Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

So Ya Wanna Celebrate Earth Day

Earth Day and other environmental interests are good ideas on the surface. Dig deeper, and many take on a darker hue, based on incoherent evolutionary thinking. Creationists have solid biblical motivations for taking care of our planet.Earth Day and other environmental interests are good ideas on the surface. Plant a tree, learn about caring for the environment, "give back to the earth", those things sound good. Dig deeper, and many take on a darker hue, based on incoherent evolutionary thinking. Creationists have solid biblical motivations for taking care of our planet.

Advocates of goo-to-geophysicist evolution are sending mixed smoke signals. On one hand, all living things evolved from a common ancestor, so we're brothers and sisters in biology, so animals are getting "non-human person" rights. Some owlhoots are so unhinged, they want humans mostly eliminated. But it's survival of the fittest, isn't it? Humans are the most fit, and if some critters don't have sense enough to evolve and become more fit, I reckon that's just too bad.

Did you know that Earth Day is also Lenin's birthday? Earth Day was not exactly established to raise environmental consciousness, but for political concerns, including irrational appeals to bad science for promoting anthropomorphic global warming — cooling — both — climate change. Also, paganism ("give back to the earth" smacks of it). See more about those at "Happy Birthday, Comrade Lenin".

Biblical Christians have always had good, solid, rational reasons to care for the earth. But such thinking is anathema to materialistic evolutionists.
When God created the first humans, He gave them charge over the Garden of Eden to care for the animals and plants that were there (Genesis 2:15). It was a perfect world with no sin or death, but God still put Adam there to tend what He had made. This is highly instructive to all Christians. After all, if God placed Adam there to care for a perfect world prior to the Fall, how much more should we care for this fallen one?

And that’s something that we should recognize: Christians have the best foundation to justify caring for this planet—a direct mandate from the One who made it. Evolutionary naturalists do not understand the past or the future the way God intended and can offer only arbitrary reasons for being environmentally responsible—reasons which are self-contradicting, in fact.

To truly celebrate Earth Day in a way that glorifies the One who made it, let’s take a look at two of the popular reasons that the world tells us we need to “go green,” and then we’ll look at why the Bible gives us a better foundation for being good stewards.
To finish reading, click on "Go (Truly) Green—by Starting with Genesis — Earth Day and the foundations of environmental stewardship".
   

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Evolutionary "Stasis" is Unscientific

Evolution is presented as an irresistible force. Except when it's not. "Stasis" is a meaningless excuse for lack of change, and is even presented as evidence of evolution! Not hardly.

Darwinists want it both ways. Fossils are found that show no real change over alleged millions of years, and even with their living counterparts today. On one hand, microbes-to-man evolution is an irresistible force. But on the other hand, if there is no evidence for evolution, it's because something didn't have to evolve. That's pretty convenient, and makes evolution unfalsifiable. Sounds like they can take any stagecoach and say that wherever it goes, they wanted to go there. Not hardly!



But it gets worse. Those owlhoots are actually making the word "evolution" into a meaningless term by claiming that absence of evolution is actually evidence for evolution. This philosophical nonsense and asserting speculation as fact is downright disingenuous. Lack of change is exactly what biblical creationists tell you to expect; the creationists' predictions are confirmed, evolutionists make excuses.
Scientists recently discovered a community of fossilized sulfur-metabolizing bacteria that are alleged to be 1.8 billion years old. Surprisingly, the microbes are virtually identical to their modern counterparts, yet the study authors claim that the microbes are proof of evolution.

In recent decades, the discovery and documentation of microbial Precambrian fossils have markedly changed long-held ideas about the fossil record and its age. In fact, secular scientists now believe they can document life’s history as far back as 3.5 billion years—roughly three quarters of the supposed age of the earth.
To find out what all the hoopla's all about and to finish the article, click on "No Evolution Is Proof of Evolution?" In addition, you can check out Ian Juby's "Genesis Week" video, here.
   

