JWST Continues to Affirm the Young Universe

It did not take long before numerous reports about images from the James Webb Space Telescope became plentiful. I simply posted them on social(ist) media. Biblical creationists were pointing out that evidence for the Big Bang (something sought by the JWST folks, NASA, ESA, and others) was not happening. Things were not looking good for finding the invisible friends of materialists, those rascally extraterrestrials, either.

A bone I keep gnawing on is that there is evidence for recent creation in our own solar system. (Feel free to browse Piltdown Superman for posts with links to relevant articles.) Instead of admitting that their worldview is fundamentally flawed, secular scientists conjure up rescuing devices to preserve deep time. Papa Darwin needs it, you know. Closer to home, or way out yonder in the big universe, the evidence continually refutes the concept of billions of years.

Secular cosmology is in disarray, and instances that cosmic evolution supposedly happened “earlier than thought” by secularists keep cropping up. Creationists don’t need excuses or data-tampering because God is indeed the Creator.

“If the evidence is so clear, why don’t scientists face the facts, Cowboy Bob?”

The answer has nothing to do with science, old son. It is a spiritual problem. Mankind has fallen, which happened back in Eden. The natural person is at enmity with God, and our sinful nature interferes with pretty much every area of our lives — which includes the thinking processes. (This is indirectly supported by “9 Signs That You Might Be An Intellectually Dishonest Atheist.”) Christians are to presuppose the truth of the Word of God. Although misotheists and others say this is irrational, they are presuppositionalists themselves! That’s right, they presuppose atheistic naturalism. The light comes in through the Word of God and the working of the Holy Spirit. The reality of spiritual matters is unthinkable to materialists.

I rounded up a passel of links that support our contention that the JWST is providing support for recent creation and not helping the Big Bang. The most recent article is first, then I drop down to some older ones and work forward. You savvy? Good.

Image at the top:
JWST image of NGC 346 in Small Magellanic Cloud, NASA / STScI (usage does not imply endorsement)


Darwin and Evolutionary Racism

Although an abolitionist, Darwin was a racist who believed slavery was a good result of his version of natural selection

It turns out I stumbled across another “Note” on Fakebook. This one is from May 2021. Since Notes are no longer easy to locate, I am copying them here and tweaking them a bit. Glad I didn’t do all that many.

Racism is being leveraged for power, but it is being portrayed as strictly the fault of “white people.” Not hardly! It has existed for millennia, but to quote atheist evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” That’s right, evolutionary thinking magnified the problem. It was especially beneficial for white people who were in control.

We hear about Darwin’s 1859 book Origin of Species, but the full title is often omitted (I’ll allow that it’s cumbersome when compared to many books that have short titles these days): On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (emphasis added). It was revised six times, by the way. The Bearded Buddha was a racist, and his ideas were applied not only to African slaves brought to America, but also to Australia, New Zealand, and other places. The idea of “races” not not a biblical concept, but a construct based on evolutionary thinking.

People have tried to defend Charles Darwin because he was a product of his times, but that idea is not consistently applied to other people. Although Darwin was opposed to slavery, he did not do so in his major works and their revisions. (Here are more racist quotes from Darwin.) Also, he saw slavery as a beneficial result of his version of natural selection, and that various “races” of humans were less evolved that white Europeans.

Did you know that the majority of African slaves, after being sold out by other Africans (which should seriously complicate the “reparations” questions) were not shipped to the United States, but to other countries? Also, did you know that there were white slaves in America? There is slavery happening even now, but that is not considered important by leftists and their supporters.

Do I really have to say what so many others are saying? Out of fear of being called “racist”, many facts cannot be presented. We cannot even have serious conversations due to fear of reprisals and censorship. The past cannot be changed. Rioting, looting, murders, people doing secular penance over imagined white guilt by wearing chains or shining shoes… In addition, black people who are Christians and Conservatives are “not really black” because they’re not “down for the struggle”, nor are black people who are educated and have jobs. Those who form companies, recording artists, cereal company mascots, and others change their names for appeasement is galactically stupid. Be honest.

