Piltdown Superman

Looking up at the night skies can bring a sense of awe at God's handiwork (Gen. 1:16, Psalm 8:3-4). Ever check out the night skies in, say, Montana, Arizona, or Chaco Culture National Historical Park (down New Mexico way)? Great places to break out a telescope. Ever wish you had one of those big ones? Abell 901/902 supercluster image credit: ESO ( CC BY 4.0 ) Back when telescopes were newfangled devices, stargazers thought they had them all counted. As telescopes advanced, more stars were discovered, and galaxies full of stars. Then clusters. And then superclusters. Still more structures and such are being discovered, and advocates of deep time are going haywire over how what they see goes against their predictions and give even more problems for the Big Bang evolutionary cosmology. Well, sure, that kind of cognitive dissonance is bound to happen when people keep trying to deny that God created the universe, and he did it much more recently than they'll allow. To see

If you get to roaming around the jungles of Southeast Asia, watch your step, know when and where to look (what with many being elusive and all), you'll find a whole heap of beasties that defy evolution. Yesterday's post was about the tarsier , and this time, another tree-dweller called the colugo.  I reckon one reason some things are "elusive" is that they live way up yonder in the trees, and are very difficult to observe and track. And colugos kind of fly away. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Lip Kee Yap / CC BY-SA 2.0 One name for the colugo is "flying lemur". It's not a lemur, and it doesn't exactly fly, it glides. Quite a long way if it has a mind to. Evolutionists don't know how to classify it, and it's currently in a class by itself. Creationists believe it is from a separate biblical kind . (By the way, just because creationists use a different categorization method in some cases doesn't give anyone call to go all hayw

Back on May 6, 2014, I posted about " Faking the Fossil Whales ". The subject was how Dr. Carl Werner documented altered whale fossils that were sold to museums, and the admission to altering was made in a video. Naturally, this generated heat from some owlhoots who were protecting their religion of evolutionism. After all, whale evolution is supposedly well documented — if you call storytelling from bits and pieces "documentation". I was attacked, Dr. Werner and radio show host Bob Enyart were impugned as well; it's a mite irritating to be called a liar by liars in the course of their lying. Rodhocetus  skull at University of Michigan Museum of Natural History / Wikimedia Commons / ellenm1 Some tinhorn came out of the gate with libelous accusations, and claimed that he had corresponded with Phil Gingerich, one of the people Dr. Werner interviewed on his video. Gingerich allegedly wrote in part, "I have been criticized for speculating that Rodhocet

The public seems to have a cognitive dissonance when it comes to science and the scientists that make science and technology happen. Many will blindly accept what scientists say (or what the science press claims what scientists say). Some go as far as to make man-made science philosophies the ultimate source of truth and knowledge. Then the disconnect. People are skeptical of what scientists say, while being enamored of science. Despite the claims of evolutionists, atheists, agnostics, and those tinhorns who go haywire alternating between atheism and agnosticism, it's not st00pid unedjamakated dumb Xtians who have doubts. Instead, there are people who think and are informed about science matters who have doubts. Can you blame anyone for having doubts? Scientists say things that are not exactly true, and the science press has the grace, dignity, and accuracy of a cattle stampede, making grandiose claims about "discoveries" that the scientists themselves do not reco

This is the promised conclusion of the last article ( I recommend that you read Part 1 ). To recap, I was included in some spamming, and received permission to show replies to the anti-creation spammer. Last time, I made some introductory comments and presented the first part of his responses. I have edited both of them a little, but the substance is intact. Note that the spammer is dodging the important matters and attacking the person. — Cowboy Bob Sorensen Your response affirms my statements, including the fact that no one can "observe" the unobserved past events. Thus, this is not "meaningless mantras" but a repeated statement of scientific "fact".  I further note that you have addressed none of issues I raised, and provided NO "testable" and verifiable "experimental" science to substantiate any of the necessary stages of the "hypothetical" evolutionary continuum. Nor have you provided any "directly obse

Bringing you exciting news using my unregistered assault keyboard from a hidden location. Fundamentalist evolutionists are going to go haywire again when their dogmas and presuppositions are exposed. "What ineffable twaddle!" I cried, slapping the magazine down on the table, "I never read such rubbish in my life." "What is it?" asked Sherlock Holmes. "Why, this article," I said, pointing at it with my egg spoon as I sat down to my breakfast. "I see that you have read it since you have marked it. I don't deny that it is smartly written. It irritates me though. It is evidently the theory of some arm-chair lounger who evolves all these neat little paradoxes in the seclusion of his own study. It is not practical. I should like to see him clapped down in a third class carriage on the Underground, and asked to give the trades of all his fellow-travelers. I would lay a thousand to one against him." "You would lose your mo

In a recent post, articles were linked about how whale fossils sent to museums were faked . Naturally, some atheopaths were in full denial mode and making ridiculous accusations even though the evidence was right in front of them. They preferred to attack the people presenting the information, just going haywire when their paradigm is threatened with reality. There is no reasoning with some people. Flood Waters — Monet, 1896 In a similar fashion, Eric Hovind of Creation Today was helping people in the aftermath of flooding in Pensacola, Florida . He posted a video and wrote an article about it , and did the unthinkable for angry atheists: discussed the Genesis Flood. Eric witnessed (and ministered in) the aftereffects of a local flood and tried to tell people that a lot of water in a little time would have worldwide effects. Worse than that, though, is the reminder of God's judgment in the past, and that there is a coming judgment. He was misrepresented (atheists do tha

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

A few months ago, I was included in a reply to mail from Haywire the Criminal Cyberstalker. (He is blocked from my account, but I was included in the reply because he was attacking me as well as other creationists.) This served as my introduction to John Heininger.  Haywire was commenting about John's "tactics". John replied, " I always relish people who can appreciate "my tactics"... I hate to think that I go to all the trouble of devising clever tactics that no one appreciates or notices. So, I have again reattached "The Dating Game Assumptions" article in PDF format for you to share around." I was given permission to reproduce it, and did some minor editing of formatting, a couple of typos and such. HOW TO PLAY THE DEEP-TIME "ASSUMPTIONS" DATING GAME How to use ASSUMPTIONS to determine the age of the universe and the earth!  ASSUMPTIONS are extremely important when you don't have any solid facts to prove yo

Edited 10-29-2012, 9-25-2021 I've experienced this evolutionist dogmatic attitude many times. Part 1 is here . What follows are some of my experiences that are used to illustrate the irrational behavior to which misotheists and anti-creationists can descend. Now , regarding harassment... There are many kinds . Getting blasted in forums and on Weblogs is common, and to be expected. They are exercising their freedom of speech, even though they seldom have anything interesting to say. But s ometimes they kick it up a few notches, even to the point of stalking. A fellow claiming to be a physicist at a junior college was rather annoying, wanting my attention on his highly forgettable blog-o-fallacies , which included an oft-repeated lie about the Catholic Church and Galileo, which is easily refuted (Galileo was criticized by the scientific community of his time, not "religion"). It is "a given" that people like this with poor reasoning abili