Piltdown Superman

Today you are getting a 2-in-1. First, I am going to discuss the fact atheists and evolutionists (I am making a distinction because not all evolutionists are atheists) have their own presuppositions and biases. These are rooted in logical fallacies that attempt to distort honest evaluation of the evidence. Essentially, atheists are right and theists are wrong because the atheists said so. Similarly, evolutionists are right — well, same thing. In addition, they are full of statements of faith, such as, "Evolution is a proven fact", and, "Religious people are full of biases, but scientists simply examine the facts and make conclusions." Sorry to break this to you, but nobody is unbiased. Further false presuppositions include: Creationists are not scientists Creationism is simple: "Goddidit" Atheists are automatically more intelligent than theists by virtue of being atheists Anyone who denies the proven fact of evolution is a liar Fossils pr

Laypeople who are devout evolutionists are a gullible lot. That's right, I said it! Especially the ones who troll the Internet, looking to harass non-believers . Their sources of information include outdated textbooks (where the alleged "ancestors" of man that have been discredited, reclassified, revealed as outright fakes and so forth), popular evolutionary propaganda sites and publications that only reveal the acceptable side, as well as their own willingness to be deceived. I have received comments about this site being "wrong". Why is it wrong? Because some wandering evolutionist fundamentalist said so.  (Even more interesting is when a fellow told me that the article that I linked was completely wrong. It turns out the link was broken; he had never read it! On Twitter, this is an example of #Liar4Darwin.) Most of the time, these pop evolution propaganda readers only bolster their emotional reactions and enthusiasm, but not actual science learning. They ce

  People have their presuppositions and do not like to have their faith threatened. One of those presuppositions is that radiometric dating proves the age of the Earth. As a matter of fact, radiometric dating contains presuppositions of its own. Take a look at the following article — all of it — and see what I am talking about. T he presupposition of long ages is an icon and foundational to the evolutionary model. Nearly every textbook and media journal teaches that the earth is billions of years old. Using radioactive dating, scientists have determined that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, ancient enough for all species to have been formed through evolution. The earth is now regarded as between 4.5 and 4.6 billion years old. The primary dating method scientists use for determining the age of the earth is radioisotope dating. Proponents of evolution publicize radioisotope dating as a reliable and consistent method for obtaining absolute ages of rocks and the age

The selective citing of data for the "proof" of evolution is readily evident with the  Galapagos finches. As Ken Ham point out so succinctly, Darwin found big finches, little finches, big beaks, little beaks. What do we find today? Big finches, little finches, big beaks, little beaks. But they are all still finches. Nothing is changing into something else. In fact, quite the opposite is true .   Unless you subscribe to the "Hopeful Monster" (a.k.a. "Punctuated Equilibrium") "theory" of evolution, orthodox Darwinism requires long periods of time. Birds change rapidly, but do not cooperate with evolutionary precepts. Biologists recently found that feather colors and songs vary among some species within the South American genus Sporophila , also known as seedeater birds. But strangely, they did not find any genetic differences in the form of species-specific DNA markers. Do these variations fit any evolutionary pattern?  The research

Even though it is statistically for complex things to happen without design (such as a single DNA molecule forming), evolutionists maintain that if there is enough time, evolution can happen. This is absurd unless you are an orthodox fundamentalist evolutionist, desperate to maintain the faith in spite of contrary evidence. Dr. D. Russell Humphries has written an introductory article on the age of the Earth . Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. Spiral galaxy NGC 1232 in constellation Eridanus (photo courtesy of European Southern Observatory).    Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) a

One of my contentions with evolutionists is that to accept the alleged "fact" of evolution, I have to suspend too much disbelief. It makes sense to me that laws and facts tend to work in the same manner on a regular, predictable basis. Yet, when examining the diversity of nature, I see everything "evolving" differently. This sounds like intricate design rather than utilitarian adaptation and mutation. Another example is this scent of love scenario: Love is calling in the temperate forests of Australasia. An exotic perfume (called a pheromone ) floats in the air, sending an irresistible message to the males of just one species of insect—the Fungus Gnat—that a female Fungus Gnat is nearby and desires a mate. A male gnat answering the call finds that the amorous female appears to be located within the flower of a Greenhood Orchid. When a male gnat lands on a protruding part of the flower called the irritable lip or labellum , the lip, which is hinged, s

It keeps amazing me that fundamentalist evolutionists and Big Bang adherents cling to their faith in the theories despite scientific evidence against their validity. It takes creationists and Intelligent Design proponents to take news in the physics and astronomy journals to thoroughly discuss these flaws, but scientists should be discussing them instead of giving a "by the way" mention to the latest observation. A gamma-ray burst passed through two far-distant galaxies on its way to earth, illuminating them like a cosmic backlight and shedding new light on models of the origin and structure of the universe. Images from the event stunned some astronomers, because they show that the chemical makeup of these apparently young galaxies is far too mature to fit with the Big Bang theory. "These galaxies have more heavy elements than have ever been seen in a galaxy so early in the evolution of the Universe. We didn't expect the Universe to be so mature, so chemica