This “protest” stuff is not about George Floyd and injustice, it is a planned movement by leftists who were waiting for an opportunity — it did not happen for other black people on this scale. Know what Lenin supposedly called sympathizers in the West? Useful idiots. The anti-Christian Marxist ideology of Black Lives Matter is using people who are useful idiots to them, and BLM in turn is being used as well. We believe that black lives matter because all lives matter.

Where are the marches and protests for black-on-black violence and racism —

“Whoa there, Cowboy Bob! There’s black-on-black racism?”

You betcha. In fact, I recently received permission from a black neighbor to ask a blunt question on this subject. She said, “Oh yes! It exists”. Imagine one black calling another “monkey boy” because of his skin color!

Where are the protests about black-on-black violence and racism, murders of black police officers, the bigotry of the left telling people that they are too stupid to survive without putting leftists in political office? There are outcries, but Thomas Sowell, Dr. Voddie Baucham, Darrell B. Harrison,, and many others don’t count in the eyes of radical leftists. Why are people like Clarence Thomas, Candace Owens, Ben Carson, those mentioned above, and others pariahs to the left? Black people should be inspired by them instead of hating them.

For that matter, racism is not unique to white people — not by a long shot. Many of us would like to take people as they are, not as groups, not as members of an ethnic heritage. I resent attempts to place blame and hatred on me for the distant past, and we certainly do not deserve the death penalty for crimes (real or assumed) that happened before we were born.

It is interesting that rioters are being coddled (that’s right, I said it) and their bad behavior is rewarded. It’s not cool to simply walk up and commit battery on someone with a deadly weapon, steal and ruin produce, burn down stores and steal television sets in the name of “justice”. Holding cities hostage with threats of rioting and making leaders clutch their pearls in fear is counterproductive. Blaming racism for your own failures may make you feel better, but it solves nothing. Some even say that blacks have to kill white people. I wouldn’t be surprised if racism increases because of such actions and attitudes. You hate racism? Stop committing crimes.

I am not a “systemic racist” simply because I’m depressingly Caucasian. (My ancestors were not from the Caucasus Mountains, so that outdated evolutionary handle baffles me.) Having voted for Donald Trump does not make me a racist, and people who call him a racist are believing lies because the opposite is true.

Nor am I or any other melanin-deficient person automatically a racist because someone said so. I’ve got some bad news for you sunshine, there is a whole whack of racism against whites. It is not justified, but simply emotive reactions based on hatred. People who have read my work know how I react to arbitrary assertions. This is magnified when such assertions are used for hatred, violence, and political agendas. And how long will people be fooled by fake “hate crimes”?

As indicated before, Darwin can’t be blamed for racism, but he’d have a great time observing and probably telling the world that the actions of leftists prove his theory. Why aren’t this racist abolitionist’s statues being torn down? Why are Lenin’s statues still standing? How about Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood who wanted to cull the black population? They sure are doing a great job, but leftists sure are using those useful idiots to keep themselves in business.

According to the Bible and as affirmed by biblical creationists, there are no races. Ultimately, racism is a problem of denying our Creator, which is the result of sin. Social programs and abolishing the police are not the answer. People need to repent and humble themselves before Jesus.

Here is a message by Dr. James White. Now, I’m not interested in the One True Church™ views and don’t care if you’re a Calvinist or not (I take heat from both Calvinists/Reformed and Arminians), but just pay attention to the video below, willya? (Here is the MP3 download if you prefer, but on my Windows computer, it downloads instantly: https://mp3.sermonaudio.com/filearea/6192021111662/6192021111662.mp3

A Matter of Faith — Movie Review

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

This child is often late to the party when it comes to reviewing books, movies, and videos. In this case, A Matter of Faith is a movie from October 2014. God’s Not Dead, which I have not seen, was released in March of that year. I watched this one on 30 April 2022.

Irrelevant, but a fun surprise for me is that it was filmed in Grand Rapids, Michigan. I know the area, having lived near there for several years.

Christian movies are like getting grub from the chuckwagon: depends on who is doing the cooking. The genre has a reputation for Pollyanna-style material and bad acting, and some of that is deserved. For example, the A Thief in the Night films that began in 1972 had a good message about the end times, but acting and production were often poor. If I recollect rightly, the last two were improvements over the first ones.

