Piltdown Superman

One of the ways that evolution hinders scientific progress is because of the multitude of assumptions made. For instance, so-called "junk DNA" was not thoroughly investigated for many years because it was presumed that since scientists did not understand all of it, it must be junk from our putative evolutionary past. Then evolutionists were embarrassed to learn that it's not junk after all . Dinosaur bones were not tested because of the presumption that they've been extinct for millions of years. Soft tissues were a real shocker ! Test diamonds for carbon-14? That's absurd, they're billions of years old and there will be none of that. Wrong, carbon-14 is in diamonds ! Carbon-14 physics/Wikimedia Commons Similarly, carbon-14 should not be in natural gas wells, so evolutionists did not bother to look. A creationist scientist had testing done, wrote up a peer-reviewed paper that was published by the prestigious Creation Research Society, and did an inter...

First, Pluto was unknown. After Neptune was discovered, it's orbital oddities led researchers to believe that there was a ninth planet. Eventually, Pluto was discovered and became the ninth planet for several decades. As time went by and more research was conducted, Pluto was found to be smaller than expected. Much smaller. In fact, too small to cause the irregularities in other planets' orbits; it was found by accident. Pluto's own orbit and rotation (on its side, like Uranus) are odd. For a while, Pluto was the eighth planet and Neptune was the ninth! Things like this baffle evolutionary cosmologists, but cause no difficulty to creationists. NASA/PD Pluto has satellites, and the one called Charon is over half the diameter of Pluto (I wonder what this has done to the "science" of astrology ). Now it has been demoted to the status as a "dwarf planet" (I'm still not over it, but life goes on). And there are quite a few objects out there. Some...

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen The first definition of "fool" at the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is: fool noun \ˈfül\ : a person who lacks good sense or judgment : a stupid or silly person Easy enough. People use the word causally and often synonymously with other expressions of contempt for someone's intelligence. That's expected in modern terminology. In the Bible, however, "fool" has a deeper meaning. The Hebrew word used in Psalms 14.1 and 53.1 is נָבָל, meaning not only lacking sense, but having moral failings — a vile person. The vile person says, "There is no God". When the Creator of the universe calls you a fool, you need to wake up and make changes. How great are your works, O LORD! Your thoughts are very deep! The stupid man cannot know; the fool cannot understand this: that though the wicked sprout like grass and all evildoers flourish, they are doomed to destruction forever; but you, O LORD, are on high forever. (Psalm 92.5-8, E...

A sign of intellectual dishonesty (and possibly laziness) is when people are unwilling to go to the source for information. They "learn" through gossip, disingenuous news sources , Web sites known for dishonesty and bias, make up their own "facts" from a little information and a lot of prejudice, and more. Too many people get their information about creationists from anti-creationist sites and the uninformed opinions of others. (Someone commented to me, "I have never actually spoken to a creationist. I don't know what you believe or why you believe it. Finally, I want to know. So I'm asking you." Although I am not the spokesman for all creationists , that is a step in the right direction. I gave him links to some biblical creation science organizations so he could get some first-hand information.) Similarly, people will go to sites along the lines of "I-Hate-God-Even-Though-I-Pretent-He-Does-Not-Exist-Except-When-I-Want-To-Hate-Him-And-H...

If someone is going to make a movie about a Bible topic, it would make sense to actually use the original account. Sure, some embellishments to fill out the characters is reasonable and expected to make a story interesting and entertaining, and it has been done without doing violence to the source material 1 , 2 . Several biblical movies have been reasonably close to the original narratives, such as The Bible, King of Kings, Passion of the Christ, The Ten Commandments, Jesus of Nazareth and so on. (What if someone did The Diary of Anne Frank: Times Square Hooker Years ?) Darren Aronofsky's Noah is proudly anti-biblical. It's better if movie makers actually have some respect for the subject! Russell Crowe in Noah - photo by Niko Tavernise, Paramount Pictures-AP The Noah  movie has been panned by Christians and non-Christians alike from reading scripts and actual viewing 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 12 , though naturally some people liked it 13 , 14 but their...

