Posts

Showing posts from March, 2014

Successful Straw Man Attack on Noah!

Image
A sign of intellectual dishonesty (and possibly laziness) is when people are unwilling to go to the source for information. They "learn" through gossip, disingenuous news sources , Web sites known for dishonesty and bias, make up their own "facts" from a little information and a lot of prejudice, and more. Too many people get their information about creationists from anti-creationist sites and the uninformed opinions of others. (Someone commented to me, "I have never actually spoken to a creationist. I don't know what you believe or why you believe it. Finally, I want to know. So I'm asking you." Although I am not the spokesman for all creationists , that is a step in the right direction. I gave him links to some biblical creation science organizations so he could get some first-hand information.) Similarly, people will go to sites along the lines of "I-Hate-God-Even-Though-I-Pretent-He-Does-Not-Exist-Except-When-I-Want-To-Hate-Him-And-H

Can Anything Good Come out of this "Noah" Movie?

Image
If someone is going to make a movie about a Bible topic, it would make sense to actually use the original account. Sure, some embellishments to fill out the characters is reasonable and expected to make a story interesting and entertaining, and it has been done without doing violence to the source material 1 , 2 . Several biblical movies have been reasonably close to the original narratives, such as The Bible, King of Kings, Passion of the Christ, The Ten Commandments, Jesus of Nazareth and so on. (What if someone did The Diary of Anne Frank: Times Square Hooker Years ?) Darren Aronofsky's Noah is proudly anti-biblical. It's better if movie makers actually have some respect for the subject! Russell Crowe in Noah - photo by Niko Tavernise, Paramount Pictures-AP The Noah  movie has been panned by Christians and non-Christians alike from reading scripts and actual viewing 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 12 , though naturally some people liked it 13 , 14 but their

Evolution and Fossil Frustrations

Image
Proponents of evolution will tell us that fossils are proof that they are right. Unfortunately, this is based on assertions, preconceptions, circular reasoning and more fallacies. Again I tell you that there is no such thing as your facts and my facts because we all have the same facts. It is the interpretation of the facts that cause the disagreements. Credit: US Army - Use does not imply approval or endorsement of this site A frequent problem for evolutionary geologists and paleontologists is that things are in the "wrong place" according to their uniformitarian and evolutionary worldview. Old things are found with less old things, and so on. So the evolutionists have to make excuses. Again. It is too bad that they cling to their disproved assumptions, since the evidence clearly fits the Noachian Flood models of biblical creationists. The stories told about some fossils raise more questions than answers, even with top Darwin spin doctors in the operating room.

Setting an Evolutionist Straight

Image
One of the more amazing and self-refuting things that Darwin's Cheerleaders will do is engage in prejudicial conjecture . That is, they have biased, uninformed opinions that they are willing to share as if they are imparting wisdom upon the unenlightened. Some even have the gall to tell us falsehoods about what we believe and teach, but never mind about that now. We see an excellent example of that in the article that follows. Dr. Terry Mortonson was giving lectures in the UK. He received an e-mail about how he was "misrepresenting basic science" and that he was wrong on so many things. Even more amazingly, the writer was complaining that Dr. Mortonson was not qualified to talk about his topic, and the writer was unqualified in the area — but Mortonson was still wrong! He provided links from a highly biased and inaccurate evolution propaganda site (faulty appeal to authority) to prove him wrong. All this from someone who did not bother to attend any of the talks! Sti

Why Won't the Big Bang Die Gracefully?

Image
The fact that  many secular scientists  as well as biblical creationists reject the Big Bang should give people reason to pause and reflect. Instead, people keep believing the pronouncements of secular scientists and Bible compromisers affirming the failed Big Bang conjecture. Indeed, under-investigated findings are  touted as the "smoking gun" for the Big Bang , but indicate desperation to cling to a universe without a Creator. I think that is why the Big Bang won't die gracefully: People won't let it because they don't want to admit that God is the Creator and makes the rules. Bob Enyart and Fred Williams on Real Science Radio discuss evidence refuting the Big Bang, including how Laurence Krauss made untrue statements. You can listen to the audio online or through downloading, but pay attention to the page because there is a wealth of information and links. This should be the equivalent of driving a stake through the Big Bang's heart, shooting it wi

