree than in humans. A study published in Cell reports that a protein produced in both mice and humans influences this process of gyrification (folding). Researchers believe their discovery could help explain the evolution of the human brain.

You won't strain your brain by reading the rest of this short article over at "Brain Convolutions in Mice and Men". Also for your consideration, "The Human Brain Testifies of Creation".



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

Monday, February 8, 2021

Deceptively Renaming Cambrian Explosion

Evolutionists have a habit of renaming and redefining things when they realize biblical creationists are using them. We have the old bait 'n' switch where particles-to-palenontologist evolution is conflated with variations, changes in allele frequencies, and so on. Now some want to rename the Cambrian explosion.

The Cambrian explosion was lamented by Darwin and has been used by creationists for years. Some dishonest evolutionists are trying to dismiss it.

When owlhoots like this don't like they hand they've been dealt, they try to change the rules, reshuffle, deal from the bottom of the deck, hide cards, and so on. We have seen these tricks many times, which include citing retracted papers, omitting pertinent data, and making arbitrary assertions that are not supported by facts. These assertions fit the narrative of naturalism, however.

Way back many, many moons ago, Papa Darwin lamented the Cambrian explosion. Biblical creationists have used as one of many tools in refuting evolution. Last I knew, true science has nothing to do with protecting their worldview from the truth. Deceptive Darwinists have asserted that it should not be called the Cambrian explosion, and one of their main motivations for Making Things Up™ is that it is useful to creationists. Regular readers may have noticed that we've been using it quite a bit lately as a part of the resistance.

A new editorial in GSA Today is claiming that secular scientists should cease using the term “Cambrian Explosion.” It’s not for any particularly revealing scientific discovery but for “societal reasons.”

Jacob Beasecker and his colleagues from Michigan State University attempt to justify their perceived lack of an “explosion” of life by noting that there have been many fossils found in rocks below the Cambrian.1 And they argue that Cambrian fossils appear over many millions of years—“hardly ‘explosive’ in the widely understood use of the word.”1 Additionally, Beasecker and his colleagues go on to claim:

To see what the blowup is about, head on over to "Cambrian Explosion Alive and Well".



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

Saturday, February 6, 2021

Anti-Science Extremists in Power

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Detractors of biblical creation science often refer to us with the epithet "science deniers", which is ironic because they claim to believe in reason as well as science, but are using logical fallacies to make that assertion. Actual science deniers are now in power.

It is regrettable to discuss political things, but leftists have hijacked science. They call us "science deniers" but we affirm real science.
Picture of someone who is probably not anti-science: FreeDigitalPhotos / Toeytoey
It is a regrettable to spend time discussing politically-oriented matters on this weblog, but as we have seen several times before, secularists are hijacking science. Nowadays, secular scientists are saddling up and riding with the totalitarian leftist brand. That means things that were originally considered scientific facts are now subject to the whims of political power and moral degeneration.

People have been getting gradually prepared for the acceptance of moral degradation, and this has been increasing in the formerly United States — as well as other parts of the world. Those with influence and power are actively censoring evidence that is contrary to leftist preferences that are politically expedient. To be blunt, they are normalizing perversions for their own gain. The Biden-Harris Ministry of Love will be around soon to "correct" my thinking, but I stand by the truth.


I lack belief that secularists and misotheists will want to promote Question Evolution Day. Part of its raison d'être is freedom: speech, academic, thought, and more. It is ironic that misotheists and leftists call biblical creationists "science deniers", but we are the ones who affirm real science! Let's be blunt: Darwinian speculations about what happened in the past despite evidence to the contrary is anti-science!

Biblical creation science is a frequent target of censorship. We uphold the importance of God's Word as foundational to not only Western civilization and morality, but to science and logic as well. Have you noticed that leftists are predominantly atheists or have other ways of rejecting the God of the Bible? Add to this the problem that educational systems are generally not teaching critical thinking, and you can get a glimpse of the Argentinosaurus-sized problem.

When someone mentioned free speech, indoctrination, and Question Evolution Day,
one response supporting secular indoctrination was based on
personal preference as well as a red herring!
Used under US federal Fair Use provisions for educational purposes

Homosexuality was abhorrent to most societies for thousands of years (in Syria, Mohammedans may give a "gay" person a nice view of the city). It was considered a mental illness in the West, but the political and cultural winds reversed that idea. The failed Biden administration has appointed a transsexual as assistant secretary of Health and Human Services — which is very ironic to have someone mentally unhealthy and physically altered in a position of authority.

