Piltdown Superman

Although it is not something that attracts a great deal of attention of the general public, there are occasions when materialists spit venom at one another. Some things that this child has seen is that some atheists are not vicious enough to please other atheists. Misotheists lead the charge against Intelligent Design and biblical creation science, showing hostility toward people who have views that they dislike. As mentioned before, the ID movement is distinctly non-creationist as a whole, but atheists still portray it as creation science. The Ambush , Albert Bierstadt, 1876 Folks like Clinton Richard Dawkins as well as many other professing atheists are committed to materialism; material is all there is, therefore, no God. When someone says that God exists, that person is considered stupid and anti-science. However, atheists have a fundamentally-flawed epistemology and they presuppose a universe without God, They claim to love science and logic, but their reasoning is irrational. Ev

One need not be a biology major to realize that the eye is amazing. Raptors in flight can see their prey with great accuracy. Cats are designed to use dim light. Humans and cats do not need the vision of eagles for our lifestyles. Raptors and humans do not need such extreme night vision. Dysteleology is where people claim to find flaws in nature so they can say there is no Creator, only evolution. These tinhorns have never designed an eye from scratch. When C. Richard Dawkins makes the daffy claim that the human retina is "backwardly wired," he is showing his ignorance . Cowboy Bob Sorensen's eye, modified at PhotoFunia Claiming the eye is poorly designed is not a scientific conclusion, but a theological opinion ! Frankly, (mind if I call you Frank?), that's stupid. They misrepresent certain aspects of the human eye, plus the specified complexity of the eye itself as well as the brain that interprets the input. Consider also that God the Son, the Creator who made eyes

Spend some time with atom-to-atheist evolution material, and you will invariably encounter drawings or other renderings of trees of life. Charles Darwin had an "I think" tree of life where all living things can be traced to a universal common ancestor. It makes sense that modifications in the tree of life concept would be made as evolutionary concepts evolved. However, there are many of them because there is little agreement; they do not work. Clinton Richard Dawkins tried his hand at making predictions with them. Burning down Darwin's tree of life, unmodified version is at Wikimedia Commons Dr. Dawkins made predictions based on two common ToL versions. One tree is based on the science of genetics that was pioneered by creationist Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him). Another uses physical characteristics. The trees do not coincide very well. Dawkins made a prediction for both design and for evolution. Since there's a huge amount of genetic data now available, his predict

Scientists really like computer simulations and models. (If you tell a scientist that you have a new one, well, there's goes your evening of binge-watching CSI .) Proponents of particles-to-programmer evolution have them for mutations, natural selection and the like. The Mendel's Accountant  program is superior. Thanks to Why?Outreach for the graphic Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him) pioneered the science of genetics. Darwin's disciples added the fact of mutations to Darwin's version of natural selection, claiming neo-Darwinism was the answer to questions about origins — especially if they remove any possibility of the Creator. Of course, deep time is essential. High priests of evolutionism like Clinton Richard Dawkins have used computer simulations to support evolution, but like I've said many times, the program depends on the data. It also is subject to the adjustments made by the programmers. Darwinists bragged about their successful scenarios (essentially dealin

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Although Western civilization claims to value free speech, that commodity is being trampled like sawdust on a saloon floor nowadays. The secular science industry is heavily biased  and increasingly involved in leftist causes . To have the freedom to present evidence supporting recent creation and refuting evolution presented in the secular science industry? Fuggedaboudit. They want to control the narrative and the information. Background image furnished by  Why?Outreach For example, much of the information presented by climate alarmists is tainted, and they reject not only contrary information, but logic itself . If you offer scientific information that is suppressed by climate cultists and leftist science, expect to have those tinhorns shout you down . You may hear something like, "I don't care if there is documentation! Ignore the false predictions ! I can tell you that deniers are all liars, even though I don't read or understand the

Clinton Richard Dawkins received attention for a self-contradictory remark in 2004 that exhibited his blind faith, "Evolution has been observed, it’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening." That fits the atoms-to-atheist view that evolution is very slow, so we don't see it happening, we just infer what happened from what we see in the present. But it doesn't work, old son. Image credit: Pixabay / LoganArt Some acolytes of Dawkins attempted to rescue his gaffe, but their efforts were ad hoc and nonsensical. Part of the problem is based on definitions. Yes, evolution happens, but that is based on one of several definitions of the word. We see rapid speciation , mutations, variations, and all sorts of things. We also see interpretations of data according to materialistic presuppositions; essentially, circular reasoning. We do not see anything that supports the concept of evolution from one common ancestor, savvy? Instead, the evidence clearly

It may come as a shock to some people, but there are certain things that biblical creationists and atheists agree on. One of those is the rejection of knowledge, but we come at this concept from different directions. Atheists have materialistic presuppositions, and biblical creationists have (or should have) Bible-based presuppositions. It's interesting that Clinton Richard Dawkins would say that those of us who reject evolution fall into four categories: ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked. Seriously? Many brilliant and sane people reject evolution, so that leaves the possibility of wicked to consider. He's assuming that his naturalistic worldview regarding science somehow gives him insight into morality. There are atheist tinhorns who call biblical creationists "evil", but cannot justify their accusations. That's some mighty convoluted logic, old son. In fact, for an atheist to say something is wicked or wrong, he is tacitly appealing to the God that he k