To be fair, the movie industry is known for being hostile to presenting Christians in a positive light, so enthusiastic Christians filmmakers work with low budgets and whomever they can get to work in front of and behind the cameras. Many are using actors who make no pretense at Christianity, but still do their roles in a professional manner.

Things are changing. While many Christian movies suffer from weak writing, it is incorrect to assume that if it’s faith-based, it’s going to be bad. Can’t be using the genetic fallacy and rejecting the entire genre, we have to judge them on their own merits.

Here’s what happened that brought A Matter of Faith to my attention. YouTube recommends videos, so I looked. The entire movie is available there on a channel supposedly owned by the Christiano brothers of Five & Two Pictures who made it. It can be seen on the cutely-named Freevee (formerly IMDB TV), which is owned by Amazon (an Amazon account is required to use it, but not the overpriced Prime). It is also on Pluto and Tubi. Note that selections change, so it may not be on any of those tomorrow.

I went to IMDB and saw that it had a user review score of 3.7 out of 10. Atheists were out in force to vote the movie down. It’s who they are and what they do. Some were saying “worst movie ever made”, and one hatetheist equated it with ISIS propaganda (hyperbole much?), plus other extremely negative claims against Christianity — especially creation science.

After all, they are compelled to protect their fundamentally-flawed origins mythology because it is foundational to atheism. Many of the reviews did not show any knowledge of the movie beyond having watched the trailer, but yee haw boy howdy, they sure did use the word propaganda quite a bit.

One sidewinder said it had the “same merit as a Jonestown Koolaid commercial” and “I think the purpose of making this terrible movie was to try to enlist new members to a rapidly dwindling cult using hollow logic and citing mythical situations as “proof” to support their weak indoctrination attempt.” I could triple the length of this article by examining the false claims and blatant hypocrisy of many reviews, but we need to move on.

Rachel Whitaker was raised in a Christian home and she is going off to college. Her biology class is taught by Professor Kaman (Harry Anderson of Night Court fame), who has an agenda. He promises that if students attend the classes, they are guaranteed a passing grade. That’s a mite suspicious.

During her first few weeks, Rachel is too busy for church or reading her Bible. Professor Kaman, being the caiman that he is, makes bold evolutionary pronouncements with “evidence” that is strictly conjecture, and Rachel is accepting seeds of doubt.

Her father, Steven Whitaker, is upset that Kaman teaches evolution. (Where has he been? The secular science industry and academia are saturated with people who have a worldview based on atheistic naturalism for many years.) Steve visits the professor to respectfully complain about the evolution-only curriculum. Since the college needs a topic for an upcoming debate series, the professor cajoles Steve into debating him.

One trick is saying, “Evolution versus creationism“, and when -ism is used, it has a negative connotation for many people. That was the title of the debate. However (and this puts burrs under the saddles of fundamentalist evolutionists), both creationism and evolutionism can both be used. Indeed, many creationists have no problem with the word creationism.

A professor with training in evolutionism and a passel of experience in public speaking will debate an inexperienced parent of a student. Seems legit. Actually, biblical creation scientists have a difficult time in getting their secular counterparts to debate. Their challenges are declined or ignored most of the time. If Kaman wanted a hot topic for debate, he could have found several qualified creationists who would oblige.

Please pay attention. Although the professor is an atheist and evolutionist, he say, “I teach what my textbooks tells me to teach,” then praises evolutionary scientists. However, parents who take solace in the fact that there are Christian teachers in the public school system are deceiving themself. The reason is that, like Kaman implies, the curriculum given by the state takes priority.

Another student named Evan met Rachel and said that he had taken Kaman’s biology course. He pointed out that Kaman has an agenda and tried to get her thinking.

Rachel’s father wants to get is message out to Rachel and other students. She is appalled — appalled, I tell you — that her father is going to do the debate. Professor Kaman won’t change his beliefs. Also, it will “ruin me on campus!” Apparently nobody considered the possibility that if Steve pulled out, he would be labeled a coward and things would be worse for her.

A glaring error in the movie is that it was claimed that Kaman teaches that we evolved from apes. According to evolutionary beliefs, humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. (The fact that our putative ancestors sure did look like apes apparently has no bearing on the situation.) The “evolved from apes” thing is something creationists should avoid.

