Piltdown Superman

Ever notice that fundamentalist evolutionists have to actually resort to "No, it isn't!" denial and rapid-fire excuses when the facts cause their faulty worldviews to turn to a shes? Anyway... Back to a somewhat longer audio today, this one is twenty-eight minutes. Bob Enyart discusses some of the recent science news with Dr. Jonathan Sarfati . Among the items covered are things that have been on this site recently: "Junk" DNA and soft tissues in Dinosaurs. They discuss some other items as well. To go to the site click here , and to download, look for this near the top of the page:

If you say that you think that dinosaurs may not be extinct after all, you are likely to receive hails of derisive laughter. After all, people are conditioned to accept this false concept: All scientists agree that dinosaurs were killed when a meteorite struck the earth sixty five million years ago. (The truth is, scientists are not in agreement on that .) The entire problem is circular reasoning. Evolutionists start with the presuppositions that evolution is true, that the Earth is ancient and that the dinosaurs are long gone. This leads to interesting excuses when it comes to artifacts that depict dinosaurs, or when faced with accounts of dinosaurs still living in remote areas. Remember, there are species of various critters discovered every year; humans have not thoroughly explored every bit of this huge planet. However, evolutionists must deny the evidence according to their worldview — even though this often makes them look silly. By the way, if it's true that dino

Some evolutionists feel betrayed by the facts. When presented with evidence that the impossible exists ("impossible" according to their old Earth presuppositions), they deny the evidence. The love we share Seems to go nowhere And I've lost my light For I toss and turn, I can't sleep at night (From "Tainted Love" by Soft Cell) Some even accuse creationists of lying because evolutionists refuse to face the evidence (even thinking they're smarter than Mary Schweitzer, discussed in the link). Others will simply say that cited articles are outdated, misquoted or inaccurate. And we find some that even attempt to propose excuses that fly in the face of observed data. Sorry, Sammy, it's time to man up. Biblical creationists do not have these problems. Original dinosaur tissues in fossil bones are probably the most controversial finds in all of paleontology. Secular scientists have difficulty interpreting them. They debate whether the ti

Promoters of evolutionism tend to obscure the truth in their pursuit of "science". Sometimes, evolutionists are so determined that their naturalistic worldview is the only possible interpretation of facts, they see things that are not even there. In this case (and with help of the biased media), "feathers" were found on a dinosaur. Wow! Proof that dinosaurs evolved into birds! Except that evolutionary scientists are not in lockstep on the dinosaurs-to-birds bandwagon. More than that, the tendentious interpretations of this "evidence" is shameful. Any scientist with integrity should be embarrassed. The first North American “feathered dinosaur” has put the media in a frenzy of celebration over questionable data. Three Canadians from Alberta took a look at old fossils of the “ostrich-mimic” dinosaur Ornithomimus stored in drawers at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, and found fibrous impressions in the sandstone they interpret as fe

There are dinosaur footprints in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. People with an evolutionary worldview posit models that attempt to fit the facts into their presuppositions. This uniformitarian approach fails to explain the evidence in a credible manner, and requires explanations that defy credibility. On the other hand, biblical creationist scientists posit models for the Noachian flood, and the observed data support this view quite well. In October 2012, Catalyst , the science television show of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, featured amazing dinosaur footprints from the Kimberleys in north-west Australia. Catalyst reporter Mark Horstman says, "You’ve gotta be quick to study the fossils here. This tide is racing. And this was dry a few minutes ago. The tidal range is up to 10 metres, and the fossils are only visible at the lowest of low tides, so that’s for a few hours for a few days for a few months every year." Sand is washed in

As usual, I am going to give you an introduction and then link to a specially-selected article. And now for something completely different. For a bit. The article that I am going to link is on a site that is very difficult to read. Edit: It's been improved, so I am leaving this paragraph here for helpful browser hints. So I am going to offer a few practical options. First, many current versions of browsers will let you enlarge and reduce text on pages with CTRL+Plus Sign, or similar keystrokes. You may want to check your "View" in the menu bar. Second, you may want to have an RSS reader available. Several are listed here . Third, Send to Reader is useful for Firefox users with the free "bookmarklet", but works only for Kindle. Fourth, Push to Kindle by fivefilters also has browser extensions. It does what it says, strips out the clutter and sends to the Kindle. In addition, it also has a few other options where you can download the Kindle and EPUB format

To see Darwin's Cheerleaders resorting to logical fallacies to defend their errant worldview is commonplace. But to see several logical fallacies used in an attempt to influence political opinion and promote evolutionism is rather painful. And humorous. Here, we can see poisoning the well, name calling, prejudicial conjecture and more. The conviction that the world must have arisen spontaneously dates back to antiquity and is no less strong today. Its contemporary label is evolution and if you want your funding, or just respectability, you must accept it. Skepticism of the power of spontaneity is not allowed as this latest post from investor and all-around smart-guy Whitney Tilson makes clear: Even if Romney is a pragmatic centrist, I question his ability to act independently of a party that I fear has become beholden to people I view as extremists – anti-intellectuals who are hostile to women, minorities, the poor, immigrants, and gays, and who don’t believe