Piltdown Superman

Evolutionists point to bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics as an example of observable evolution. Not really. Mutations and natural selection are not providing the required new functions, but rather, a loss of functions. Molecular biologist Dr. Georgia Purdom explains. The extraordinary ability of certain bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics—which are otherwise useful in speeding recovery from some illnesses—has been a hot topic on the minds of doctors, hospital staff, reporters, and the general public for several years. It is also heralded as a textbook example of evolution in action.  These bacteria are being studied by evolutionary scientists with the hope that they will reveal secrets as to how molecules-to-man evolution could have happened.   But are bacteria really evolving? Read the rest of "Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria: An Example of Evolution in Action?", here .

Click for Larger. Image by NASA.

All too often, I encounter uninformed orthodox evolutionists who have mistaken ideas about the concept that they are attempting to defend. These included the woefully mistaken notions that there is only one theory of evolution, one Big Bang theory, plenty of fossil evidence, indisputable transitional forms, the Miller-Urey experiment proves that life happened by chance and other errors. Another set of mistakes that I encounter is based on radioactive dating. Fundamentalist evolutionists refuse to admit that the dating methods are highly biased and unreliable. The flaws and presuppositions of evolutionists are nowhere more apparent than in the dating fiasco of the East African KBS Tuff strata. Disputes had to be settled by pigs. A popular myth is that radioactive dating methods confirm the geologic time-scale and the concept of human evolution. The methods appear so impressive that many Christians accept them as evidence that the earth is very old. The best way to expose this myt

Here are two examples of people asking questions based on their misunderstanding of creationist positions. (I keep saying, "Do your homework", but they don't listen.) These letters to CMI show how not only are the creationist positions strong, but evolutionists should not be getting their opinions and bad information from sources that are nothing more than pooling of angry ignorance. A skeptic wrote to a friend of CMI, “The latest that I hear from AIG and CMI is that they are now invoking total and absolute sci-fi hocus-pocus like White Holes in a downright vain attempt to force creationist cosmology to make some kind of, any kind of sense. To force it to fit into a model of the 6000 year old, 6-day created cosmos. “The scientific community is laughing at them because they couldn’t even get a basic fact like that even if white holes did exist (and there is nil evidence for them to date) then so time in the universe outside of one would dramatically slow down instead of

There are several method used in attempting to obtain the age of the Earth. The best know is the  radiometric dating of meteorites . Radiometric dating uses a "parent" element that decays into a "daughter" element. When calculating the age of a rock using, say, the Potassium-Argon method (K-Ar), a number of assumptions must be made: The rate of decay has remained constant, the amount of both parent and daughter elements, nothing was added or removed and so on. When an age of the Earth is produced that do not meet uniformitarian presuppositions, the results of the test are discarded . Instead of "Follow where the evidence leads", this means, "Make the evidence say what you want". Most of the evidence favors a young Earth , and radiometric dating also yields young ages. Unlike some scientists, creation researchers are willing to examine the evidence and work with serious questions about their results. In the final report of ICR’s Radiois

So often, when presenting creationist and ID theories and models, we are "refuted" by evolutionists with the following perspicacious gems: Not true Irrelevant Disproved by atheists in a forum Creationists and ID people do not have real scientists Assorted foolish logical fallacies, including, "You're an idiot" That last one is very special to me because it generally stems from the objective, dispassionate approach of, "The evidence compels me to reach conclusions that do not fit my preconceptions. Besides, I just don't like it". When I am confronted by someone who does not want to even consider the possibility that what we are presenting is the truth, my feeling is this: Do you have what it takes to honestly examine evidence that is contrary to evolution?