Piltdown Superman

One of the most interesting insults that I have ever been given was that of a "serial fact denier". This was from someone who was confused that evolutionary conjectures were actually proven. Very few evolutionists have the courage to examine contrary evidence. Most of these are filtering the facts through their evolutionist worldview, and whatever does not comport with their assumptions is considered "wrong", or even "lies". Very disingenuous. Sean B. Carroll is frustrated so many still deny evolution, but he shoots his own argument in the foot. Carroll, portrayed as wandering around the Smithsonian in ecstasy at all the exhibits showcasing evolution, was given ample space in a  press release from Tufts University  (echoed on  PhysOrg ) to rant about all the fools who disagree with him.  He can’t believe that people enter the museum and continue to carry their God bias even after sights like these: The sign in front of the tall display cas

What do you get when you present only one side of the scientific evidence, cherry-pick data to support your belief system, misrepresent those who disagree with you, resort to stalking, harassment and libel, present outdated and fraudulent information as fact? Yep, you guessed it! Evolutionary indoctrination. Let's be blunt: It is brainwashing. How do the "educators" delude themselves as well as their  students? Today's article is so short, I am not even going to post the first part as an introduction. Instead, you can read " Training Non-Skeptics One Course at a Time", here .

When having what passes for discussions online, Darwinoids often resort to "proof" or "evidence" that is jaw-droppingly dreadful in their efforts to stifle creationists. Those of us who have a grasp of scientific thinking and news are baffled that nonsense is offered. They should be thinking things through and asking questions in science classes. But what good is "should be" when we must deal with what actually happens? People like Mohamed Noor will offer bad logic and outdated science to his students. Since they trust him to deliver material that their parents are paying for, they accept the stuff and pass it along. Not good. Today’s first set of lectures in Mohamed Noor’s Introduction to Genetics and Evolution course would seem downright bizarre to anyone not familiar with evolutionary thinking. Noor is teaching this course via through the coursera on-line service and the Earl D. McLean Professor and Associate Chair of Biology at Duke Univer

Creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design have been saying for years that the concept of "junk" DNA belongs in the dustbin. Ironically, people like Eugenie Scott, Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins and others want to believe that the biblical worldview is false, and yet, an evolutionary worldview based on chance, mutations, random processes and so forth make science impossible! To depend on the uniformity of nature, they have to stand on the biblical creation worldview because their own will not support them! Here is an episode of "Real Science Friday", where Bob Enyard and Fred Williams discuss ENCODE and more. Since the Web page is full of information, you may have to search for the download or streaming audio links. Let me help with that, they're near the top: Click here to access the page .

Common sense tells us that humans and chimpanzees are not really that much alike. Amazingly, Darwin's Cheerleaders insist on using the idea that similarities in human and chimpanzee DNA is a really big deal, but there are many differences. In fact, there are irreconcilable differences in brain cells as well. Evolutionists are trying to explain away the data, and creationists are happy to be proved right. Again. New research adds to an ever-lengthening stream of discoveries that confirm exactly what a Bible-believing scientist would expect—humans are distinct from chimpanzees. They should be, if they were created in the image of God, not as an imaginary pre-human primate. The study, published in American Journal of Human Genetics , investigated DNA methylation patterning in human and chimpanzee brains.Two observations from this research support the biblical origins of mankind. In a process called methylation, cell systems add methyl groups to some regions of chromo

From the Ministry of Irrelevant but Somewhat Interesting Material: This post was scheduled for 08.09, 10-11-12 , Eastern Daylight Time, New York, USA. It seems that some evolutionary scientists are not happy about the findings of ENCODE. The findings do not support the presuppositions of an evolutionist worldview. (One arrogant assumption was that since they cannot find a use for something they do not understand, they label it as "junk", leftover from our imaginary past evolution.) The data fit the biblical creation model without any problems, but evolutionists would rather force-fit the data into their faulty premises than accept the better explanation. Dr. Georgia Purdom continues her discussion about the ENCODE project. If you missed Part 1, that is here . In part two I want to discuss the opposition of many evolutionists to the ENCODE findings. Rather than put words in the evolutionists’ mouths, I will let them speak for themselves as to how they regard approxima

"Prove to me that creationism is scientifically valid with peer-reviewed papers!" First of all, creationists do  have peer-reviewed scientific journals, and are published in other scientific publications . But what of the secular peer-review process? It is seriously flawed and biased . We should not be surprised, really. Evolution is about the survival of the fittest, after all. If submitting a fraudulent paper will improve someone's life, then they are acting like a Darwinist should act; they do not have a consistent moral standard. Creationists, however, do have a consistent moral standard . Unfortunately, the problems are not confined to research on origins or other irrelevant, impractical matters. Rather, they involve real science that impacts people's lives. And the fraud is increasing. Ethicists are becoming alarmed at the explosive increase in scientific fraud cases – and those are just the ones that were caught. Fraud on the Rise It’s a tru

Graphic liberated from Sye Ten Bruggencate   A debate challenge has been issued to Bill Nye , but so far, he has shown no interest in backing up his assertions. If he is even remotely aware of his poor logic skills, he is wise to hide: If we raise a generation of students who don’t believe in the process of science, who think everything that we’ve come to know about nature and the universe can be dismissed by a few sentences translated into English from some ancient text, you’re not going to continue to innovate. Statements like this are fundamentally flawed and should be disappointing to any of his fans who actually know about science. Not only is he appealing to emotion and making a straw man fallacy , but he is equivocating evolutionary philosophy with practical science . The truth is, evolution is not at all important to true scientific and technological development! (For that matter, the Dobzhansky myth that "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolu

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen In some ways, the spirit of scientific inquiry has little or no resemblance to the real goal of "a system of acquiring knowledge"  [ 1 ] . Since people look to science for answers and turn science into the false religion of scientism, where "science" is a kind of entity and the final arbiter of truth [ 2 ] . Science is used as a political tool — the scientists themselves are often used to further political agendas. For example, Adolph Hitler attacked Albert Einstein and "Jewish physics" in 1931 by enlisting one hundred scientists to denounce him. (Einstein made a simple but strong point: "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough".)  [ 3 ]  More recently, global warming has been a political tool for the leftists' green agenda, even with the dishonest claim that it is "settled science" [4 no longer available] . Heidi Cullen embarked on a coercive campaign "advocating that broadcast meteorolog

Eugenie Scott, anti-creationist, anti-Intelligent Design atheist and popular liar for Darwin , made dog matic assertions about so-called "junk DNA". Even when this radio show was made, she sounded ridiculous with her assertions, obfuscation, dodging, dishonesty and basic silliness. This rebroadcast with additional comments shows the strength of the creationist position. Since the Web page is full of information, you may have to search for the download or streaming audio links. Let me help with that, they're near the top: Click here to access the debate .