The Eric Hedin Saga Continues

Professional #liar4darwin proselytizer Jerry Coyne made some outrageous (possibly libelous) claims about Eric Hedin. It appears that he is not only opposed to free speech, but freedom of thought as well. Must protect the atheistic narrative, you betcha!

sixdaysblog

I’ve previously written about Physicist Eric Hedin and the censorship he faced at Ball State University, so this post is a follow-up to the ongoing saga. I admit it’s a little lengthy, but thorough.

Militant atheists came after Hedin and forced the college to shut down his classes because he was accused of teaching religion in the classroom.

Censorship is a serious thing because it only allows for the strongest voice to be heard at the expense of dissenting views. All others must be silenced. In this way the truth can be suppressed in order to preserve a favored viewpoint.

In the case of Hedin, Ball State University approved the course and its description, which was titled, The Boundaries of Science. The university intended to have a course delve into larger, societal issues and implications. Thus Hedin engaged students by asking philosophical questions, such as how human significance…

View original post 2,811 more words

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)

Words have real power

It has been said that words are vessels to carry thoughts. This short post helps show their power.

James A. Hatt

Words are not simply sounds caused by air passing through our larynx. Words have real power. God spoke the world into being by the power of His words (Hebrews 11:3), and we are in His image in part because of the power we have with words. Words do more than convey information. The power of our words can actually destroy one’s spirit, even stir up hatred and violence. They not only exacerbate wounds but inflict them directly. Of all the creatures on this planet, only man has the ability to communicate through the spoken word. The power to use words is a unique and powerful gift from God.

View original post

Presuppositional Apologetics’ Round Up: Third Week of February 2022

Keep Questioning

Thanks to Seeking Divine Perspective for writing this article relating to Question Evolution Day. This year is the 11th annual, and you can find out more here: http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/p/question-evolution-day.html

Seeking Divine Perspective

In honor of Question Evolution Day tomorrow (Thanks, Jimmy and Clyde*), here are some thoughts on questioning.

After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. – Luke 2:46

It was my middle school biology class, second semester. We had spent a good portion of the first semester learning the basics of just what is meant by “science” – what can be observed with our five senses, the difference between “observation” and “interpretation,” and cause and effect – that everything that happens has a cause and every action has an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, nothing happens in a vacuum, nothing happens “just because.”

Now we were getting to the fun part – actually studying LIFE! I was excited to learn just how these bodies of ours worked. I knew we were incredibly complex creations, but…

View original post 933 more words

Resistance to Question Evolution Day

There are several aspects to Question Evolution Day that many people can support, such as biblical creationists and even professing atheists or agnostics who believe in freedoms of speech, expression, academic, and thought. Fundamentalist evolutionists and atheists find it execrable. They attempt to silence this day as well as creationists themselves through ridicule, misrepresentation, outright lies, and more. I thought an important part of rational and scientific inquiry is to allow the examination of contrary evidence, but I’m just a nobody. It is easy to think that those who claim to believe in freedom of speech only support it if the material supports the consensus.

Here’s an area that I must confess to having inconsistency. There have been several misotheists and anti-creationists who want to slap leather with me over the years, and several times I have pledged to stop featuring their comments and such as examples of bad logic and bigotry. I was giving them the attention they seem to crave. Then they give me something else that needs to be used. C’est la guerre.

Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes.

The above image was posted on Fakebook and these misotheists did the usual: share for the purpose of mockery. First, I want to point out that the owner of that Page and his few fans complain when creationists point out that Charles Darwin was a blatant racist, they falsely claim that we are engaging in ad hominem attacks. Then they hypocritically use their own. Frequently.

By the way, notice the “ha ha” emoji. Atheists love those, even when they’ve been caught lying or given irrefutable evidence for something. No intelligent response, just a childish retort.

The two sentences in the comment on the “share” are chock full o’ fallacies, so let’s give them a look-see.

As I said, they use ad hominems frequently. This one has “idiots”, “moronic”, and “clowns”. Some people defend the use of insults and say that are not ad hominems when not used in the course of an argument, but I disagree. It is still to the man and is a way to dismiss what another person or group has to say.

For that matter, an insult can also be a form of poisoning the well to discredit what the other says before any statement is made. If someone states, “No, that’s not an ad hominem, I simply insulted you”, it should not be allowed to stand. It does nothing to advance an argument or position, and is harmful.

Note the viperine conflation of evolution with science, which is common among anti-creationists. This is frequently expanded so that, if we reject atoms-to-atheist evolution, we reject science. Not hardly!

If you study on it a mite, you’ll see that their attitude is anti-science. You betcha, since those who

One need not be a creationist or Intelligent Design proponent to have doubts about evolution. It is in no wise “settled science” or “proven”, since science can’t prove anything, and a true spirit of science it so seek knowledge (which includes adjusting or even rejecting bad theories), not protecting the prevailing paradigm.

Dissent from Darwin has been signed by over 1,200 scientists (and MDs who are also professors of medicine). As discussed at Piltdown Superman, this is essentially blaspheming Darwin and, therefore, hazardous to their careers. If there were more professional, academic, and other freedoms, there would undoubtedly be more signers.

I am once again reminding people that there are many credentialed scientists in the creation community that have published in refereed journals in their own fields. Of course, evidence refuting evolution and supporting creation is not allowed in the secular science industry. It makes Darwin frown.

Interestingly, while I was writing this, another Admin at The Question Evolution Project re-posted something I wrote a spell back about how creationists embrace science. That same Page owner under discussion here called me a liar in his comments. Because atheism.

Implicit in the line, “As if a bunch of Creationist clowns are going to cause science to abandon evolutionary theory”, is an appeal to motive fallacy. Since that Admin uses the genetic fallacy as an excuse to avoid reading creationist material, he doesn’t know what Question Evolution Day is about in the first place.

When I started QED, I never said that it would cause the secular science industry to abandon one of their foundations. (Indeed, glance through this collection of Darwin Day images and notice the religious fervor. Somehow, a couple of QED images made it into the mix.) I am a nobody. Fact. I wasn’t being facetious before. And I know I don’t have much influence or power. This is a movement by and for the people who actually care about getting out the truth and prompting people to think for themselves instead of floating down the stream of “consensus science”.

This may put some people off, but mayhaps some of my history will be useful.

Creation Ministries International had a Question Evolution! campaign that included several videos and questions that evolutionists cannot answer. I made a comment that there should be a Question Evolution Day. Didn’t happen, so, being a cowboy at heart, I took the initiative and started the observance. Not much happened.

I asked for other people to participate, and had a boost a few times from Creation Today. Ian Juby promoted QED on Genesis Week a couple of times. Many other people wrote weblog articles (Duane Caldwell has done several at Rational Faith), and people on social(ist) media had their own material as well as sharing hash-tagged #questionevolutionday posts.

In addition, I sought out interviews on radio and podcasts (here is one of my favorites; a skilled interviewer brings out good responses from the subject). A few times I got my name “in print”, such as The Christian Post and The Washington Post (via Religion News Service.) Like I said, I was being a cowboy. Being a nobody, however, hindered getting doors opened.

Writing that stuff makes me uncomfortable because I have long said (and pray to remind myself) to seek glory to God, not glory to Bob.

Even so, one point to QED is that a passel of us common folk can get together and spread the world. We can hope and pray that people will realize that they are not getting all the facts from atheistic materialists. They may question evolution and realize that the God of the Bible is the Creator — that means he makes the rules and we should find out what he has to say.

As for angry atheists…they can’t hurt us. Sure, ridicule and say all sorts of evil things, it’s who they are and what they do. But they can’t stop the truth, and people don’t need to spend much time on hard-hearted trolls, you savvy?

I hope all y’all will get involved in Question Evolution Day, our protest against Darwin-mandated science philosophies can be heard!

The convoy starts here. (Made at PhotoFunia.)

Let There Be Light

There are many speculations about what provided the light before God created the sun. I lean toward the “physically manifested shekinah glory” suggestion, but others have speculated on angels, temporary light sources, and others. The Bible does not say, so we can’t be barking dogmatic about the answer.

Bible-Science Guy

(2 Minute Read. 29Dec2021)

Recently Reader Madison asked an intriguing question in a comment on this BibleScienceGuy article: The Big Bang!

Madison’s comment included this question on the creation of light in Genesis 1:
“What is the difference between the great light created in verse 3 and the one created in verse 16?”

Here are the relevant passages about the light God created on Creation Day 1 (verse 3) and later on Creation Day 4 (verse 16):
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness…

View original post 664 more words

Bible Contradiction? Where did Joseph and Mary live before the birth of Jesus?

Historically, Skeptics challenged knowledge claims of others. It seems to me that skepticism implies a willingness to consider evidence or epistemological arguments, and as a Christian and creationist, I encourage healthy skepticism regarding assertions by atheists and evolutionists.