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

Bob Enyart of Real Science Radio took a trip to the UK. On one of his stops, he interviewed Dr. David Rosevear of the Creation Science Movement (originally founded in 1932 as the "Evolution Protest Movement"). The CSM established a small museum called the "Genesis Expo" in Portsmouth. Some interesting things came out of the discussion, including how a lecture was stopped by anti-creationists, so Dr. Rosevear had to take over — sounds like the same kind of sidewinders we deal with today, don't you reckon? There was some discussion about touring former communist countries who welcome creation science. It's interesting how those who have been indoctrinated by atheism and had their religious freedoms suppressed welcome creation science, and those of us further west are dealing with secularists who are progressively making us more like the former USSR. You can download or listen online to this 36-minute podcast by clicking on " RSR in Portsmouth UK wit

It's generally acknowledged that Uncle Albert was a clever lad. The name of Einstein is associated with genius, even in sarcasm, such as, "Nice going there, Einstein!". In addition to the General and Special Theories of Relativity, many people thought he had a great deal of wisdom. He did not have godly wisdom, however, rejecting the gospel message. Einstein did have a kind of Deist view of God, despite the dishonest claims of atheists like Clinton Richard Dawkins . So, who did this smart feller see fit to look up to, and what was special about them? There’s little doubt that the most famous scientist of the 20 th century was Albert Einstein (1879–1955). Today his name is synonymous with ‘genius’. Most people today would recognize his most famous equation, E=mc 2 , (though many would be hard-pressed to explain what it actually means!). But even Einstein had his science heroes. So whom would the great Einstein have admired? They must have been incredible scientist

A weak argument that anti-creationists have is to claim that the human eye was obviously not designed by God because it's poorly done. Therefore, evolution's what done it. Such a statement is unscientific and theological in nature. Creationary scientists (including ophthalmologists) who understand the concepts far better than people who duckspeak this objection have taken the spokes out of that wagon wheel years ago; the human eye is indeed designed efficiently . However, since the science was presented by creationists, critics invoked the genetic fallacy and rejected it because of its source. Recent secular research is supporting what creationists have said all along. In addition, they discovered that the eye is more intricate than was previously though. But since they work from their assumptions, all praise, honor, and glory are given to evolution and not to the Creator who gave them their sight. You can’t get any better performance out of an eyeball than the way it

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

Some evolutionists like to justify their beliefs in evolution and natural selection by claiming that a feature ( such as the human eye ) is the product of "bad design", so EvolutionDidIt. The "carrying away vessel", the vas deferens, of many males is one such feature that people like Richard Dawkins will regard as poorly designed. He made mistakes that someone with his training should not have made, and also went beyond his expertise to say that he could have done better. (Unfortunately, his disciples accept his words and spread them around in their efforts to negate creation science and Intelligent Design.) Dawkins' alternative designs do not withstand examination. DO NOT go to the URL in the picture   Not only is the vas deferens expertly designed for embryological development, but is efficient from biological, engineering and fluid mechanics viewpoints. The vas deferens is an important part of the male reproductive system. However, some anti-creationi

Critics of creation and Intelligent Design like to come up with certain physiological features and say, "That must be evolution, since it's done so badly. No God did that!" Such remarks are made from their evolutionary biases and not from sound reasoning. Unfortunately, other biased people take these pronouncements and run with them, thinking, "Checkmate, creationists!", but neither Darwin's Cheerleaders nor their mentors know what they're talking about. Henry Vandyke Carter / PD What they believe is evidence for evolution is, when examined by knowledgeable people, actually evidence for the Creator after all. Clinton Richard Dawkins made pronouncements that the human eye is poorly designed, and that has been thoroughly discredited . Dawkins, Don Prothero and others make similar foolish claims about the recurrent laryngeal nerve, but they not only misrepresent its functions, but demonstrate lack of knowledge of embryology and anatomy. Or perhaps

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A large difficulty in researching and writing this article is that of definitions. It is important to have precise definitions when people can understand words and concepts in different ways 1 , and this article involves words with various meanings and connotations. There has been a noticeable increase in vitriol from the so-called "new" atheists (often followers of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, Shermer, Nye, Krauss and others) and from evolutionists toward Christians and creationists. (I am making distinctions here because not all evolutionists are atheists, and not all Christians are creationists.) Some of us speculate that adherents of the religion of atheism 2 ,which has evolution as one of its cornerstones, feel threatened because evolution's flaws are exposed by Intelligent Design and creation science. This battle is not simply intellectual, but also spiritual. From a biblical Christian perspective, atheists realize that God e

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

There are some people who claim that the human eye must  be the product of evolution because if it was designed, the Designer did a poor job. (Ironically, they imply that evolution itself does a poor job of designing things with such statements.) These people do not know what they are talking about. Many of them are Dawkinsites, parroting his uninformed opinions from  The Blind Watchmaker. Dilated by the Ophthalmologist Dawkins or these other people who think they can suggest better design possibilities for the human eye should check with ophthalmologists. The scientific realities and intricacies are far different than conjectures rooted in ignorance. Backwardly wired retina? One of the tired old canards on which antitheists have dined out for years is the claim that our eye is stupidly wired back to front, something no decent designer would use. E.g. the vociferous misotheist and eugenicist Clinton R. Dawkins said in his famous book, The Blind Watchmaker :   ‘A