Piltdown Superman

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 Bl...

In our last exciting episode , we explored how evolutionists speak with forked tongues. First, they say that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Then, they spend time explaining and attempting to defend it. Although they try to distance themselves from the insurmountable problem of giving a rational explanation for abiogenesis, the problem remains. Secularists do not want to admit that the evidence points to the Creator (it would mean that we had better find out what he has to say!), and they postulate some pretty outrageous things. The amazing design and complexity of the universe is written off to mere chance, we're the lucky ones in the multiverse. Add to that the idea that since life could not have arisen here, it must have arisen out there. Life came from space. Just ask the aliens who planted it here. Yes, this fundamentally flawed tale is considered by some to be a serious scientific hypothesis, even though there is not a shred of evidence to support it. ...