Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Edited 3-18-2017 Because Nye has engaged AiG in a public way, and after some extreme hostility by secularists directed at Drs. Purdom and Menton that showed up on websites and Facebook pages, I decided to do two things: 1. post my second Nye video on YouTube, viewable on a recent blog; and 2. extend an invitation to Mr. Nye to a public debate on evolution vs. creation. — Ken Ham This week, we are going to take a break from the scientific evidence that refutes evolution and affirms creation so we can look at some more philosophical ideas. There is an announcement to be made and some points to prove about bad attitudes. (One Facebook comment contained the Stalinesque remark, "Evolution is a fact, and participation is mandatory".) Any skilled totalitarian knows that long-term success involved capturing the minds of children. Proponents of evolution are willing to lie to children to accomplish their ends . Bill Nye is a darling of evolutionist

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This is about the run-of-the-mill Darwinistas in the evolution camp. Many are on a continuing mission to explore creation science sites, to seek out new Weblogs and new creation science opponents, to boldly go where they’re really not wanted anyway. Types like this patrol (emphasis on “troll”) the Web to defend “science” — which means equivocating “science” with “evolution”. I have had experiences (and taken many screenshots) of various remarks that these owlhoots fling at creationists. There is no need for a Christian to be intimidated by an angry atheist or for biblical creationists to be coerced by fundamentalist evolutionists. It is my belief that some people hate me because I will not let them build an argument on fallacies — they cannot reach a rational conclusion based false information or bad reasoning, except by accident. I suspicion that this rage is put on all y'all who stand up to the bullies. Modified from an original image by  Ca

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

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is expressing surprise that the Cosmos  series has been examined by Answers In Genesis (among others; Creation Ministries International reviewed a couple of episodes ). AiG put a considerable amount of work in showing how he expressed his opinions as facts, gave incomplete information and did quite a bit of misrepresentation of Christian material. In fact, AiG wants people to watch the episodes, then use their material to learn the truth. Neil deGrasse Tyson, host of TV’s Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey, says he wonders why anyone pays attention to what Ken Ham says about science or about his 13-part Cosmos series. Tyson, in an interview with Alternet, suggests biblical creationists like Ken Ham and the scientists at Answers in Genesis are a small and insignificant Christian fringe group that only bothered writing weekly critiques of the Cosmos series to take advantage of media attention garnered through the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate in February: You have to ask

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Dr. Duane T. Gish was born one hundred years ago today, and was referred to as "creation's bulldog". Thomas Henry Huxley was "Darwin's bulldog [ 1 ]", and C. Richard Dawkins was nicknamed "Darwin's Rottweiler [ 2 ]". The bulldog monikers refer to tenaciously advocating viewpoints. Original image furnished by Why?Outreach Today is the 100th anniversary of Dr. Gish's birth. He was involved in the foundation of the Creation Research Society and the development of the Institute for Creation Research [ 3 ]. He was 92 when he passed away in 2013. Here are some tributes and biographical sketches [ 4 ], [ 5 ], [ 6 ] ). Duane gave many lectures, as well as writing numerous books and articles. Many fish-to-Gish evolutionists and atheists with knowledge and life experience know of him from his 300 or so debates where evolutionists chose to slap leather with him. The Infamous "Gish Gallop" Trope Unfortunately, a pejora

My shortest audio-video podcast ever. The MP3 can be downloaded here . Are you tired of videos? We had a lot going on in the past week, so I kept this short. That, and the fact that the one I had planned (and had started) was going to be dreadful. So, just a couple of comments about that Ken Ham - Bill Nye debate, a few other odds and ends, then back to work preparing for Question Evolution Day .

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

What went on in the Evolution Bunker after the #creationdebate? There are several opinions on who won the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, and why . Creationists tended to see flaws in both Ken Ham and Bill Nye, and especially in the debate format itself. Some of Darwin's Cheerleaders ranted that Nye won through "science" despite his numerous logical fallacies and condescending attitude (he disrespected the entire state of Kentucky, too). Some evolutionists admit that Nye failed. Most creationist accounts that I read did not give a clear victory to Ham. But the news spread, and Hitler found out...

One reason I think that Bill Nye's rhetoric sounds like it is canned is because I had heard much of it before. (Also, because he used "evidence" that had been written about by creationists years before, look for links to the Answers In Genesis and Creation Ministries International sites here .) One thing that stands out is the boilerplate slander that anti-creationists use. Although I am not sure Bill Nye directly used it, a common untruth is the claim that creationists do not contribute to science and are not published in scientific journals . Another untruth that Nye and others use is the claim that creationists do not make scientific predictions. This shows massive ignorance of the history of scientific inquiry. Or is it simply an attempt to poison the well? Perhaps something else. At any rate, my favorite example is how creationist Dr. D. Russell Humphreys made predictions about planetary magnetic fields that were proven right . In addition to that, Dr. David De

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen In the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye the Evolutionary Dogma Guy, Nye decided it would be a good idea to ridicule Noah's ark and the Genesis Flood. In his prepackaged-sounding objections to creation science and the Flood, he engaged in numerous logical fallacies. One was asserting uninformed opinions that would have a negative influence on listeners (prejudicial conjecture). One of these was that some shipbuilders designed a ship that sank, therefore, Noah's ark could not have worked. Like so many others of his nature, he did not do his homework, embarrassing himself and other evolution propagandists. Both Bill Nye and Ken Ham managed to get people thinking and asking questions. Don't Miss the Boat — Facts to Keep Your Faith Afloat by Paul Taylor answers some questions and will prompt further investigation. The Genesis Flood is a biblical event, and Paul gives us a clear biblical viewpoint as well as the science of the Flood, draw

Darwin skeptic Dr. James Tour has been in the news related to Intelligent Design lately, quite probably because he is a brilliant scientist and outspoken Christian. He issued a challenge to ten origin-of-life researchers , but not one rose to accept it. A few months back, he had a debate with atheopath Dave Farina. It did not go well. Farina is abusive and irrational, and Dr. Tour also got excited but was not offensive . Something similar happened with Drs. Tour and Cronin. My Pond-Full-o-Algae photo modified at PhotoFunia In a pair of articles by Casey Luskin, we learn that Dr. Lee Cronin agreed to have a public discussion with Dr. Tour. Apparently Cronin was civil, he still managed to say things that were untrue about Tour, and he spent a quite a bit of time focusing on his opponent rather than dealing with the science. James talked about origin-of-life science and its tremendous problems, but Lee seems to have avoided the subject for the most part. There was a recent exchange at The

Graphic liberated from Sye Ten Bruggencate   A debate challenge has been issued to Bill Nye , but so far, he has shown no interest in backing up his assertions. If he is even remotely aware of his poor logic skills, he is wise to hide: If we raise a generation of students who don’t believe in the process of science, who think everything that we’ve come to know about nature and the universe can be dismissed by a few sentences translated into English from some ancient text, you’re not going to continue to innovate. Statements like this are fundamentally flawed and should be disappointing to any of his fans who actually know about science. Not only is he appealing to emotion and making a straw man fallacy , but he is equivocating evolutionary philosophy with practical science . The truth is, evolution is not at all important to true scientific and technological development! (For that matter, the Dobzhansky myth that "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolu