There are several items here that caught my attention, and I’m grateful that Jim included my detective work article examining how a Christian and his church were attacked. The principles in that can be useful in many other situations.
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…
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.
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 usead 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.
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.
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!
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.
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…
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.
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.2 This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.3 And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city.4 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…
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 […]
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.
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.
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.
It is an unscientific and unnecessary mythology used to fool the common man!
— by Kimbal Binder, first published on Radaractive before Goolag/Google took it down and then said, “Oops, we changed our minds so we put it back up”, and then did nothing of the kind. Originally published February 4, 2014. This version has been modified.
If you happened to listen to the podcast that Piltdown Superman put up on this blog yesterday, you are fully prepared to read the argument made by Scott Youngren in the article below.
I also love the quote Scott referenced from C.S. Lewis:
If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Now think about what you know and why you know it. No doubt in grade school you were taught how to count with visual aids. Two blocks added to two blocks (or apples or whatever) were shown to be four blocks. Very simple, easy to see and understand. What we understand as being proven scientifically is often just a marker left on the marathon that is the advancement of human knowledge.
Darwinist evolution is nothing like this at all. While science DID prove using the scientific method that nothing is created or destroyed in the natural world, that all of the natural world is running downhill and that life does not come from non-life, the so-called “science” of evolution breaks these laws without shame in order to advance a religion-based philosophy of Naturalism. To pretend that Darwinism is scientific at all is a sham, a fraud and a crime against the human mind! I can assert that with good conscience because the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis remain intact and Darwinism must be at odds with these laws. Darwinism is not scientific at all, it is an hypothesis that is used to prop up anti-God morality and for the pleasure of atheopaths. Evil men who wish to do things God forbids have always sought to pretend that there is no God so they can entice others to join them in their evil practices.
“The God of the Gaps: Why God and science are not competing explanations” By Scott Youngren
“The common belief that… the actual relations between religion and science over the last few centuries have been marked by deep and enduring hostility… is not only historically inaccurate, but actually a caricature so grotesque that what needs to be explained is how it could possibly have achieved any degree of respectability.”–Cambridge University historian of science Colin Russell
“Just because science hasn’t explained something yet doesn’t mean that we should just give up and say, ‘God did it.’”
-A comment made, in various versions, by multiple atheist commenters to [his] website. ——————————- The cartoon above provides a good depiction of how many (perhaps most) atheists perceive God. They perceive him as an explanation for natural phenomena that competes with scientific explanations, and that serves to fill gaps in scientific understanding. But this perception is completely flawed and misguided.
In the US, organized prayer in schools was banned in 1963 because of an activist Supreme Court which did not care to follow the Constitution. In 1973 came legalized baby-murdering, Now the spread of same-sex so-called marriage has led to widespread moral chaos! Just look at what happened in Massachusetts!
Do you know who I am? It doesn’t matter who I am or what schools I attended. It is all about the information and about truth. I have a few health issues but I do have my “assault keyboard” and I am still able to fire a few virtual bullets. Evolution is a threat to both the social and scientific health of our world. Those who proclaim it tend to be as ruthless to their opposition as were the Spanish Inquisitors in the name of a government that was unholy and greedy for power and money. Here in the USA we have not yet put non-Darwinists on a rack or burned them at the stake, but the career of a scientist who does not toe the evolution line? Darwinists gladly burn their careers instead.
We do not need God to be removed from society, we need Darwinism to be cast from our minds instead. Science was begun by Christians and Theists in the first place as a belief in a God with a Logical Mind gave them impetus to investigate the means and methodology by which the entire Universe worked. It was a belief in God that was the basis for the foundation of the sciences we are familiar with today…God does not need gaps! But we need to get rid of the holes in our heads and get back to honoring God and doing the best you can…
This was originally posted here, but Goolag (Google, the owner of Blogger/Blogspot, in turned owned by Alphabet) took it down along with several others. Then they changed their minds and “reinstated” it. No, they haven’t. Why am I not surprised?
It is indeed unfortunate that my final Question Evolution Day was such a failure (due to apathy of professing creationists), because in addition to supporting freedom of speech, QED articles had material to help people spot fake news like how the “vampire ground finch” proves evolution.
Many critters are opportunists when their preferred foot is unavailable. In the wild, the giant panda uses its nasty big pointy teeth to masticate bamboo, but will eat other things, including rodents (they take a greater variety of food in captivity). Indeed, the lorikeet has taken a turn toward carnivory. How picky are humans? Consider Proverbs 27:7. Nick Yemana had a comment about Japanese eating raw fish at the 2 min. 42 sec. mark here. My Scottish ancestors and distant relatives over yonder eat haggis, but I’m not fond of the idea. I think Americans ignore the ingredients of hot dogs and other sausages. The point is that when you need to eat, you make due with what’s available.
As for that vampire ground finch — the naturalism narrative is once again more important than actual science. It may seem like an ad hominem for me to call them liars, but the lapdog media for the secular science industry as well as the educated professional scientists have no excuse. They know better. This bird does drink blood to some extent. Darwin’s acolytes are calling it evolution, but that is deceptively conflating evolution with slight change.