Evolution and Misrepresentation

Image
To say that evolutionists misrepresent creationists is not only an understatement, is is also not really news. Another "not really news" item is to report that evolutionists tend to make assertions that are unsupported by (or contrary to) the evidence. Those old news items are documented here and elsewhere. What is more interesting is the way that evolutionists will take evidence that refutes their paradigm and present it as support for their belief system. What is worse is that gullible people will simply take their word for it because they're "scientists", and then try to use it in their attacks on creationists. Here we see scientists giving credit to "evolution" ( fallacy of reification ) and making the bad news sound good. The truth is on the side of creationists, so we do not need to resort to creative deceptions and wild stories to convince people. The “modern optics” of arthropods found fossilized in ‘Early Cambrian’ South Australian sh

Video Podcast 20 — Evolution, Atheopaths and Moral Standards

Image
Atheism is an easy religion. Just say you don't believe. Standing up for the truth of the Bible is hard, and you will be persecuted. A 1987 song by Steve Taylor comes to mind, " Harder to Believe than Not To " (inspired by Flannery O'Connor). I like where it says, "Are you sturdy enough to move to the front? Is it nods of approval or the truth that you want? And if they call it a crutch, then you walk with pride, Your accusers have always been afraid to go outside" . Right! We take our stand for the truth, and atheopaths throw rocks from the safety of "I don't believe", yet consider themselves crusaders for "reason", even when they do not know how to use logic, nor do they have a source for a consistent moral standard. What about agnostics? I am convinced that many are atheists who want even less of a commitment, but they still throw rocks right along side the hatetheists. I still have hopes for those who are honestly seeking,

Facts, Consensus and Reality

Image
And now for something completely different. This will be much lighter fare, informative and possibly a bit entertaining. Two of the fallacies that creationists often encounter when giving evidence that refutes evolution is Appeal to Authority . Sometimes it's spurious (such as believing that atheist evolutionist Richard Dawkins is an expert on biblical creationist theology), sometimes it is valid (such as believing that Dr. Jason Lisle knows about astrophysics). And sometimes it is used instead of bothering to think, such as, "Most scientists believe in evolution, so they must be right". Or worse, appealing to some vague and often inaccurate concept of "consensus", because consensus does not validate truth or science . When scientists actually practice real science instead of furthering ideologies, various "facts" and things accepted by consensus have come and gone. Sometimes things are believed for a long time by many people and then they go

What About That Cosmic Microwave Background?

Image
Several conjectures for the condition of the universe have been proposed through the years. The Big Bang was not widely accepted as the origin of the universe until the 1960s, even though the concept had been put forward years before. Some of the resistance was due to how it indicated that the universe had a beginning, and other concepts (such as the Steady State and the Static) had a kind of "it was always there" approach. Many secular scientists as well as biblical creationists reject the Big Bang due to various scientific difficulties. Both biblical and secular scientists have postulated erroneous explanations. Nine-Year Microwave Sky / NASA / WMAP Science Team Predictions were made that there would be background radiation. The idea was that if this was found, it would not only prove the Big Bang, but disprove the Steady State of the universe. This background exists in microwave form, and the Steady State was largely abandoned. Proponents of the Big Bang believe

Bad Arguments from Evolutionists

Image
When defending the truth of biblical creation science, sometimes we need to correct enthusiastic but inaccurate creationists about using bad arguments. It is indeed unfortunate that evolutionists do not feel the same way about correcting their  uninformed supporters. The article linked below describes several arguments that are common on the Web. Some of us are more public than others, so we encounter them frequently. It infuriates some of Darwin's Cheerleaders that we often know more about evolution than they do, and have to correct them about their own belief system! Why  they feel the need to patrol the Web and attack evolution unbelievers, I can only guess. Some even claim that they are protecting "science". Ridiculous. Science does not need protecting!  In fact, true science flourishes when scientists will examine contrary evidence instead of suppressing it like people are doing today. One "argument" that is not on the list is when we get people who

"Celebrate! Proof of Cosmic Inflation!" Oh, Really?

