Piltdown Superman

As we have noticed on this site alone many times, peer review is not a guarantee of truth or even accuracy. In a like manner, scientific consensus is not a guarantee of truth or accuracy, either. Browbeating consensus skeptic is not conducive to the scientific process. Labeling someone as a "science denier" is a childish way to avoid examining legitimate objections to majority opinion, you savvy? The coming ice age — I mean, global warming — I mean, global climate change — has deep political motivations, including globalism and taxation to force people into submission. It also is based on materialistic evolutionary beliefs including deep time and that there is no sovereign God who is in control. Climate change is definitely not an established fact, old son. People indulge in groupthink and listen to yahoos like Bill Nye the Stalinist Guy (who believes in throwing "climate change dissenters" in jail ) to support their beliefs. Climate change enthusiasts wave away

No, I do not mean that Junior is cleaning up after the horses. Stable, as in, not changing easily. We have a sun that is rather constant, giving a reliable source of heat without going to extremes. Those hot and cold days are basically because of changes in weather and the orbit of Earth, not from wild solar activity. Credits: NASA /SDO For being so big and mostly empty, space is mighty dangerous. Our solar system was placed by our Creator in a special section, away from bursts of gamma rays that would destroy life . Our sun gets on the prod now and then, shooting out solar flares and such. We are protected (for now) with our own deflector shield and atmosphere, so those flares disrupt communications and such, but don't blast away the oceans or irradiate life to extinction. I'm old enough to remember the television show Lost in Space (still syndicated on some services), and have been able to have fun with it on rerun stations. The original series ran from 1968-1968,

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen My unregistered assault keyboard is ready to keep on going into 2017, and I'm looking forward to giving you more things to think about that refute evolution and support biblical creation. (Darwinistas object when you tell the truth about them, and the dogmas they insist upon.) Let's get going. The Apostle Paul managed to get quite a bit of attention in his time, and it was often explosive. When he and Silas preached in Greece, they outcry was that they "troubled the world" or "turned the world upside down" (Acts 17:6 ESV). He was called a "pest" by an enemy (Acts 24:5). They preached to pagan evolutionists in Greece ("preaching" was more of an explanatory dialogue), who had many gods, and they didn't cotton to hearing the truth of the one God. Worse than that, Paul proclaimed that God is the Creator and Sustainer of all things (Acts 17:24-25), which prompted some evolutionists and other philosophers to ridic

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

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen All right, I give up. I've been caught and have to admit that I've been deceiving all y'all for over five years, using thousands of articles and posts here and other places of my own and where I guest post. The evidence is conclusive (click for larger): It would be ridiculous for me to try to withstand such logic and morality, since I am but dust and ashes, and he has the Mighty Atheist™ intellect. There is no need to cite more than the first sentence of this post's introduction , or examine the abundant material offered at the link. So, this is my last post. This site and The Question Evolution Project will be shut down, and I will cease my guest activities on other sites. Now we'll wait for Haywire the Stalker to cherry-pick these sentences and find other ways to misrepresent me again. And why not? He's an evolutionist and a professing atheist (except for when he claims to be an agnostic), so he is acting in a manner consiste

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

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

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen So, how are those New Year's resolutions working out for you? Early in the year, many people have already failed on some. I disremember where I read it, but one piece of advice was to avoid giving yourself a thorough remake, and just pick a few. Add more later if you have a mind to. Even so, the question remains: why do resolutions fail? A Monkey Encampment , David Teniers the Younger, 1633 Dr. Albert Mohler brought this to our attention on The Briefing , so I got the bit between my teeth and ran with it. Seems that you can blame it on vertical (universal common ancestor) evolution. We can't stick to resolutions or be decisive because we've evolved that way so we can act quickly for survival. Sounds a bit Lamarckian to me. (He's the guy that said giraffes evolved long necks to reach leaves in trees for food.) It also seems live a pitiful rescuing device to excuse perceived flaws in behavior. Evolutionists use the scientific principle o

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

The propaganda mill of the secular science industry has been effective in convincing people that Earth is billions of years old. True believers point to tendentious (but highly unreliable) numbers from radiometric dating to support their viewpoint, ignoring evidences for the young earth using their own methods against them (such as ocean salinity , for example). You might be surprised to learn that there are biological evidences for our blue marble being young. Background image credit: RGBStock / Tomislav Alajbeg Sure, biblical creationists have a passel of evidences from geology and other sciences. I reckon a planet's age would most likely be inferred from geology. Physical sciences to not stand alone, but interact with each other. When we bring up examples from science, anti-creationists go haywire and pretend they do not exist. Here are just a few instance from biology for Earth and life on it being recently created. What does the Bible tell us about the age of the ear

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Although I have written on a similar topic before (" Presuppositions and Fallacies in Evolutionary Science "), I wanted to develop the subject further and provide some resources. Both articles are mainly written to edify Christians. The word apology has somewhat devolved over time so that common usage means someone is sorry: "I apologize for stealing your horse and shooting up the town". Simply put, apologetics is the branch of Christian theology that deals with giving a reasoned defense of the faith . We have to be careful to distinguish the word's usage, since there are atheist apologists, Mohammedan apologists, Roman Catholic apologists, and various non-religious apologists as well. So from here on out, I'm discussing Christian apologetics. There are various schools of apologetics.  Perhaps some people choose an apologetic method because they admire celebrities that use a particular version. I've seen from three to