Have any of those tinhorns ever bothered to see if these wonderful examples of evolution can survive on blood alone? Is there evidence of significant mutations or added genetic information? Do these birds show any interest in blood when their primary food sources are available? Not hardly! Meanwhile, biblical creationists have shown many times that the Master Engineer has equipped creatures to adapt so they can survive.
These are the kinds of things that other creationists and I are trying to teach: We want people to learn how to think, not tell them what to think. Secularists are lying to us about science and evolution. They are also suppressing the truth about the Creator, which is compounding their wickedness. Yeah, I’m a mite irritated. Those finches stopping off for a quick nip of blood on their way home from work is nothing Darwin could be proud of, and this kind of evoporn is sucked up by atheists and other naturalists to confirm their biases.
The diet of most vertebrates tends to be specialized, but flexible in extreme circumstances. Humans decidedly prefer certain foods, but in extreme circumstances will sometimes consume almost anything, even urine and other humans. Some birds consume primarily seeds, others worms, yet others nectar or sugar water. Robins prefer worms and insects but, if they are unable to find worms, will consume other foods, like fruit, raisins, suet, berries, and seeds. Likewise, some finches favor seeds, others prefer flower nectar, pollen and insects.
Darwinists believe that all food preferences evolved, so why did the discovery that some finches consume blood recently merit headlines? The reason is (it is implied), that, historically, finches did not include blood in their diet but, in extreme circumstances, they recently evolved the ability to eat blood. Thus, evolution is occurring in front of our very eyes! The claim is “Scientists suggest the vampire finch evolved to drink blood to survive the volcanic archipelago’s harsh environment and scarce resources.”
Something I have been emphasizing for years is the importance of definitions (see this 2013 article, “Science, Evolution and the New Golden Rules“). The simplest practical example is to have people to define their terms in a discussion so they will not end up talking past one another because they are working with different definitions of key words in their minds.
A favorite trick from anti-creationists, atheists, leftists and so on is to change definitions. The established definition of atheist, for example, is someone who believes there is no God or gods. They disingenuously redefined it to “lack of belief”. Another example is evolution. People who have read my work before may have noticed that I seldom write “evolution” at the outset, but qualify it (particles-to-paleontologist, dust-to-Dark Knight, universal common descent, etc.; but “the neo-Darwinian synthesis” and similar phrases are cumbersome). This specific word use is because there are sidewinders who conflate change, adaptation, variation, and others with evolution.
I disremember where I came across the article that inspired my own (linked below). It emphasizes the cultural and political aspects of definitions and redefinitions. People are not taught how to think. Instead, they are being told what to think. The danger is that people in positions of power and influence can appeal to emotions instead of reason to more easily control sheeple.
There are words that didn’t even exist a few years ago that are part of everyday speech (especially when leftists use it for propaganda with concentration and repetition). How often do you see or hear racist or related words used? While racism does exist, true racism loses its impact and believability when the claim is bandied around loosely. Also, the word homophobe is nonsense; I don’t phobe any homos, and neither do you. How about fascist? It is horribly overplayed as well — people don’t even know what it actually means, and is practically redefined as, “Someone I don’t like and want to have silenced”. These tinhorns may shout the loudest, but that doesn’t make them right.
Leftists use loaded terminology to color stories and people’s perceptions, and they also ignore or underplay news that is contrary to their agendas. A black man is killed by police, everyone in the media loses their minds. Black people beat and kill white people? Nobody bats an eye. A new discovery to support evolution is promoted, big excitement. When it is proven false, obedient lapdogs of the secular science industry are asleep.
The article I mentioned earlier also mentioned how social jargon is used for social signaling. That brought dog whistle to mind. It wasn’t that long ago that a dog whistle meant a dog whistle. Now, it’s a political and social way of sending signals to certain people. This child believes hashtags are dog whistles. Sometimes it is difficult to read a post because there are so man of them, and in different colors because they are also hyperlinks of sorts. (For #God so #loved the world, #salvation #Jesus #Bible #Reformed. Oh, please!) In one of my early experiences on Twitter, I was warned by an atheist that if I used the word atheist, I was risking “calling down the thunder”. It turns out that they would call for help by tagging #atheist in their comments and I would get swarmed. It’s happened many times.
Secular education systems are essentially extensions of the Ministry of Truth (if you don’t know what that is, look it up, I’ll wait here). Using emotional tactics, there is increasing ridicule of homeschoolers from the left. They also use boilerplate terms of disrespect such as lack of socialization skills. (Yes, poor kids are missing out on school shootings, rape, drug abuse, and all those fun things learned in socializing.) When children are taught about God, creation, the Bible, and other truths at home, secularists scream that we are “indoctrinating” them. In reality, children are not being indoctrinated as well when they are not at schools for much of their lives, and the left is incensed by that.
At this point, I’d be much obliged if y’all would do two things. First, read “On the Road to Newspeak” (why it’s Protestant Post, I have no idea, because the principles apply to more than just Protestants). When you read it, see how this applies to not only biblical creationists, but also to Christians in general.
The other thing I’m asking is for you to watch this video. (There’s a bit of profanity, but you’ll get past it.) Notice how reality is subverted for the sake of personal preferences, appeals to emotion, loaded terminology, and other things. The satire is not far from the truth.