Proponents of evolution will tell us that fossils are proof that they are right. Unfortunately, this is based on assertions, preconceptions, circular reasoning and more fallacies. Again I tell you that there is no such thing as your facts and my facts because we all have the same facts. It is the interpretation of the facts that cause the disagreements. Credit: US Army - Use does not imply approval or endorsement of this site A frequent problem for evolutionary geologists and paleontologists is that things are in the "wrong place" according to their uniformitarian and evolutionary worldview. Old things are found with less old things, and so on. So the evolutionists have to make excuses. Again. It is too bad that they cling to their disproved assumptions, since the evidence clearly fits the Noachian Flood models of biblical creationists. The stories told about some fossils raise more questions than answers, even with top Darwin spin doctors in the operating room....

One of the more amazing and self-refuting things that Darwin's Cheerleaders will do is engage in prejudicial conjecture . That is, they have biased, uninformed opinions that they are willing to share as if they are imparting wisdom upon the unenlightened. Some even have the gall to tell us falsehoods about what we believe and teach, but never mind about that now. We see an excellent example of that in the article that follows. Dr. Terry Mortonson was giving lectures in the UK. He received an e-mail about how he was "misrepresenting basic science" and that he was wrong on so many things. Even more amazingly, the writer was complaining that Dr. Mortonson was not qualified to talk about his topic, and the writer was unqualified in the area — but Mortonson was still wrong! He provided links from a highly biased and inaccurate evolution propaganda site (faulty appeal to authority) to prove him wrong. All this from someone who did not bother to attend any of the talks! Sti...

The fact that  many secular scientists  as well as biblical creationists reject the Big Bang should give people reason to pause and reflect. Instead, people keep believing the pronouncements of secular scientists and Bible compromisers affirming the failed Big Bang conjecture. Indeed, under-investigated findings are  touted as the "smoking gun" for the Big Bang , but indicate desperation to cling to a universe without a Creator. I think that is why the Big Bang won't die gracefully: People won't let it because they don't want to admit that God is the Creator and makes the rules. Bob Enyart and Fred Williams on Real Science Radio discuss evidence refuting the Big Bang, including how Laurence Krauss made untrue statements. You can listen to the audio online or through downloading, but pay attention to the page because there is a wealth of information and links. This should be the equivalent of driving a stake through the Big Bang's heart, shooting it wi...

To say that evolutionists misrepresent creationists is not only an understatement, is is also not really news. Another "not really news" item is to report that evolutionists tend to make assertions that are unsupported by (or contrary to) the evidence. Those old news items are documented here and elsewhere. What is more interesting is the way that evolutionists will take evidence that refutes their paradigm and present it as support for their belief system. What is worse is that gullible people will simply take their word for it because they're "scientists", and then try to use it in their attacks on creationists. Here we see scientists giving credit to "evolution" ( fallacy of reification ) and making the bad news sound good. The truth is on the side of creationists, so we do not need to resort to creative deceptions and wild stories to convince people. The “modern optics” of arthropods found fossilized in ‘Early Cambrian’ South Australian sh...

Atheism is an easy religion. Just say you don't believe. Standing up for the truth of the Bible is hard, and you will be persecuted. A 1987 song by Steve Taylor comes to mind, " Harder to Believe than Not To " (inspired by Flannery O'Connor). I like where it says, "Are you sturdy enough to move to the front? Is it nods of approval or the truth that you want? And if they call it a crutch, then you walk with pride, Your accusers have always been afraid to go outside" . Right! We take our stand for the truth, and atheopaths throw rocks from the safety of "I don't believe", yet consider themselves crusaders for "reason", even when they do not know how to use logic, nor do they have a source for a consistent moral standard. What about agnostics? I am convinced that many are atheists who want even less of a commitment, but they still throw rocks right along side the hatetheists. I still have hopes for those who are honestly seeking, ...