Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  In anticipation of the tenth annual Question Evolution Day on February 12 , we should mount up and head for yonder hill to get a bigger perspective. Misotheists and other evolutionists say that biblical creationists believe "myths" and "fairy tales" despite  scientific evidence. This raises some important questions. Image Credit: US Geological Survey (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Actually, the questions that are raised fit under an umbrella question: Why don't biblical creationists fear science? People who have something to hide or know that their belief systems won't withstand scrutiny seem to shun science, logic, and good theology. But we embrace such things. If natural sciences like geology truly support deep time, why are there organized tours by creationists? There are many, with people and organizations such as: Russ Miller of  Creation, Evolution & Science Ministries Eric Hovind of Creation Today Gra

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

As we have noticed on this site alone many times, peer review is not a guarantee of truth or even accuracy. In a like manner, scientific consensus is not a guarantee of truth or accuracy, either. Browbeating consensus skeptic is not conducive to the scientific process. Labeling someone as a "science denier" is a childish way to avoid examining legitimate objections to majority opinion, you savvy? The coming ice age — I mean, global warming — I mean, global climate change — has deep political motivations, including globalism and taxation to force people into submission. It also is based on materialistic evolutionary beliefs including deep time and that there is no sovereign God who is in control. Climate change is definitely not an established fact, old son. People indulge in groupthink and listen to yahoos like Bill Nye the Stalinist Guy (who believes in throwing "climate change dissenters" in jail ) to support their beliefs. Climate change enthusiasts wave away

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen First of all, I'll allow that I'm biased regarding Bill Nye the Scientism Guy (like so), because of his atheistic anti-creation activism, abuse of logic, and militant advocacy for his version of global climate change. Even so, I shall endeavor to be as objective as I can in this article about the unofficial "second debate" between Nye and Ken Ham at the Ark Encounter [ 1 ]. I was annoyed while watching it, and one time, a Nye fallacy actually made me LOL. A bit of background is in order. Bill Nye made vituperous attacks on creationism, and against Answers in Genesis in particular. Two AiG scientists challenged him to a debate [ 2 ], especially Dr. Georgia Purdom. He ignored them. Is it because "the Science Guy" is not an actual scientist? He earned a Bachelor of Science, but went no further in his formal education. [ 3 ] Eventually, the formal Ham-Nye debate was established [ 4 ]. I wrote an article about it, which included several

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Feral atheists and evolutionists are upset when Christians and creationists teach children about the Bible and creation, so they call it "indoctrination" — and "child abuse". Those really take the rag off the bush , since they're emotion-provoking falsehoods. Meanwhile, children get materialistic indoctrination in government-run schools. Most likely, they know what Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin) said, "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted." School Teacher , Jan Steen, 1668 Laurence Krauss, Clinton Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, and others have expressed their imperious outrage that Christians would have the unmitigated gall to teach our children in accordance with our beliefs. Yes, it's wrong to deliberately lie to children when teaching, so we can agree with Krauss on that point. The rest of the claims of these tinhorns is simply prejudicial conjecture and bigotry. Fu

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen If you study on it, you'll see that atheists, liberal "Christians", and evolutionists attack Genesis far more than any other book in the Bible. They know that Genesis is the foundation for all major Christian doctrines [ 1 ], so they seek to destroy it. You'd think that those folks would smile quietly to themselves about the st00pid fundie Xtians and go on about their business. What happens when creationists make their voices heard? Those atheists and their collaborators get burrs under their saddles. Libel, ridicule, misrepresentation, profanity, and so on ensue. Then there are protests, political pressure, lawsuits... Publicity photo courtesy of Ark Encounter As a brief aside, I've been libeled myself (and I'm nowhere near important), the latest by an alleged university professor [ 2 ], [ 3 ] claiming she was blocked on The Question Evolution Project's Facebook Page . Not hardly. She was never blocked/banned. This provide