Image
I was going to ignore this story until one of Darwin's Cheerleaders posted it at me as if it refuted this entire article exposing the Tyson version of Cosmos . Here is a bit of humor to start us off. It was originally an ethnic joke (the nationalities are changed in various places on the Web) that I re-purposed. After having dug to a depth of 10 meters last year, scientists from Dawkinsania found traces of copper wire dating back 100 years and came to the conclusion that their ancestors already had a telephone network more than 100 years ago. Not to be outdone by the Dawkinsanians, in the weeks that followed, Tysonian scientists dug to a depth of 20 meters, and shortly after, headlines in the Tysonian newspapers read: "Our archaeologists have found traces of 200 year old copper wire and have concluded that our ancestors already had an advanced high-tech communications network a hundred years earlier than Dawkinsania." One week later, "The New Phys Science N

Origins Science and Practical Applications

Image
Darwin's Cheerleaders falsely claim that a proper understanding of evolution is essential to the progress of science. (Another of their false claims is that scientists who reject evolution are not true scientists, which is essentially an arbitrary, ideological litmus test to define "scientist".) Evolution has nothing to do with the advancement of science and technology. A scientist's rejection of evolutionism will not affect his or her ability to perform medical science or calculate rocket trajectories, and this has been shown many times. Origins science has effects, and is not just a parlor discussion. The truth is that the presumption of evolution has actually been harmful to the advancement of science. Biblical-based presuppositions lead to better science. “It doesn’t really matter, in the real world, what you believe about creation or evolution,” the college student glibly challenged me. “Whether the evolutionists are right or whether Genesis is right

What's Wrong with Evolutionary Fraud?

Image
The public has an idealized concept of scientists as being dispassionate, willing to follow where the evidence leads, unbiased — you know, not really human. They may not even want to be on the pedestal that some people put them upon. In fact, they have the same ambitions, moral failings and even biases just like us reg'lar folk. Quite likely, even more so.  The worldviews of evolutionary scientists compels them to promote their own dogma. It is fine to deceive students because the end (belief in evolution) justifies the means. Darwin's Cheerleaders are willing to troll, libel, defame, and use bad logic. Not surprising, really, since many scientists and especially their press are setting examples with poor reasoning. There should be no reason to criticize them for fraud and other shenanigans such as tampering with the data or telling "stories". Survival of the fittest is a part of evolutionary theory, remember? They are being consistent with their worldview.

Evolutionary Cosmology Falsified — AGAIN

Image
This is a great time to be a creationist! The more science and technology advance, the more we learn about God's creation — and the more absurd the hypothesis of evolution really is. Evolution has been repeatedly falsified on earth and in space, and creation science is being verified. NASA, ESA, and S. Beckwith (STScI) and the HUDF Team In space, no one can hear cosmologists scream about the failings of their presuppositions. Galaxies are " too perfect ", refuting the Big Bang. Blue stars , stars that should not even exist  — and galaxies that are "too mature". The Big Bang cosmology is in a death spiral, with circular reasoning, "maybe", "must have", "probably", plus other unfounded assertions, speculations and logical fallacies passed off as "science". Fifteen years ago, no cosmologist would have predicted mature galaxies early on, but they keep getting found – earlier and earlier.  Astronomers just set a new

Evolution Explanation Failure of Mammoth Proportions

Image
It is expected that people will interpret what they see according to their worldviews. Scientists are like other people, everyone has a starting point. Forcing observed data into presuppositions instead of taking using their own guideline of "follow where the evidence leads" causes problems. Especially when their preconceptions are repeatedly shown to be flawed. Woolly mammoth cave art from Les Combarelles, France / PD In their attempts to explain the extinction of the woolly mammoths, scientists are assuming several things: There were several ice ages (we are between them right now), evolution is true, the earth is billions of years old and so on. When thoroughly examined,  latest "explanation" for extinction raises more questions than it answers. However, models of the global Genesis Flood are far more plausible.  Researchers claim to potentially have solved the mystery of the wooly mammoth’s mass extinction. After drilling permafrost cores in Alaska,

