Piltdown Superman

It seems possible that the scientific principle of Making Things Up™ originated with the ancient Greek philosophers. Like scientists, those philosophers based their speculations on observations and their theological views. Biblical scientists managed to liberate science from the predominant Greek ideas. Credit: Pixabay /  Gerd Altmann They had a belief that matters had a divine substance and that the gods were subject to that and to other laws. The Stoics thought that objects had souls, and had occult qualities attached to them; sympathy would cause a man to be attracted to a woman like a iron is attracted to a magnet (I wonder if Walter Egan knew this). The Epicureans (Paul the apostle debated Epicureans and the Stoics ) had evolutionary ideas. Plato and Aristotle also had some odd concepts, and this child wonders if logic had developed enough for people to ask, "How do you know that?" Later, people believed the Bible instead of just-so stories, and many of those pe

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen People have speculated about life on other worlds, whether in our solar system or farther away, for a long time. To hear some people talk, it is a certainty that life exists out there, thataway. There are people who sincerely, passionately, believe that space aliens can be found at Area 51. Credit: Pixabay / Matthias Wewering A good part of this alien enthusiasm comes from presupposing deep time and atoms-to-aliens evolution. Sure are a lot of stars up yonder, and there must  be many planets. On those planets, intelligent life must  have evolved and developed amazing space travel abilities. It's all in the numbers, right? via GIPHY Centuries ago (I'm feeling old today), I fully believed in space aliens. Did I have evidence? Not hardly! In fact, nobody has any actual hard evidence . Like evolution, there are assumptions leading to conclusions, circular reasoning, wishful thinking, and more. Interesting that many atheists believe in extraterre

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen It seems that the the simplest approach to intelligent design is to say that a painting had a painter, a building had a builder, and so on. Moving from there, we can show the specified complexities of various living things as well as the in the cosmos, the amazing design of the DNA molecule, irreducible complexity, and more. An ornithopter design by  Leonardo da Vinci , ca. 1489 The Intelligent Design movement is not something that has membership and issue identification cards. There are individual organizations like the Discovery Center that are specifically designed to refute various forms unguided evolution, as well as individuals who also promote ID. Darwin's dishonest gadflies, in their febrile efforts to reject God, say that the ID Movement is creation science in disguise. That is clearly false, as any schoolchild who can read their material might tell you. They have theistic evolutionists, old-earth creationists, some young-earth creationist

In several places, I have written about how unbelievers often demand that we prove to them that God exists. Apologists can see that this insistence is actually a justification for their rebellion against the God that they already know exists (Romans 1:18-23), and irrationally requiring scientific, material evidence for God . Credit: Freeimages / Maxime Perron Caissy For the most part, the people that comment at The Question Evolution Project are antagonistic and hard-hearted, rejecting any attempt to answer their questions. Once in a while, we (and Bible-believing Christians) encounter people who have saddled up to ride the long trail to seeking truth. If they get up on the hill for the bigger picture, they can see that there is a wagon train-load of evidence for God's existence as well as his character. He is our Creator and has made himself known. We do not need to spend time trying to present evidence to mockers and those who define "reality" through mater

Atheopaths and other mockers often point to the Genesis account of the creation of Adam and then Eve.This is in stark contrast to the fact-free fish-to-fool evolution that they falsely call science, yet still insist that we all accept. Adam and Eve before the Temptation / George Frederick Watts I'll allow that the creation of Adam from the dust of the earth and not evolving from critters is a mite startling to some folks. They would do well to consider that the Creator does things the way he sees fit, and there are purposes for his methods. Sometimes he tells us, other times we don't really need to know. The same sort of thinking can apply to the creation of Eve. God showed Adam the animals, but none of them would be suitable עֵזֶר, helper. He was different from them. God essentially used the first anesthetic, and took a rib from Adam's side to make Eve. In a way, this was the first act of cloning by using genetic material. The science of genetics would not be pio

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen When I receive a list of links from The Domain for Truth , I noticed something called The Atheist Illusion.  There are several videos and books that have similar names, but I thought I would click on the link anyway. It went to a video and I expected a lecture. Instead, the video was very informative and well produced. It used graphics, excerpts from other videos, and narration that was easy to understand. I am going to discuss points in it and import some of my own thoughts that were sparked by The Atheist Illusion. From the opening of the video It is a fact that atheists have a high degree of degree of depression and suicide , and the video begins by pointing this out and the hopelessness inherent in atheism. It is difficult to live life without purpose, but atheists pretend that the belief that "when you die, that's it, you're worm food" is somehow liberating. No, the atheistic worldview leads to despair . Those of us who have been

