Piltdown Superman

My shortest audio-video podcast ever. The MP3 can be downloaded here . Are you tired of videos? We had a lot going on in the past week, so I kept this short. That, and the fact that the one I had planned (and had started) was going to be dreadful. So, just a couple of comments about that Ken Ham - Bill Nye debate, a few other odds and ends, then back to work preparing for Question Evolution Day .

What went on in the Evolution Bunker after the #creationdebate? There are several opinions on who won the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, and why . Creationists tended to see flaws in both Ken Ham and Bill Nye, and especially in the debate format itself. Some of Darwin's Cheerleaders ranted that Nye won through "science" despite his numerous logical fallacies and condescending attitude (he disrespected the entire state of Kentucky, too). Some evolutionists admit that Nye failed. Most creationist accounts that I read did not give a clear victory to Ham. But the news spread, and Hitler found out...

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen There are quite a few reviews and editorials about the Ken Ham and Bill "I Played a Scientist On TV" Nye debate, so I am going to keep my remarks brief. No need for a full analysis, others are doing that rather well. Evolutionists and atheists are claiming victory. Creationists are doing the same, but are divided. Some of us (yes, us ) are not claiming it to be a "slam dunk". In an earlier interview , I stated that I expected Ken Ham to win the debate. I was right. Sort of. There were qualifiers, that Ham had to keep Nye on topic and watch out for logical fallacies. Nye did not disappoint, indulging in prejudicial conjecture (such as saying that the Bible is wrong, it can't happen, what about this that and the other, but didn't bother to do research on the topics, just made assertions), straw man arguments, elephant hurling (Nye was asking Ham numerous questions, but the format did not allow for proper responses), subtle ad ho

Writing this on Monday, February 3. The big debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye the Anti-Science guy should be over. For the three-year anniversary of this site, here is some science until I get time to write about the debate. The article that I will link is in two parts, the second part is linked at the end of the first where it says "to be continued". Evolution is an ancient pagan religion. After various attempts to make it appear scientific before and during the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin managed to popularize it in 1859 and 1871. People grabbed evolution as a means to reject God while appearing scientific and intellectual. Darwin taught that natural selection was the basis of changes in species. Creationists also believe in natural selection, as it eliminates organisms that are unfit for certain environments and is scientifically verified. However, traditional Darwinism had to abandon natural selection as a means of molecules-to-man evolution. (Surprisingly, so

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Atheists are in a tizzy over the debate, and have launched into damage control mode. Their assertions and accusations are amusing as well as defamatory and libelous. The big debate between creation science apologist Ken Ham and Bill "I Play a Scientist on TV" Nye is schedule to take place on February 4, 2014 at 7 PM Eastern Time.  Excuses are already being offered. One is that Bill Nye is naïve and going against an expert charlatan , so he doesn't stand a chance. Richard Dawkins thinks this debate is a bad idea as well . Various articles, comments and so on around the Web are polarized. Some say that Nye will make Ham crumble to scientific facts (news flash: assertions are not "facts", Skippy). P.Z. Myers seems to agree .  Humanists are saying it's a good thing for similar reasons , that "science" will win over Ham's faith-based assertions, which is more prejudicial conjecture (and there is a false claim in the p

The planet Uranus had long been thought to be a star, what with its slow orbit, distance from the sun and all. Creationist scientist Sir William Herschel finally determined that it was neither a star nor a comet, but a planet. He also discovered its two largest moons. Credit: Voyager 2 Team, NASA Uranus is not all that thrilling. A ball of gas similar to Jupiter and Saturn, with a density that indicates a core of various ices. No sense in making plans to colonize that one. But this planet has some characteristics that are quite intriguing, such as its unusual tilt. These also add to the list of items that thwart evolutionary cosmogony and support creation science. Especially since Russ Humphreys predicted its magnetic field, and was proven right . Detailed study of Uranus with Earth-based telescopes has been difficult due to the extreme distance. The Voyager 2 spacecraft provided the most detailed images to date when it flew past Uranus in 1986, generating pictures of a nea

Creation science is a very hot topic these days!  The debate between Ken Ham and Bill "I Play a Scientist on TV" Nye will happen very soon,   Creation Sunday   is coming, movies about Noah and the Ark are going to be released (including   a creationist version with the real account ), the   Genesis 3-D  movie   is in the works, a recent survey shows that   people are not accepting evolution nearly as much as atheists would like , a site lamented that   2013 was "a terrible year for evolution" . And there's   Question Evolution Day . Question Evolution Day   is, on the surface, about basic human rights: We can say that we question (or reject!) evolution, and should be able to do so without loss of intellectual, academic, professional, speech and other freedoms. But it is important on deeper levels, including why it is important theologically and that evolution is a foundation to the religion of atheism — both of which are fundamentally