Today, it seems to me that “skeptics” have already decided that what they dislike is untrue, and would be more honest if they called themselves scoffers.

Here is an example of how atheists will do selective citing and are sidewinders when alleging contradictions in the Bible. While Jim easily eviscerates the contradiction claim, take note of the process so you can use it your ownself.

The Domain for Truth

bible-contradiction-where-did-joseph-and-mary-live-before-the-birth-of-jesus

In light of the upcoming season as we head towards Christmas today’s post will tackle another question that the Skeptic Annotated Bible asked: “Where did Joseph and Mary live before the birth of Jesus?”

Here are the two answers which the skeptic believes shows a Bible contradiction (the emphasis and what is skipped over is done by the skeptic):

They lived in Nazareth, and traveled to Bethlehem because of a census.

Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth.This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city.Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and…

View original post 1,576 more words

Responding to Objection of 6 or 9 and argument there’s no right and wrong — The Domain for Truth

Have you seen anyone post this on social media or other similar meme?  How does one respond as a Christian? First off it is true that 6 can look like a 9.   The illustration involves only two referents both who are viewers.  What’s missing is the author of the number.  Authorial intent matters. Given […]

Responding to Objection of 6 or 9 and argument there’s no right and wrong — The Domain for Truth

The Evolutionist Noble Victim

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It happens at The Question Evolution Project and other places on teh interwebs where professing atheists and evolutionists want to correct Christians and creationists of our “wrong” views. Many of us have encountered some tinhorn who is essentially communicating, “I tried so hard to talk sense to them, but my efforts are scorned. Oh, martyr me!” However, what they put in comments and the story they tell their friends are usually very different.

The Genius and the Crowd / Yeghishe Tadevosyan, 1909

Everyone has a worldview, even if they haven’t done a systematic study and written a thesis about it. Evolution is a foundational aspect of the religion of atheism, and I have seen where seen where atheists may be having discussions with Christians, but when the Christian expresses doubt about evolution, the atheist is ready to slap leather and the civility was forced; one of the atheist’s main foundations was threatened.

Worldviews have presuppositions (things believed to be true without empirical proof), and evolutionists presuppose atheistic naturalism. One assumption is that evolution doubters are Fundamentalist Christians (although their definition of “Fundamentalist” is a vague pejorative), and that we are uneducated. When it is pointed out that there are people with advanced degrees who not only reject atoms-to-atheist evolution, the “No True Scotsman” fallacy is invoked, because no true scientist would even think of questioning evolution. Creationist scientist are not real scientists. Because atheism.

I can’t figure out how to make text appear to the left of an image on WordPress.

There is a serious problem with epistemology. and many of Darwin’s cheerleaders are shocked — shocked, I tell you — when creationists they come across know more about evolution than they do. Evolution defenders often use outdated and discredited information in their attempts to correct or refute us, but display massive ignorance of current evolutionary thinking (or even basic science itself). We are subjected to sanitized Darwinism without faults, errors, contradictions, and controversy among secular scientists. No, evolution is not a “proven fact”,

Instead of letting Christians and creationists have freedom of expression of our views (or even to have our beliefs in the first place), a typical village atheist is compelled to attack us. There are many screenshots I could add here, but that would be excessive.

I’ve got some bad news for you, Sunshine: disagreement is not refutation, and dehumanizing us does not make you right. Snarking at people who post or share creation science material instead of presenting cogent objections to the writers is absurd. Ignoring material about dishonesty in evolutionary propaganda (here is one example) is disingenuous. People who mock and ridicule out of hatred and bigotry don’t deserve much time. You savvy?

Also, engaging in groupthink to win approval from the tribe is not only the suppression of thought, but a losing proposition.

Trolling is common, and some atheists make a pretense at an intellectual approach, using various forms of philosophy. These are invariably red herrings that avoid the subject at hand. Many want to control the conversation, and become upset when knowledgeable creationists keep the pressure on and hold them to the subject at hand.

Sure, there are some Christians and creationists who should not be involved in online arguments. Some are prideful, and too many lack knowledge of theology and what creationists believe and teach. Passion is no substitute for a reasonable response, and those folks need to grow in grace and knowledge before trying to do apologetics.

Actually, I lack belief that most online atheists and evolutionists are being honest when they play the innocent victim card. Let’s face it, this is an attempt to gain points against the st00pid dumb creatards and salvage their egos. As many of us have seen, it is usually based on prejudicial conjecture, bigotry, and simplistic ridicule — which backfires when given an examination. We know the truth.