Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Edi ted 11-11-2015 The Genetic Fallacy is, in simplest terms, rejecting something because someone does not like the source. For example: Th e text in the image shows not only that the commenter does not like ICR, but includes other fallacies as well, including the ever-popular   ad hominem . And he wonders why he was banned from the Facebook Page? Seriously? Virginia Heffernan formerly wrote technology and culture for the New York Times.   She admitted recently that she is a creationist . Well, what kind of creationist, I'm not certain. (If she wants to discuss these things , biblical creationists will be glad to assist her.) What matters to her detractors is that she rejects evolution. This led to a slew of ridicule. Hamilton Nolan of "Gawker" said : "We are not saying you're a bad person, Virginia, but you should probably expect that, from now on, when people read your musings on, say, the future of internet commun

" The Question Evolution Project " began on Facebook late January of 2012. We've climbed up to 1,500 "Likes" in that time, and only 1,000 of those are my spare accounts. (That's a joke. No refunds on the jokes.) The future looks bright, creation science is growing, the truth about the folly of evolution is being proclaimed and the Creator is glorified. We have haters, defamers, libelers — it happens when you go against evolutionary dogmatism, as the big name creation science organizations know full well. This kind of evil never sleeps. On we go!

Mustard Plants - MorgueFile/citysafari Earlier, we marveled at photosynthesis . But what happens at night? Plants still use food during the night. It involves using just the right amount of starch molecules. Still move evidence of a master Designer at work! A new study came out showing how plants utilize an efficient form of mathematics to precisely calculate how much starch to consume as food during the night. During the daytime, plants make carbohydrates through photosynthesis and store a portion of them as starch molecules. The cells then metabolize that starch as a food source during the night to fuel cell growth and development. One researcher said, "If the starch store is used too fast, plants will starve and stop growing during the night. If the store is used too slowly, some of it will be wasted." However, the plant must use its food reserves judiciously and dynamically by controlling the rate of its metabolism along with the amount of starch used during th

Ptolemaic Astrology,  Andres Cellarius  A basic guideline for biblical creationists is that the Bible is foundational. Like secular scientists, creationists propose models and put forth ideas and see if they are supported by Scripture as well as observational and experimental data. One thing that evolutionists and creationists have in common is that origins science  is historical  in nature — nobody can reproduce creation or evolution. For example, a fossil does not exist in the past, it exists in the present. Examination of the object can be done with current testing methods and so forth, and scientists hold to their presuppositions and worldviews. Geocentrism , the idea that the Earth is the center of the solar system (or the universe), was based on philosophies, astrology and mathematics from ancient Greece. The model proposed by Ptolemy was popular for centuries until creationist astronomers like Galileo and Copernicus (and others) demonstrated that it was not accurate, and

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This is not a science article, it is an editorial based on my observations, experiences and those of other people. Those of us who reject evolution (whether from science, theology or both) encounter proponents of evolution who seem to have made it their personal crusade to put us in our place. They are so determined to silence us, they speak without knowledge. Some go on quests to give one-star ratings at Amazon's now-worthless reviews, even though they have not even read the books ! This says a great deal about their supposed integrity. Frequently, we have people making comments at The Question Evolution Project on Facebook who, although they have not read the material, are still certain that creationists are wrong anyway.  Many are willing to lie outright, but they only manage to humiliate themselves. The humiliation increases when someone wants to take the time to point out their tactics . Then they scream, "Libel!" and "Liar for

"But the word 'dinosaur' isn't in the Bible, Cowboy Bob!" That is because the the word had not been invented for thousands of years. However, there are some interesting descriptions in the book of Job. I cannot embed the audio since the site I use is down, you can download the one-minute MP3 here .

Just how old is the universe, anyway? How do we know? Can assertions be substantiated, or do we just get more assertions and tall tales? NASA, ESA, J.-Y. Li (Planetary Science Institute), and the Hubble Comet ISON Imaging Science Team Using evolutionary methods, comets are expected to only be able to last a comparatively short time. That means they should have all been used up if the universe was billions of years old. How do they get out of this? Imagination. In this case, the Oort Cloud . (Or is it the Kuiper Belt ? I keep getting the stories mixed up, as they are both far-fetched.) Comets and things are waiting out in space to be stirred up by something, although a plausible mechanism has not been put forth. It would be far better if they actually accepted the scientific evidence that the universe is far younger than evolutionists want to believe. They they would not need to resort to the complicated scientific principle called "Making Stuff Up". In September 20

Public Domain Illustration Stone tools in the Tertiary? Rubbish! That would change too many ideas of when humans diverged from apes. Therefore, the tools must not be actual tools, but rather, acts of nature or accidents mistaken for tools. Actually, there are strong indications that man was using stone tools much sooner than evolutionary presuppositions will allow. That is, they are in the wrong place. Sure, some things from nature and geologic conditions can resemble tools, but the trained eye can spot intelligence rather than superficial resemblances. Approximately between 1860 and 1930, in some cases even later, there was a discussion about flint findings from Paleocene to Pliocene strata which were similar to tools. The findings show typical marks of human processing. Nevertheless they were rejected as human relicts on the grounds that they had been formed by geological processes. But after decades of research there is still not the least indication of any reasonable sci

Once again, proponents of evolution are presenting "answers" through circular reasoning. Using the assumption that evolution is true, they use circular reasoning as a means of explanation for human characteristics. stock.xchng/justino307  The story goes that since humans do not have fangs, claws, great speed and so forth, it was necessary to evolve the ability to throw. Words like "probably", "we can surmise", "would have" and other vague terms while still asserting that evolutionary "theory" is essential to understand the mechanics of throwing. Not only is evolution misrepresented, but it is completely irrelevant to the ability to throw. Add to this the implication that evolution is some kind of intelligent entity that confers a benefit on organisms, and you can see how much faith is involved in evolutionism. Science news sites are talking about the evolution of human throwing, but it’s mostly speculation based on prior faith

We have already shown that textbooks contain bad and even fraudulent material . Although the secret is out, it is still happening: Junk is still in textbooks ( as you can see in the articles here ). Worse, people like Eugenie Scott and others encourage "educators" to lie to their students . The end justifies the means, ja mein herr?  One of the perpetually perpetrated propaganda pieces is the use of the Haeckel drawings that have been known to be fake for years. Let's not let false similarities deceive us. And yet, the topic is still controversial; not only is the subject a huge embarrassment to evolutionists, but some are still trying to defend the fraud! (One guy Tweeted to me that it didn't matter that the drawings were fake, they were still true — *facepalm*). While creationists may make mistakes, we do not resort to defending, rehabilitating and excusing outright fraud. It would help curtail the embarrassment if they did not keep putting this nonsen