Wednesday, April 08, 2015

The Bad-Mouth Brigade

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Something that leftists, militant atheists, and anti-creationists have in common (although many atheists are leftists and anti-creationists) is that they stir up negative emotions about their opponents' positions. This is easy for them to do, since too many people "think" with their emotions instead of using critical thinking. How many times do you hear about someone being tried, convicted, and sentenced in the court of public opinion, even though the facts are in the real courtroom? Putting words in someone's mouth or misrepresenting what someone stands for is a logical fallacy called the straw man. Note the warning below:
Militant atheists, anti-creationists, political leftists show skill in using emotional manipulation to silence the opposition. Several examples of keyboard-head-bangingly-bad "logic" are given.
Image by Why?Outreach, referring to a "condition" mentioned on Fighting for the Faith 
By my cogitations, the reason these people tell emotionally-laden untruths is ultimately to silence people they disagree with. Instead of discussion, they seek elimination. Since many appear to be unable to reason properly (but are sneaky sidewinders when it comes to deception), they use ridicule, straw man arguments, appeals to emotion and other things because thinking is hard, and it's recreational for them to silence or negate their opponents.

I've been on the receiving end of numerous attacks. That's what happens to Conservatives, Christians, and especially biblical creationists who have the courage to stand up for our convictions. Some anti-creationists call us "liars" because we show scientific and scriptural evidence against evolutionism. I reckon that they don't know what the word "liar" means, since they are unable to actually show where we are lying — which makes them the liars!

Again, remember the warning above. There are numerous anti-creationist and anti-Conservative sites, Pages on Facebook, groups, forums and so on that simply want to attack people. There are several that are set up to ridicule me, personally, but do not have intelligent content. (Indeed, one response about the ethics post linked above was, " Lol, talk about stupid". Simple, and simplistic, with no discussion of the actual content. Pages, forums and such set up for ridicule do not have clientele who make intelligent comments.) Here is an old screenshot on one of those Pages that is mostly dead, which was poorly ridiculing a post on The Question Evolution Project:

The logic fail is strong in this one. Appeal to motive, ad hominem, straw man, poisoning the well, selective citing and more. He did not post the link to the article, but only the screenshot. Also, he is railing about the "enemy of evolution" remark about Linnaeus. If he had posted the link, people would have seen that it was referenced in a research paper, and none of that content was mine. Also, he displays his ignorance about his religion, as evolutionism is much older than Charles Darwin!

Although there are atheists and evolutionists who do not support the childish antics of their brethren, they are not speaking up to oppose such behavior.

For the rest of this article, keep in mind the warning given above.

I had a frustrating day at work. We listen to music, podcasts, audio books and so on. On Saturday, April 4, I was doing overtime and listening to the podcast of the Chris Plante Show from Friday, April 3 (link to audio player here). The guest host was Dan Bongino, who did a great job. I thought I could safely listen, but no, this added fuel to my fire (hence my frustrating day). The topic of the day was Indiana's religious freedom law.

This "new" law is not new at all, and has been in existence since Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Since it was under the spotlight in Indiana, it was attacked by "tolerant" leftists. Funny how celebrities on the left will misrepresent things and appeal to emotions in order to get support from the unthinking masses. The common untruth is that this law allows business owners to discriminate against homosexuals, but they do not even cite the bill. Eugene Robinson did not write anything truthful, either, but showed anti-Christian bigotry insteadMiley Cyrus showed her hatred and lack of intellectual prowess, and George Takei said many things, but had disdain for the truth as well. "Memories Pizza" refused to cater a homosexual wedding because of their Christian convictions, received threats, and had to close down. It's interesting how the Gaystapo terrorists (who motivated the timorous Indiana governor to "fix" the religious freedom bill), leftists, and especially celebrity leftists, appeal to emotion and show that they are amazingly intolerant, and the exceptions are very few. They play on the word "love", and claim that Christians are motivated by hate. And yet, why don't we get the outcry when Mohammedan bakers refuse to bake homosexual wedding cakes? Here is a podcast on Stand Up for the Truth regarding hypocrisy on these issues

In the creationist hate example and in this religious freedom law extremism, we see some things on common. People who demand tolerance from us (such as, essentially, "Let me turn your site into an anti-creationist litter box, it's my godless-given right", or, "I demand that you tolerate my intolerance of your Constitutional rights to religious liberty) do not actually use reason. Instead, they want the opposition silenced through legislation, ridicule, negating through straw man arguments, poisoning the well, and so on. People like this unite in their hatred.