Another weak point in the movie is something that should be discussed. Too many Christians and creationists attempt to defend our views with “memes” and clever sayings that would fit on bumper stickers, but are woefully unprepared in witnessing to atheists and evolutionists. These folks get slapped down by opponents who have learned their talking points and boilerplate rhetoric. Rachel’s father knew what he believed, but not why, and was unable to defend his position in the debate.

Kaman (if he had a first name other than Professor, I missed it) used rhetorical tricks including assertions, appeal to emotion, false definitions (including the common atheistic definition of faith), straw man, and more. He also used the category error of demanding scientific proof of God. While some may claim that the movie makers were creating a straw many with the way Kaman presented his arguments, other creationists and I have seen such things many times.

In addition, there are indeed professors who are openly hostile to Christianity and especially to creation. This Kaman jasper is a representation of many reports that drop down over the transom.

I left out details that would spoil the movie for y’all, but there were a couple of surprises. One had the professor giving what was said in the debate some thought afterward. There is no “everybody gets saved, let’s have a group hug” ending, but there were some unexpected events well as a couple of things that could be predicted by viewers.

A Matter of Faith was recommended by Creation Ministries International, Answers in Genesis, and others. It has some flaws beyond what I have said, but my agenda is to encourage people who watch it and keep in mind some of the things I have said. Ask yourselves and each other questions. F’rinstance, how would layman Steve have fared against Kaman if he had prepared from the numerous materials available online provided by creationists? How about if he knew and used a presuppositional approach?

To make the movie more realistic, they could have done a full, formal debate. (It would also have been quite a bit longer.) I mentioned earlier that Rachel told her father that he would not change Kaufman’s views. That almost never happens in a debate, although it may happen later. Good debates are for each side to present their viewpoints, and to see if they can withstand scrutiny. If you can spare 2-1/2 hours, I highly recommend the “Does God Exist?” debate between Dr. Greg Bahnsen and Dr. Gordon Stein.

Again, I recommend that Christians and biblical creationists see A Matter of Faith. They can spot some flaws, and learn about doing apologetics. Also pay attention and notice that evolutionists live by faith themselves. A link to the video was posted here, but I had to remove it because the video is no longer available to the public.

Ringing Down the Curtain?

Announcement on the probable demise of The Question Evolution Project on Facebook in the coming days.

Here is a slightly modified version of the post I made at The Question Evolution Project on Facebook. Or is it Forcebook, since they have forced Why?Outreach out, and we may be next while Fakebook puts on an innocent face and asks, “What? Not our fault.”

Bill Engvall said,

My Uncle Jack. We are at the funeral, and we weren’t even outside. We were in the church! And the reverend had just finished his eulogy, when we heard psshhh! And everyone turned to Uncle Jack, who was holding a beer, going, “What?”

I will be the last Admin for TQEP. Hey, I’m getting up in years and my health is not all that great. When I die, the Page dies with me.

So, here is the post with a few tweaks.

It is 31 March where I am, so it’s not an April Fool prank.

The Question Evolution Project may disappear in the next few weeks. Likely, but not guaranteed. We’ll see what happens. Hopefully, we’ll be here to celebrate Resurrection Sunday.

No, we’re not quitting because of lack of evidence (quite the contrary!) or feckless atheopaths. Facebook may have found a way to shut down Pages that do not comply with their agenda but still look innocent.

One Admin is facing losing his account because reasons and stuff. The owner of Why?Outreach lost the battle from the same “security” problem.

“Your account has the potential to reach a lot more people than an average Facebook user. Hackers are often motivated to attack accounts that have a lot of followers, run important Pages, or hold some community significance.”

Sounds legit, but we’re less than 10,000 “likes”, and most of those seldom return. That’s typical for Pages.

Later on in the email,

“Note: Facebook Protect isn’t available to everyone on Facebook. We require stronger security for your account because it has the potential to reach a large audience.”

Aha! I’ll wager lotsa grotzits (well, I would if I wasn’t broke) that it’s a punishment for not being leftist and standing on the authority of the Word of God.

Gary (an Admin) can’t verify his cell phone number with incompetent Facebook because they never send the code, and then he’ll be locked out of his account! Makes perfect sense.

