Showing posts from January, 2012

Paleoenvironments and Worldviews

Creationists are accused of being biased when interpreting data. Surprise! So are secular scientists. Since I learned that no scientist is completely neutral and objective (being human and all that), I see this basic fact reinforced over and over. Here is an example: Dr Kathleen Benison, geologist at Central Michigan University, USA, writes in response to Michael Oard’s article Beware of paleoenvironmental deductions (1999). Dr Benison was the principal author of the study that Michael Oard was commenting on, and this exchange presents a penetrating look at the influence of worldview on how geology is interpreted. Dr Benison writes: No, to see what Dr. Benison writes, and Dr. Oard's response, read the rest of "Paleoenvironments and the Bible, The role of assumptions and worldview in geological interpretation" he re.

More Peer Review Club Action

"Peer Review", the convenient cop-out for evolutionists to dodge actually examining the evidence for creation and Intelligent Design. Sure, let's submit creationist material to evolutionists for their opinions. Makes perfect sense. Yes, the biased "good old boys" club that promotes favorites and suppresses those who are not exactly on the inside track. Bad news, Buford: Non-evolutionists have peer review as well. But it does not meet your presuppositions. Hey, want an example of what happens when...? What happens when an editor of a technical biology journal decides, along with others, to publish the first peer-reviewed technical article that casts doubt on Darwin and lays out the evidence for an intelligent designer?  In the case of Richard Sternberg, a Smithsonian research associate and former managing editor of the independent journal called the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington , it meant being cast out of the prestigious

Evolution Discussions

For about two years now (or thereabouts), I have been listening to many podcasts for Christian apologetics. One of those is a radio show and podcast in southern New Jersey called "Evidence for Faith". Keith Kendrix and Kirk Hastings have discussions on various topics and conduct the occasional interview as well. I have "participated" by writing the occasional letter, and they have read portions of the letters on the air. (Keep your ego in check there, Cowboy...) Since then, we have had some good communication, and I have even reviewed and recommended a book by Kirk Hastings called What Is Truth?  (On a side note, one of my more vituperative atheist "haters" sent them a letter, telling them what a bad man  I am. This was revealed to me in a telephone conversation with Keith, who thought it was without merit.) By the way, they gave a shout out for " Question Evolution Day / Academic Freedom Day — February 12 ". Thanks, guys! So anyway. Th

Wilfull Ignorance Is Not Science

Time and again, I get hit with the plaintive bleating of fundamentalist evolutionists that, "All the facts support evolution", "Creation and Intelligent Design do not have facts", "There are no facts for creation" and similar nonsense. News flash: It is not a case of "my facts are better than your facts" because nobody owns the facts. A fact is a fact, evidence is evidence. It is the interpretation of the facts that are at issue. For that matter (brace yourselves now), goo-to-you macroevolution and creation are equally religious and equally scientific. They are both belief systems about the past, interpreted through science frameworks based on worldviews. When evolutionists insist that "scientists start with the facts and follow where the evidence leads", they are either misled or dishonest; nobody is unbiased. That flies in the face of human nature, Nellie. Phylogenetic Tree (modified) However, evolutionists are so pass

Video - Question Evolution Day!

This video, and additional information, can be found here . 

Video: Evolution DOES Attempt to Explain the Origin of Life


Look Up Your Family Tree

A term given to evolutionary wishful thinking is "missing links". These things are supposed to be linking modern humans to our alleged simian ancestry. Since there are no actual links, they are presumed "missing" because of the faith-based claims that they do exist after all. (Sort of like my "Evolution Breakfast", where I have pancakes and bacon, but the sausage links  are missing. ) So, gleeful evolutionists find the occasional  bone fragments and construct these simian ancestors. The process goes something like this: The term "suspension of disbelief" is applied to literary and cinematic offerings that stretch credulity. However, to appreciate the story, people are expected to ignore common sense and rational thought for the sake of appreciating the story. This also happens when listening to "explanations" offered by evolutionists. Apemen have long been the stuff of science fiction. For example, in 1912, Arthur