Fortunately, there are some people in the world who will not fall for such manipulative tactics. We will continue proclaiming the truth, whether they like it or not — while we still have freedom of speech, that is.
     

Wednesday, April 01, 2015

Praising Margaret Sanger?

Leftists revere Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. How many of them know she opposed abortion? "Christianity Today" is praising her. Did they do their homework and learn that Sanger was a proponent of eugenics, a system were man tries to be God, based on evolutionary thinking?

This is a strange case. On one hand, maybe some professing Christians at Christianity Today didn't do their homework. But on the other hand, since that magazine has been getting a reputation of becoming liberal, mayhaps there's an agenda at work. The magazine gave praise for Margaret Sanger, founder of the infamous for-mucho-dinero abortion mill known as Planned Parenthood. Praise for Sanger is expected from leftists, but not from formerly conservative Christian sources.

The part about not doing their homework comes in because Christianity Today praised her for compassion and wanting to help the poor. Did they bother to find out that she was a proponent of eugenics (gotta keep the unfit from breeding, don'tcha know), supported forced sterilizations, that she was a racist (those clinics are found mostly in black neighborhoods)? For that matter, do leftists know that Sanger was opposed to abortion and infanticide? The "clinics" did not perform abortions until several years after her death, when abortion was becoming legal.

Much of this stems from evolutionary thinking. Racism has always been around, but took a quantum leap forward with "scientific racism" based on Darwinian thinking. Indeed, social Darwinism has been at the root of increased racism, eugenics, and many other evils. (It's interesting that many of those evils are espoused by owlhoots on the left of the political spectrum, but never mind about that now.) Evolutionary thinking is a way of trying to ignore God and deny that he is our creator. (There's a strange dichotomy in the thinking, either we evolved up by ourselves, or that Evolution is a kind of deity that cause evolution to occur.) But God does exist, and he did create everything, including mankind in his image.

Eugenics is a form of playing God. Someone decides that only certain people are fit to live, and others are not allowed to breed. (Hitler the Darwinist took a more direct approach, exterminating people that he thought were unfit.) What human is qualified to make such decisions, and why? Suppose there was a law that said, "All atheists are unfit to breed, because atheists are a blight on humanity because they have inferior reasoning skills, a faulty moral compass, are exceptionally obstreperous on the Web, and have lousy table manners." Would that kind of law be right? No, because God is the creator, and he makes the rules. Eugenics is a philosophy of fools who say in their hearts, "There is no God".

But I digress. Back to Margaret Sanger:
Christianity Today was founded by world-famous evangelist Billy Graham; Planned Parenthood was founded by racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger. And Christianity Today’s article about Margaret Sanger shows that one of them has departed a long way from the principles of its founder.

Rachel Marie Stone wrote that Margaret Sanger’s promotion of contraceptives stemmed from her compassion for poor women, often forced to bear more children than they could support, wrecking their health and possibly dying through botched abortion.

This image of a compassionate women’s advocate is what is advanced by her ideological heirs, but it does not stand up to scrutiny.
To read the rest, click on "Margaret Sanger and the minority holocaust".

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Why are Biology Teachers Unsure About Teaching Evolution?

With the help of compromising Christians who ceded science to secularists, particles-to-people evolution has monopolized education for a long time, especially in America. They even had Dobzhansky making the propaganda statement that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", the concept of which has been sent packing (except for some Darwinistas that didn't get the memo, and quote it like secularist scripture). So why isn't evolution propaganda education wildly successful?


Biology teachers are supposed to teach evolution. Many are not very enthusiastic about it, and there are still people who think for themselves and deny particles-to-people evolution. Why?


