Piltdown Superman

Although some evolutionists are supposedly amazed when they are told that there is equivocation, the fact is that such equivocation is actually prevalent. (Of course, this is rooted in their "evolution is a fact" presuppositions.) How do you defend equivocation? With more equivocation, of course. If anyone doubted that evolutionists equivocate, or that such equivocation is prevalent, they need doubt no more. I recently pointed out several examples of evolutionists equivocating on evolution. When they proclaim that evolution is an obvious fact, they are referring to the origin of species by random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection and a host of other explanatory mechanisms evolutionists employ when needed. This claim goes against the scientific evidence. Evolution may or may not have occurred. That is an ontological claim that can be argued. But there is absolutely no question the origin of species by evolution is not a fact. That is an epistemological claim which i

Creation Ministries International has a section on "15 Questions for Evolutionists". These are questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer. (There is a video after point two of which I am rather fond, but I have a bias.) They do try to answer them, but do not fare well. At the bottom of the page are some of the objections and attempted answers. Click here and give it a whirl . Oh, and don't forget that February 12 is " Question Evolution Day "!

Foot soldiers in the war against those of us who dare to question the "fact" of evolution portray scientists in glowing terms. They are eminently logical, follow where the evidence leads, never have biases, are exceptionally honest and so on. (Of course, such praise makes them seem like automatons rather than people — if you believe such praises in the first place.) People who actually believe this lofty view of evolutionists are shocked — shocked, I tell you — at the suggestion that some scientists may have biases and engage in sneaky behavior. A very common shell game is conflation (or equivocation) on word meanings. The term "evolution" can mean many things. When the faithful chant that "evolution is a fact", they may actually be right when using some definitions of evolution. However, they are not right when they take one meaning of evolution and switch it with microbes-to-microbiologist evolution. When I explained that evolutionists equivocate by

It appears that many people are unaware of what happens in the evolution industry. People ennoble scientists, saying that they are strictly objective, unbiased and follow where the evidence leads. This is clearly not the case. For one thing, such sentiments display ignorance of the process of investigation. Also, scientists are portrayed as superhuman, having no emotions and no biases. There is also the assumption that scientists are unified on all aspects of evolutionism. When it comes to origins science, facts are selected to fit the presuppositions of the scientists' worldview. When the facts do not fit, excuses are made, masquerading as valid scientific theories or hypotheses. These excuses are vague, and even laughable. Especially when some evolutionists insist that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Birds and dinosaurs have oval eggs and big eyes.  Does this necessarily  mean they evolved from a common ancestor? Hopeful ovals :  Intent on evolving sparrows out of T. rex kin

It has become a sort of occupational hazard for those of us who present scientific, philosophical and logical material against evolution that we must deal with ridicule and abuse. It comes with the territory. What becomes startling is the intensity of attacks from Darwin's cheerleaders. (Personally, I believe it is because evolution is a foundation for atheism, so they feel that they must protect it at all costs.) Another startler is the lack of logic that the evolution thought police employ. Earlier in the day that I am writing this, a friend and I encountered the genetic fallacy, ad hominems, straw man fallacies, "moving the goalposts", appeal to motive, appeal to majority, appeal to ridicule and more. As well as simply wasting our time. Not only do these evolutionists fallaciously assume that people deny evolution because they do not understand it, but in the midst of their vituperative railing, they try to prove evolution by citing bad science. (Also, "You

In our last exciting episode, we saw a basic overview of the Second Law of Thermodynamics . This time, we are getting into some more specific material. Credit: FreeImages / Jason Morrison This next article examines the science behind some of the objections or rebuttals by evolutionists to creationist arguments. First, the open system, closed system and isolated system confusion. Next, the idea that ice crystals forming is supposedly evidence against entropy in relation to evolution. Third, a theological question related to the fall of man back in Genesis. To read "The Second Law of Thermodynamics — Answers to Critics", click here .   

Edited Introduction 7-09-2012 Evolution is not against the law of the land by any means. Instead, it is encouraged by secularists. (Intelligent Design and creation science have laws construed against them.) Evolution violates several laws of science. In this case, Entropy, also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The universe is running down. In some ways, this important scientific law is common sense because we can see it happening all the time. The most basic form says that "everything goes from order to disorder". Things break down, run down, fall apart, get worse. The only way to offset this tendency is to add energy and specific information. Here is an introductory overview of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Later, we will have some more detailed articles, including excuses skeptics make to say that it does not apply to evolution. Yes, they really think that. Evolution versus a basic law of nature S cores of distinguished scientists have carefully exa