Piltdown Superman

When we hear about apemen in Western countries, our thoughts probably first turn to the speculations of Charles Darwin. We know that Darwin did not invent evolution because it was an ancient pagan religion. The concept of apemen, cat-people, and others also predates Darwin. Orangutan can be translated as "man of the forest" Credit: RGBStock /  Adrian van Leen There have been myths in many places of odd creatures and people attached them with pagan beliefs. Today we have scientific methods of analysis, but when people tried to categorize these creatures, sightings of orangutans, baboons and such were corrupted into other characters. When people began to be scientific about it, they didn't have much to work with. Then Charles Darwin was influence by these to deny the Creator's work to plug into his version of evolution. The whole thing was a confused mess. This paper discusses the presence of belief in ape-men, and ape-women, prior to Darwin. Beliefs regarding

Watchers of the skies have some rather sophisticated equipment, and they detected 99942 asteroid Apophis in 2004. This bad boy is named after the Egyptian deity of chaos and darkness , an enemy of the sun god Ra. Fearmongers are saying that it fits Bible prophesy and will strike Earth. Credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech The chances of impacting our blue marble in 2029 were small at first, and NASA ruled it out later on. (There are uncertainties in tracking these distant things.) Some people may be able to see it as it makes its pass then, and the chance of an impact in 2036 are also ruled out . When you have someone saying that everyone else is wrong and he is the one to believe, recalculate with his standards, scientists ignored him. Still, people want to sell books. We saw that before with previous predictions and false prophesies involving blood moons, global warming, CERN , end-of-the-world date setting (biblical numerology), and so on, and books did indeed sell. People like the

There's a prairie schooner-full of legends about creation, the global deluge, humanity's dispersal, and a heap of other things. Skeptical scholars tend to presuppose that the Biblical record of history, especially the early chapters of Genesis, is not the written Word of God. To do this, they need to make a number of assumptions and ignore important details. Something I reckon is a big stumbling block is the dating of the manuscripts. Some tinhorns will be on the prod and say, "Those ancient documents were dated as being hundreds of years older than Moses supposedly lived". We've seen how dating methods can be inaccurate, and it also raises questions regarding which manuscripts were dated, and what dating procedures were used. People will also look at the similarities of the documents and, based on their presumptions and biases against the biblical manuscripts, assume that Genesis was copied by the Hebrews from other peoples' myths. Something they need

It is not uncommon for atheists to use selective citing from the Bible, cherry-pick incomplete or utterly false "facts" attributed to history, and a wagon train-full of dreadful reasoning in their efforts to claim that the Bible is untrustworthy. Then they cheer their own brilliance, which is merely justification of their rebellion against our Creator.  One method is to find some similarities between ancient Near East texts and the book of Genesis, and then claim that Genesis took its inspiration from pagan sources. While there are some similarities, there are also very distinct differences that show how Genesis is unique. Those get ignored to preserve the narrative and reach the conclusion that Adam did not even exist. No need to do thorough research or logical thinking, or consider that the ANE texts were inspired by true history (which is found in Genesis), then corrupted in other texts. See how that works? Unfortunately, there are liberal "Christian" owlh

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  People who want to detract from the Bible's historical and divine nature have tried to wave it off as just myth. Worse, they ignore a lot of reality by saying that the Hebrews copied from the myths of other people, touched them up and then declared them to be holy writ. I read the Epic of Gilgamesh  and studied on it for a spell. (I thought "epic" meant "very long", but not necessarily ; it could mean epic "style". The Gilgamesh  epic poem is not all that long, especially since a lot of it is missing.) The part of this that is of interest to biblical creationists is the story of the global Flood in the 11th tablet. Some things about the Epic of Gilgamesh   just reared up as obviously mythology, what with gods and goddesses getting angry and fighting each other, Ishtar having snits because Gilgamesh won't giver her a tumble, references to the Anunnaki (pick your story about who they were, some people believe that the Anu

In the last post , we examined how evolution is the modern-day mythology of creation. Now, we'll see that the old Dobzhansky saying, " Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" is false. Sure, it's quoted ad nauseum by Darwin's cheerleaders like Nye, Tyson, Dawkins, and others, of course. But their constant assertions do not create reality. The following article effectively destroys that nonsense. Darwinists commonly claim that evolution is the foundation of all of the sciences, especially the life sciences and that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” To evaluate this claim I reviewed both the textbooks used for life science classes at the college where I teach and those that I used in my past university course work. I concluded from my survey that Darwinism was rarely mentioned. I also reviewed my course work and that of another researcher and came to the same conclusions. From this survey I c

What do you call a story that has historical underpinnings, believers, defenders, promoters, fanatical devotion — without any empirical evidence? I would be tempted to say that it sounds like a myth. In 1999 Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial , said on CNN: "I think we should teach a lot about evolution. In fact, I think we should teach more than the evolutionary science teachers want the students to know. The problem is what we're getting is a philosophy that's claimed to be scientific fact, a lot of distortion in the textbooks, and all the difficult problems left out, because they don't want people to ask tough questions." But in the ensuing dozen years, how much has really changed in science classrooms? What follows is a partial list of questions that could be used to critically examine and evaluate evolution. They would make good classroom discussions, initiated by either teacher or student, or research assignments. You can read the rest o