Surveys and speculations include morality and politics (no, the Democrats and other leftists do not own science, and Republicans are not anti-science), name calling, straw man arguments, placing blame, and more. What the surveys don't reckon with is that scientific evidence does not support evolution, and that some people are not exactly willing to accept the pronouncements of scientists without thinking for themselves.
Secular scientists are at a loss over how to get their favorite origins story, Darwinian evolution, a more confident presence in schools.

After nearly a century of one-sided control of education on origins, Darwinian scientists shouldn’t be faced with this dilemma. After all, their own theory presupposes that human beings are material entities that can be conditioned like other animals. And yet, despite a near total exposure to Darwinian evolution in textbooks, museums, educational TV – and often in the general culture, such as in many sci-fi movies – a substantial majority of the public doesn’t buy the completely materialistic evolution scenario. This includes biology teachers.

In Science Magazine on March 6, Jeffrey Mervis tries to understand “why many U.S. biology teachers are wishy-washy” about teaching evolution:
To read the rest, saddle up and ride over to "Majority of Biology Teachers Hesitant About Evolution".
  

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Noah's Ark and Biblical "Kinds"

Mockers of the Bible will often try to pretend that they're the smartest steers on the ranch. But when they play word games when attacking, they shoot themselves in the hoof. For instance, "The word 'dinosaur' isn't in the Bible!" Know why? Scriptures existed a long, long time before Richard Owen came up with the word. On a related note, they quibble about the biblical word "kind" (as in created kinds, such as in Genesis 1:24-25), insisting that the ancient texts conform to modern taxonomic classifications.

The biblical created "kinds" do not precisely match modern taxonomic classifications. What are the "kinds" referred to in the Creation and with Noah's Ark?
"The Entry of the Animals into Noah’s Ark", Jacopo Bassano, 1570
A reasonable question is, "What are the created kinds in the Bible?" We have some difficulties here because it is from an ancient text, and translation can be tricky. Most biblical creationists do not match them up with the modern word "species" (and it doesn't help that scientists are not in full agreement on the definition of that word), and reckon that it is closer to the "family" classification. For more information and additional links therein, kindly read "Feedback: What Does 'Two of Every Kind' Mean?"

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Where Did That Deep Gulf of Mexico Sand Come From?

There's a lot of sand in the Gulf of Mexico.

"Cowboy Bob is Captain Obvious!"

No, not the sand out where Susie finds seashells to sell by the seashore. I'm talking about way out yonder, where it's not expected to be. I reckon oil company geologists recon according to their presuppositions, and that can lead to problems. Uniformitarian assumptions of "the present is the key to the past", and that things happened very, very slowly have failed many times. (Sort of like the carbon-14 dating of dinosaur bones, diamonds, and so on. Why look for it when you "know" it's not there? Some people bucked the system, checked it out, and guess what? It is there!) You'd think scientists would realize that they need to upgrade their worldviews.


Uniformitarian geologists are at a loss explaining "Whopper Sand". Biblical creationist geologists have a far better explanation.
Gulf of Mexico oil rig / NOAA.gov
Sand is important for finding oil. There is an area called "Whopper Sand" in the Gulf of Mexico, and when it was finally found (which should have happened before, but didn't because of erroneous assumptions), sand-wiched in the Whopper Sand are various layers of materials that are inexplicable to uniformitarian geologists. They've offered up implausible and unsupportable conjectures to explain why it's out there, but the best explanations are from biblical creationist Genesis Flood geological models.
There’s a huge deposit of sand in the deep Gulf of Mexico, and no one seems to know how it got there—except maybe Flood geologists.

Early in my career as a geologist for an oil company, we were told not to prospect in water deeper than 2,000 feet. Most offshore oil is found in sand layers sandwiched between thick layers of mud and clay, and our management believed no sand could get that far offshore, and drilling costs were too high.


However, in 2001 the BAHA 2 well was drilled through almost 7,800 feet of water and into the Wilcox Sand at the base of the Tejas Megasequence. The drillers found 1,100 feet of nearly continuous sand. This discovery shocked geologists, who termed it the “Whopper Sand,” and paved the way for numerous nearby discoveries of billions of barrels of oil.
You can read the rest of the article by clicking on "The Whopper Sand". Me, I already read it, but have a craving to go get a burger.