Atheists and other anti-creationists are known for using labels in their attacks on biblical creationists, but those are ad hominems  and used for building straw man arguments. They call us "science deniers", which is based on equating evolution with all science. (One rancorous tinhorn says certain creationists "hate science" despite being shown that his claim is completely false.) Many also like to say that biblical creationists use pseudoscience.  Actually, the opposite is true! Original image: The Angry One  by Ferdinand Hodler To fully appreciate this question, we need to lasso ourselves some important definitions. Science is a system of knowledge using a scientific method. However, there is other knowledge to be had that is not scientific. Pseudoscience is a false claim that knowledge is gained by scientific principles. Astrology uses scientific approaches and appears  scientific, but that is not the case . Also, these owlhoots rely on appeals to emot

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  While I was studying a podcast by Dr. Albert Mohler on grief without God, a trolling raid millennial atheists began at The Question Evolution Project . They did not have anything of value to say, preferring instead to build up their own egos and rebellion against our Creator with ad hominem  attacks, straw man arguments, and basic affirmations that we are stupid. This is nothing new, and you will often find professing atheists who claim that they are happy and fulfilled since they ditched God. Some of the "former Christians" betray that falsehood because their comments show that they never were in the faith. I had a cyberstalker who claimed to be a Christian, but he originally belonged to a religion that is distinctly unchristian. Although claiming to be happy and fulfilled, he was angry, hateful, and bitter. How do "happy" atheists deal with tragedy? Credit: Freeimages /  Glenda Otero In Dr. Mohler's podcast, he discussed a wo

While many creationists use the word microevolution, it is conspicuously absent from this site. That is because this word is misleading, and believers in minerals-to-microbiologist use it to imply that if there is a little  evolution, then that leads to much  (or macro ) evolution. It does not work that way, and many biblical creationists advise against using the words micro- and macroevolution . What is considered microevolution is actually variation and speciation.  Creationists don't get on the prod with those terms because they are not only observed in nature, but they support biblical creation science models (see " How Do Evolutionists Hijack Real Science? " for an example). Evolutionists see variations as evidence for evolution, such as in antibiotic resistance . Variations are essentially horizontal  changes, but you must remember this, a fish is still a fish, a fly is still a fly, and so on, even though time goes by. They're pulling the ol' bait 

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen In the May 2, 2019 episode of The Briefing , Dr. Mohler discussed Emperor Naruhito taking the throne in Japan after his father's abdication. Al presented some fascinating history about World War II, Douglas MacArthur and then-emperor Hirohito. I saw some things that can apply to Christians and creationists when dealing with atheists and evolutionists. General Douglas MacArthur and Emperor Hirohito, September 27,1945 US Army photo by Lt. Gaetano Faillace (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by the US Army) The Japanese and American cultures were vastly different, and Americans seemed to have a superficial understanding of the Japanese people. If you know your World War II history, an invasion of Japan to end the war would have resulted in a horrendous loss of life on both sides, so the decisions were made to drop two atomic bombs to cause Japanese surrender. Some people wanted to have Hirohito stand trial as a war criminal and then e

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen People who support abortion are frequently vehement in their views, but it should give Brian Sims (a Democrat member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives) reason to pause when both pro-life and pro-abortion people agree that he is out of line . It is obvious that he is a bully. However, I am not going to spend much time dealing with what has already been covered in the news. Instead, we are going to ride along a slightly different trail and learn some important things. Credit: Freestocks / Joanna Malinowska Before we return to Brian Sims, some other items need to be mentioned. I learned quite a bit from The Chris Stigall Show podcasts, including interviews and his own insight, so I thank him for that. I recommend the podcast called " The Great Pushback " at the 19 min. 34 sec. mark for an excellent discussion. Free to listen online or download. The Evolution Deception Regular readers know that I am strongly pro-life. A child is f

Due to the prevalence of evolutionary thinking on society, people today tend to think ancient people were stupid. We are modern, so we are smarter. That'll be the day! This criticism has been leveled against Noah, assuming he could not have built that Ark. Humans were intelligent from the beginning of creation. Ark Encounter, Pixabay / Michael Wysmiersk One area of cultural bias and scientific racism has been the assumption that Neanderthals and other ancient humans were unintelligent. They were actually very intelligent . (An attempt by Darwinists to save face over their bad science is to propose that they went extinct because they were too smart !) If you've watched shows or read novels about the old American West, you could easily wonder how those folks survived. Although they didn't have modern conveniences, they were inventive. Do a search for a show called Wild West Tech that ran for about thirty episodes, you should be able to find the videos online. Fascina

When dealing with atheists and other anti-creationists, they often try to bushwhack us with statements or questions that are designed to put us on the defensive. The assertion that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (attributed to Carl Sagan) is downright viperine. Credit: Pixabay / moritz320 Biblical creationists are often challenged to defend our positions, which is to be expected. When asked about a subject under discussion, creationists often provide discussion, logical points, and links to relevant material. These are ignored much of the time and the subject is changed, which makes people like me think that they are not interested in learning. Worse, we are erroneously told what we believe which is rooted in the scoffer's prejudicial conjecture and not from honest examination of our point of view. Some owlhoot will invariably drag out the platitude about claims and evidence. We may respond, "What evidence are you willing to accept?&quo