Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen When I was accepted to be on the review team for The War on Christmas , I was given a couple of other e-books as thank-you gifts. I was not asked to give a review at all, let alone, a favorable one, but I thought you should know how I obtained my copy of Tim Chaffey's In Defense of Easter: Answering Critical Challenges to the Resurrection of Jesus . Then I put it off. To be direct with you, I wasn't all that thrilled with another book giving a defense of the faith on this topic since there are so many others available, and many articles on apologetics sites. Still, the topic is important, so I carved out some time for it. Turns out that I was getting set to ride down the wrong trail. In Defense of Easter has a somewhat different approach in some respects than other books, and there is information on bad arguments against the resurrection that were not around before, plus some material that I had never heard of. This is not a cumbersome tome at

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen In a previous article, I discussed how people idolize scientists and the religion of Scientism is gaining popularity. Many people will blindly accept what "scientists say" because of their unfounded high view of science and scientists ( that article is here ). Regular readers may recall that my father was a pastor in a liberal church. I asked him why we did so many ritual things (which I disliked), and he said that people need a "religious experience". Although I still reject that for a church setting, I see truth in that in other areas. Scientism, atheism, and other worldviews tend to be sterile and clinical; even atheists are garnering a religious experience with their own churches. Although many Darwinists and atheists hate this fact, evolution is a religion. It started way back yonder, long before Darwin plagiarized Erasmus Darwin and others, back to the Epicureans , and possibly older views. Charles Darwin didn't come up wit

In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey had a notion to do an experiment to back up the assumptions that, using science and and intelligently-designed apparatus, life could form by chance. The obtained some amino acids, and Darwin's Cheerleaders were overjoyed that chemical evolution had a basis in their worldview. However, the experiment has long been discredited (they used a trap to remove the amino acids from the environment so they wouldn't be destroyed), and the "reducing atmosphere" concept of the early earth has long been abandoned. Image modi fied from Yassine Mrabet   /Wiki media C ommons Of course, this bit of historical science used assumptions, and they wanted to test their ideas to see if they worked. Scientists do that. However, even though the experiment is invalid, when creationists point out its many flaws (including that it argues against  abiogenesis ), evolutionists will circle the wagons to defend it. A newer attempt to bring the experim

Proponents of microbes-to-monkey evolution have been embarrassed by the concept of "junk" DNA. Bad science led to the classification of a sample of DNA that scientists didn't understand, so they classified it as useless leftovers from our alleged evolutionary past. When serious research was conducted, it turned out that there is no such thing as "junk" DNA, the stuff is actually important . Also, circular RNA has lost its "junk" status . Of course, some fundamentalist evolutionists can't handle the truth, and persist in clinging to their irrational faith in the junk concept . Image assembled from components at Clker clipart According to evolutionary speculations, life is the product of time, chance, natural selection, and beneficial mutations — a whole wagon load of mutations. (Of course, "beneficial" mutations are debatable because a benefit here  often causes a detriment there. ) And "adding information"? Only if you

It seems that making space telescopes like the Hubble and Spitzer is not such a good idea for cosmologists and cosmogonists who want to believe that the Big Bang happened. Deep space discoveries are made, and the Big Bang "theory" keeps getting adjusted because it doesn't fit the observations and has little resemblance to the original idea. Sorta like putting new horses in the corral and letting other horses escape, then still claiming you have the same herd; what you have doesn't look the same as what you started with.  The Big Bang has had numerous difficulties in the past (several are written up here), including the horizon and flatness problems. So, cosmologists come up with some notions to rescue it, including the faith-based "multiverse" or "inflation" concept . Now there are new problems to explain away. "A1689-zD1 appears as a grayish-white smudge in the close-up view taken with NICMOS [image at center, right], and as a whiti

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  One of the most common complaints that Christian apologists have is that our critics rarely do their homework. Many cannot be bothered to do actual research, insisting that we're wrong without even reading (or in some cases, reading at  but not understanding) the material. Research for the purpose of meaningful discussion? Naw, don't pay it no nevermind, just spout off with the hate and say you slapped down them st00pid dumb Xtians with "reason". Atheopath keyboard warrior using fallacies and ignoring  the content of the article . Atheists and anti-creationists are notorious for this kind of behavior, then they wonder why they get banned or have their comments moderated. In addition, these owlhoots complain about "censorship" when they can't say what they want, where they want, even though they don't understand what censorship really is .  By the way, I've been the victim of what those people would call "

As we have seen here many times, the evolutionary worldview cannot account for morality. Someone was brutally murdered, and compassionate people react in horror. If evolution were true, there would be no point in that. There is no free will, we're simply controlled by our chemical impulses. Why should one sack of chemicals care about what happens to another sack of chemicals? When an anti-creationist cries, "Unfair! Censorship! You're a bunch of liars!", he's appealing to a transcendent morality. The same with the Darwinist who complains about murder, genocide and atrocities, as in both cases, they are tacitly admitting that their worldview cannot account for morality, it is not truly livable, and they cannot justify outrage — when they actually have it. The biblical worldview is the only one that is coherent and can account for morality, and these people are actually standing on our worldview. Unfortunately, since evolutionary "survival of the fittes