Remember the February 4, 2014 debate between Ken Ham and Bill "I'm not a scientist, but I played one on TV" Nye? You know, the debate that Ham is encouraging people to watch, and it can be seen for free here , but Nye doesn't talk about? Strange, evolutionists and atheists were claiming victory. Actually, Nye used numerous logical fallacies as well as thinly-veiled personal attacks , and his supporters ( such as this one ) tend to use fallacies as well. Recently, I was contacted by Michael Boehm of " Youth Apologetics Training ", and have been listening to his podcasts. (Don't be ruffled by the "youth" part, this isn't kid stuff and adults like the podcasts, too.) He covers many topics. I was pleasantly surprised to find that he interviewed Ian Juby of "Genesis Week" , and I regret not knowing about both Michael's work and this interview long ago. Sorry about the picture, I couldn't get a more recent picture of Ian J

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen The creation-evolution controversy has been kicking up dust like a cavalry charge out on the plains. There's a great deal of noise, and all the dust makes it hard to see what's really going on. Atheists and anti-creationists use the confusion to try to sway people to their way of thinking. Much of this involves manipulation of emotions with name calling (labeling), blatant misrepresentation and outright falsehoods about what creationists actually believe and teach, and presenting bad evolutionary "science" as facts. The whole thing has been intensifying , which can be seen after the Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate on February 4, 2014, where Nye used bad science, dreadful logic, and sneaky debate tactics — much to the delight of his adoring fans. The orig ins controversy is not restricted to academic interests. There are people who will insist that their leftist, materialist worldview is the only one that is rational, and if someone is running

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen   This may come as a shock to anti-creationists, but Bill Nye is not a threat to the Bible or biblical creation science. He thinks he's on a crusade for "science", and so do many of his fans. If those things he opposed were actually wrong, and if Nye was capable of understanding science and logic in the first place, then he might make some valid points. His cheering section frequently shows disunderstanding of science, logic, philosophy, and more, so they are enablers that encourage his bad behavior. I'm on record for saying that in the big debate with Ken Ham that he used terrible logic . But that's okay for people who want to defend "science" (that is, equivocating "evolution" with "science") from the big, bad creationists who want people to use critical thinking and actually examine the evidence. (Rabid evolutionists tell you what to think, many creationists like me want to tell you how to think.)

So, Bill Nye wrote a book. Ken Ham, his debate opponent on February 4, 2014, has authored, co-authored and edited dozens of books. Ham writes a lot, nobody bats an eye. Nye writes one book, and everyone loses their minds . The difference is that Nye is a celebrity propagandist for evolution, which he equivocates with "science", and Ham teaches biblical creation science — which is considered "cool" to bash nowadays. Wikimedia Commons / Ed Schipul  ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ) Bill Nye apparently can't stand Ken Ham. In interviews and things, he refers to Ham as "that guy" . The question has been raised that if Nye trounced Ham in the debate like his fans claim, why doesn't he promote the video, which is available to watch free online? Perhaps it's because he misrepresented many things and told several untruths. Or maybe because the debate format itself was appallingly bad. Even so, Ken Ham's not afraid or ashamed of the debate. I had to edit i

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen If you study on it, you'll see that people who are called "intellectuals" or the "intelligent s ia" have often been in a class by themselves. It's usually been more of an informal social class than anything else, and not really involved with economics (such as "upper middle class"). It seems to be a symbiotic relationship. Generally speaking, many people who are considered intellectuals are aloof and look down on common folk. Yet, commoners tend to look up to the intellectuals. Then the contradiction sets in, with us regular folk viewing the intellectual elite (and those who consider themselves so, without good reason) with distaste. (People are not anti-intellectual, but as for me, I'm anti-arrogance .) So people seem to have a love-hate view of intelligent s ia. Somehow, having a degree is supposed to mean that someone is a genius and able to perform well. But it gets ridiculous: A woman working in the human