This is just another form of censorship.

After we posted things opposing things that Fakebook supports (including two genders, consider all evidence regarding cl!mage change, and opposing a few other leftist causes including evolutionism), we came under then shadowban very hard. Views plummeted. They’ve done it before, but this is the worst.

Then the hypocrites want us to run our “business” from Facebook, and also want our money. That’ll be the day! We get stats telling us our views are down. Well, they throttled us. Diddly dur hey!

Results of Facebook shadowban
Used under US Federal Fair Use provisions for educational purposes

So, for people who care, pray if you’ve a mind to. Well, it’s been over ten years. If that Admin can’t get things resolved, there will be only me. And you can be sure that won’t last long. Don’t be surprised if Fascistbook rings down the curtain on The Question Evolution Project.

If people come to MeWe, I may set something up there or use a group where I’ve been made an Admin.

As for me, my main sites are:
Piltdown Superman
Biblical Creation and Evangelism (once a week):
Radaractive (once a week)
Others are more intermittent.

For personal stuff, I’m most active on MeWe
Twitter (but I suspect shadowbanning there, too):
Why?Outreach is on Parler. So am I, but not too pleased with the platform. He can be reached here.

ADDENDUM: Too bad I can’t put color behind just one word. Anyway, the account under discussion was connected moments ago (14:14 Eastern Time). However, knowing Fakebook, that could change. This still got me thinking about what I should be doing, my options, starting over with TQEP 2.0, and so on.

Image credit up top: Pexels / Mikhail Nilov

Vampire Biden Squid Fossil Problematic for Evolution

Squid image from Pexels, by Mark Newbury

When I read that a vampire squid fossil had been named after the Fossil-in-Chief, I thought I was reading the Babylon Bee. Nope. This is real news from the secular science industry. Since they have been promoting leftist causes and often rejecting real science facts to do so (abortion is not murder, men can become women and give birth, math is racist, etc.), it should not be surprising that someone from the leftist state of New York chose to honor Joe Biden by naming him after a creature with blood-sucking tentacles. Republican, Democrat, or anyone else, this is quite funny.

Do people even think anymore? Democrats named this creature after him because they are happy about his policies for global warming. “Hey, let’s name a vampiric squid fossil in his honor!” They are not too bright. I doubt that Biden would cognate on the associations, since his mental abilities are rapidly failing (perhaps because he began politics in Grover Cleveland‘s first presidential term). The associations are fitting, though.

He has been known for inappropriate touching, and swimming naked in front of female secret service agents, offending them, back when he was the Vice President. What his socialism is doing to the formerly United States and the blood-sucking tentacles analogy is also appropriate. Add to this are how Darwinoids touted this as evidence for evolution, but the opposite occurs. Because they are locked into naturalistic presuppositions, evolutionists won’t get it that the evidence supports recent creation, not their paradigm.

Vampire Squid, Wikimedia Commons, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (CC BY-SA 4.0)

This critter was discovered back in 1988 but not examined until recently. Evolutionists constantly try to rescue their fundamentally-flawed worldview from what has been observed. Once again, loss of features is somehow evidence for evolution. It’s also in the wrong place according to the evolutionary timeline. Want more? Okay. Soft tissue impressions shouldn’t last hundreds of millions of Darwin years. It was presumed to look and act like modern squids. No evolution here, folks.

The fossil challenges the evolutionary narrative about squids, says the press release from AMNH. The title, “New Species of Extinct Vampire-Squid-Like Cephalopod,” may add insult to injury to associate Biden with a blood-sucking monster extending its sucker-laden tentacles to pry the lifeblood out of its victims. They surely did not mean it that way, but it will be hard for Republicans not to snicker.

Vampire squid (vampyropods) had 10 tentacles compared to the usual 8 for octopuses, which are related members of the cephalopod (head-foot) class of mollusks. One reason for the problem with evolution of this fossil is that it represents devolution—the loss of features. In this case, the “understanding” devolved as well. Co-author Christopher Whalen explains:

To read the full article and see how Chris evosplains, see “Fossil Squid Named for Joe Biden.” (Image at the top: Pexels / Mark Newbury)