Transgenderism does not exist in reality. Want the science? The "party of science" deny facts of DNA and chromosomes about sexuality. Some may claim that transgenderism happens in the animal world, but they are conflating human activity with that of animals — and without actual evidence of transsexuality. (Unless there are medical records of blackfin gobies or wrasses seeking hormone injections and undergoing "sex reassignment" surgeries. I may be uninformed about that.) While there are some fish and animals that can change their sexes, their Creator designed that ability into them; it is not based on preferences or feelings, but survival.

To say that animals are homosexual implies that they have same-sex erotic desires. It has been pointed out that male dogs mount other male dogs, but it is not from attraction. Sometimes it is a way to show dominance. At other times, it the same lustful desire that motivates Rover to mount a human leg or a piece of furniture as well as another male dog. There was news about male penguins raising a chick, and that was equated with with human homosexual desires. Such an idea is ludicrous and disingenuous.

Logic and biblical creation science tell us that we are not animals. Although we are classified as such for scientific convenience, we are not just more evolved animals. Atheists and leftists despise the truth that we are created in God's image. To look to the animals as examples of morality (even if the obviously inflated claims were true about homosexuality and transsexuality in nature), that brings in a prairie schooner-full of problems. (Do we also want to emulate cannibalism and rape? After all, animals do it, and we are just animals according to such reckless thinking) Leftist science is actually denial of science — and of reality. This child does not want people with an anti-God, anti-science worldview dictating morality. Savvy that?

I would now like to turn you over to an article that inspired this one, and I'd be much obliged if you'd read "The Anti-Science Extremism of the Left". Kindly come back for the next part.

After I wrote this article, David Coppedge wrote something that fits, so I added it. His article has some very specific and specific examples in the political and science realms, and some items are shocking.

The political divide in the culture has spilled over into science, ruining trust in research objectivity.

New York University just published results of a “study” [prepare to be hoodwinked] that alleges that there is no censorship of conservatives going on. All those conservatives complaining about being deplatformed by social media, having their Twitter accounts dropped and otherwise being victims of bias – well, they’re just making “false accusations,” say Paul M. Barrett and J. Grant Sims. It’s an “unfounded claim” that social media companies censor conservatives. Do you understand? It’s an unfounded claim. Repeat after me: it’s an unfounded claim, unfounded claim, unfounded claim….

It takes a little digging to realize that this “study” that pretends to look like an objective, academic research conclusion is anything but. NYU is a hotbed of leftist, anti-conservative views to begin with. WND says, moreover, that the “study” was funded by a Biden donor.

To read the rest of this important article, see "Science Is Being Corrupted by Politics".



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

Friday, February 5, 2021

Explaining the Petrified Redwood Trees

Trees that are actually made out of rock. They used to be wood long ago, but chemical changes happened. Uniformitarian geologists say these things are found all over the world in situ (they grew there), but this is mere evosplaining. Creation geologists need to do better.

Secular geologists have weak explanations for petrified trees and how they reached their respective locations. It is fair to challenge creationists to explain them.
Credit: US National Park Service / P. Comas
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Petrified trees do not show indications of having grown where they are found. Branches and tops are snapped off, and root systems are absent. Then there are the disparate fossils that secularists cannot explicate, which are almost as troublesome as polystrate tree fossils. Biblical creation geologists have some ideas based on Genesis Flood models that seem to fit the bill.

There are numerous vertical, petrified trees found in sedimentary rocks around the world. The vertical, petrified redwood stumps at Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument are a famous example. They have several unusual features that are problematic for an in situ interpretation. In the Florissant Formation, 1,500 insect and spider species fossils and about 260 plant species and pollen have been found. They come from widely diverse environments, yet they are buried together. There is no modern analogue. Some of the fossil species are found alive in subtropical and tropical environments. Some are not native to North America but from distant parts of the globe. The hypothesis that well-preserved fossils are from preservation by biofilms has contradictions. The paleoaltitude is thought to be near the same as it is today, about 2,490 m, but with an anomalous mean annual temperature that was much warmer with very little frost. There are numerous contradictions to the uniformitarian hypothesis. The evidence supports deposition of the organisms, including the vertical redwood stumps, from floating log mats during the Genesis Flood.

You can read the rest of this rather technical article (and see some interesting photos) at "The Florissant redwood trees deposited from a Flood log mat". Allow a "dig me" moment. Today is the tenth anniversary of the Piltdown Superman weblog. Over 2,800 posts and articles on this site alone. Thanks for riding along!



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

Labels