Everything from Nothing

Fundamentalist evolutionists get angry when we point out that they have faith that everything came from nothing. "Nobody believes that!", they falsely claim . There is more evidence that the religious nature of evolution holds to that belief. Evolution professor Lawrence Krauss is now saying that the universe, and everything in it, came from nothing. Not only that, but there are probably billions and billions of universes that have spontaneously arisen. Occasionally a universe happens to have all the right properties for life to arise spontaneously within it, and that would be us. Krauss, a theoretical physicist and head of The Origins Project at Arizona State University, is not the first evolutionist to defy the age-old wisdom that something does not come from nothing. World-famous physicist Stephen Hawking popularized the idea in a recent book he co-authored entitled The Grand Design . Krauss and Hawking use gravitational theory and quantum mechanics to

Presuppositional Atheism and Evolutionism, Plus the Human Genome

Today you are getting a 2-in-1. First, I am going to discuss the fact atheists and evolutionists (I am making a distinction because not all evolutionists are atheists) have their own presuppositions and biases. These are rooted in logical fallacies that attempt to distort honest evaluation of the evidence. Essentially, atheists are right and theists are wrong because the atheists said so. Similarly, evolutionists are right — well, same thing. In addition, they are full of statements of faith, such as, "Evolution is a proven fact", and, "Religious people are full of biases, but scientists simply examine the facts and make conclusions." Sorry to break this to you, but nobody is unbiased. Further false presuppositions include: Creationists are not scientists Creationism is simple: "Goddidit" Atheists are automatically more intelligent than theists by virtue of being atheists Anyone who denies the proven fact of evolution is a liar Fossils pr

Evolution and Willing Deception

Laypeople who are devout evolutionists are a gullible lot. That's right, I said it! Especially the ones who troll the Internet, looking to harass non-believers . Their sources of information include outdated textbooks (where the alleged "ancestors" of man that have been discredited, reclassified, revealed as outright fakes and so forth), popular evolutionary propaganda sites and publications that only reveal the acceptable side, as well as their own willingness to be deceived. I have received comments about this site being "wrong". Why is it wrong? Because some wandering evolutionist fundamentalist said so.  (Even more interesting is when a fellow told me that the article that I linked was completely wrong. It turns out the link was broken; he had never read it! On Twitter, this is an example of #Liar4Darwin.) Most of the time, these pop evolution propaganda readers only bolster their emotional reactions and enthusiasm, but not actual science learning. They ce

Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth

  People have their presuppositions and do not like to have their faith threatened. One of those presuppositions is that radiometric dating proves the age of the Earth. As a matter of fact, radiometric dating contains presuppositions of its own. Take a look at the following article — all of it — and see what I am talking about. T he presupposition of long ages is an icon and foundational to the evolutionary model. Nearly every textbook and media journal teaches that the earth is billions of years old. Using radioactive dating, scientists have determined that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, ancient enough for all species to have been formed through evolution. The earth is now regarded as between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years old. The primary dating method scientists use for determining the age of the earth is radioisotope dating. Proponents of evolution publicize radioisotope dating as a reliable and consistent method for obtaining absolute ages of rocks and the age

It's Evolving Too Fast!

The selective citing of data for the "proof" of evolution is readily evident with the  Galapagos finches. As Ken Ham point out so succinctly, Darwin found big finches, little finches, big beaks, little beaks. What do we find today? Big finches, little finches, big beaks, little beaks. But they are all still finches. Nothing is changing into something else. In fact, quite the opposite is true .   Unless you subscribe to the "Hopeful Monster" (a.k.a. "Punctuated Equilibrium") "theory" of evolution, orthodox Darwinism requires long periods of time. Birds change rapidly, but do not cooperate with evolutionary precepts. Biologists recently found that feather colors and songs vary among some species within the South American genus Sporophila , also known as seedeater birds. But strangely, they did not find any genetic differences in the form of species-specific DNA markers. Do these variations fit any evolutionary pattern?  The research