Cognitive Dissonance and Human Origins Storytelling

Image
When telling the tail — I mean, tale — of the progression from primitive to modern humanity, evolutionists hate to give up. The creatures they put forth as our alleged ancestors are built up from fragments, preconceptions, assumptions and a great deal of wishful thinking. "Go to a museum and learn about evolution". Yeah, sure. A few bone fragments and artists' conceptions mixed in with the speculations of Evolution's High Priests™ and we get a mental image that scientists are brilliant, they really know how evolution happened. But they do not tell the entire story of how they have scant evidence, and that several of the "links" in the parade have been disproven, discredited, reassigned as fully human or fully ape (no, wait a moment, let's un-reassign this one again). Still they continue spinning yarns, ignoring facts. "The  cognitive dissonance is strong in this one." It would make far more sense to admit that the evidence refutes evo

Presuppositional Reasoning in China's Jurassic Park

Image
More dinosaur fossils are coming out of communist China. This time, it looks like they are not fakes (like Archaeoraptor, for instance), but there are still absurd interpretations of the facts. In some ways, paleontologists have a treasure trove. But in other ways, they have problems for evolutionary ideas. Stock image " Dinosaur Fossil " by PANPOTE / FreeDigitalPhotos.net Two areas, allegedly millions of years apart in evolutionary time. And not much difference between the fossils. The cladistics people decided that, based on their presuppositions and worldview that evolution is true and that the fossils are millions of years old, well, that means evidence of common ancestry. Of course, they arbitrarily rule out the audacious concept that instead of common ancestry, what they see is evidence of common design by the Master Designer. And feathers? Must not be birds, it must be dinosaurs evolving into birds. Plenty of assumptions, circular reasoning and forcing observati

Evolution Thought Police Increase UK Creation Censorship

Image
Evolution, under the guise of "science", is not taught with the evidence and critical thinking . Only one side of the evidence for evolution is presented in textbooks , which is nothing less than indoctrination. "Humanist" organizations and "science education" groups campaign to have any semblance of creation science removed from the classrooms. Groups like the NCSE and Australian Skeptics claim to be religiously neutral , but that is the opposite of the truth. The NCSE's activities show that they are opposed to free speech  and are willing to indulge in emotional manipulation . The BCSE is also blatantly disingenuous .  Darwin's Stormtroopers, the evolutionists who pa-TROLL the Web in the name of "science", display the same kind of intellectual acumen and integrity of their masters. That is, attack the person, equivocate evolution with science, protect "science" (as if science really needs protection!), misrepresent the

Heads — You Lose

Image
Elongated skulls from Paracas, Peru. Using uninformed opinions and presuppositions, some people think they're aliens. Others think they're an evolutionary branch of humans. Based on their faulty assumptions and reasoning, some extremely doubtful science (including incomplete DNA sequencing) has been performed. Wikimedia Commons /  Marcin Tłustochowicz We've been down this road before. Early mtDNA sequencing for Neanderthals had people believing that they were very different from modern humans. There was also the fiasco of "junk DNA" . Both of those involved making claims based on assumptions and incomplete evidence. In the case of the Paracas skulls, it appears that some profiteering is afoot. It does not help matters that the scientist doing the DNA analysis is unnamed. But you can make a donation if you believe that the analysis is worthwhile. Paracas Necropolis Culture This story began with archaeologist Julio Tello’s 1928 discovery of 429 mummies

Oil and the Young Earth

Image
The standard evolutionary paradigm for the formation of oil, coal and so forth involves millions of years. Creationists have correctly disputed this, and it has been known for quite a while that these things can be formed in a short period of time. Credit: Image*After Since evolution requires belief that the earth is ancient, people interpret data through old earth spectacles. They have attempted to say that the Bible is wrong about the Genesis Flood and oil at the Tower of Babel. Part of the problem is their use of the word "pitch" in Genesis 6.14. (This is understandable to some extent, because כֹּפֶר, kopher  in Hebrew, is an uncertain word and has several meanings. More consistently and accurately, it means "covering" and not "petroleum product". If the Genesis-deniers had done a bit of research, they would not be making such statements.) Instead, the rapid formation of oil supports the biblical Flood timeline and is problematic to evolutionists.