Piltdown Superman

We are constantly being told that the fossils prove evolution. However, even though many ambiguous fossils are put forth as "transitional forms", knowledgeable paleontologists admit that they do not exist , despite the claims of Darwin's Cheerleaders. In addition, the " Cambrian Explosion " (where fossils of all major groups of animals alive today, and many that became extinct) has been a falsifier for Darwinism since Papa Darwin published his speculations; evolution should have been discarded for lack of evidence shortly after it was popularized. Credit: Freeimages / Dave Dyet The facts do not stop people from believing, however. People believe in evolution despite the evidence, and, with an attitude that is contrary to science, will refer to Darwin deniers as "liars" (possibly because they are terrified that they will realize that there is a Creator and they are accountable after all) and give "Science of the Gaps" excuses. Th

stock.xchng/raven2663 Cosmologists have their presuppositions about the age of the universe. When the observed data persist in troubling their beliefs, they do not abandon their erroneous ideas. Instead, they are "challenged" and try to explain the facts with unworkable conjectures. Biblical creationists do not have anywhere near the same amount of difficulties with their models. The story of the rise and fall of the moon's magnetic field constantly energizes planetary scientists. Simply put, under secular magnetism models, the moon is too small to have maintained its charge as long as evolutionists imagine and as strongly as its magnetic clues indicate. Secular scientists face a grave challenge in reconciling the moon's magnetic signatures with billion-year age assignments. The latest foray into this collection of highly charged lunar dilemmas resulted in a team of scientists selecting a solution that, in the end, still failed to fit all the facts

"Malicious Advice Mallard" gives malicious advice. Some people relish their intellectual and spiritual blindness. They say, "Prove to me that God exists!", or, "Give me evidence for creation!" The simplest approach is to simply look at nature. The amazing beauty, design, complexity and wonder — it is astonishing that some people are willing to suspend their own sensibilities to pretend that God does not exist, and indulge in the ever-changing whims of evolutionary philosophies. I'm going to send you to a Web page that has comments and several short videos (the last video is the longest, just over eight minutes) on the wonder and complexity of nature. You'll be amazed when you read and watch at " Beauty is Truth and Truth, Beauty. The remarkable creatures designed by God reveal the tragedy of Charles Darwin's foul hypothesis! It has drained from the propagandized an appreciation for the Creator's art ... "

Yeah, I know. My title and the picture will be out of date soon. A better title would be, "The Dumbing Down of Humanity is a Genetic Thing", but it's less interesting. I believe that everything is running downhill in a kind of societal entropy, an increase in negativity. More immorality, profanity, dishonesty. Businesses are ruining themselves by being downright cheap, sacrificing quality products and customer service for a few more grotzits. Spirituality is becoming more touchy-feely and less committed to truth. Scientists are more passionate about promoting evolution than accurately dealing with the scientific evidence. Some speculate that stupidity is a product of biological evolution, so there is no hope for humanity . Many folks assume that people in ancient times were less intelligent. A look at the Bible writers helps demonstrate that such a claim is the opposite of the truth. But I digress. The subject at hand is that people are getting more stupider. (In

"Scientists agree..." "There is a scientific consensus..." Those of us involved in presenting the truth of creation science and refuting evolution hear phrases like this quite often. They are usually proffered as an excuse to avoid hearing or considering evidence against their erroneous worldviews and presuppositions. Doing so is an attempt to shut down discussion by appealing to authority or the majority. This is counterproductive not only to a discussion, but to scientific advancement. Does this mean that they're right — and that they remain right? True scientists will consider the facts, revising their theories. They even discard them (except for evolution, which must be protected at all costs). There are times when the consensus is wrong and the paradigm must be changed. Whenever you hear “all scientists agree” or “we now know,” it’s no guarantee a finding won’t be disputed years later.  In the following examples, CEH focuses not so much

And now for something completely different. Sort of. We have seen that "skeptics" are often caricatures of themselves, cynically finding any possible way to bolster their evolutionary worldview and find excuses to disregard evidence for creation . Some people who call themselves "skeptics" are being dishonest with that name, as they are not open to any explanations or evidence other than what they want to see. The article that I am going to link was given to me by a friend. It is not exactly sympathetic to Intelligent Design or to creation science. Their primary focus is on the skeptical debunkers of the paranormal. The site is called " Skeptical Investigations ", and they are "skeptical about skeptics", promoting objectivity in scientific investigation. This article has several points in which ultra-skeptic atheist and evolutionists are guilty; these people often act in an irrational manner, and go against the spirit of true scientific inq

Is it possible for someone to enter a secular university with biblical (young earth) creationist views and not have to compromise or have his or her belief system replaced with evolutionism? Jason Petersen of Answers for Hope interviewed Jessica Roberts. She has degrees, including her recent bachelor's  in Molecular Biology, and has a master's in health science. Quite often, we have "educators" that want to belittle, intimidate, obfuscate and more to their students so they can protect their fundamentally flawed worldview. (Of course, true science and true education require actually examining the evidence.) Jessica's experience echoes many of the things creationists encounter. For her, the stakes were higher than just dealing with someone who wants to be contentious. But things went better than might be expected.  The interview is in two parts, written and video. Here is the written portion of the interview: 1. Why are you a Young Earth Creationist?