Piltdown Superman

Another attempt at manipulation is to use the Fallacy of Assertion, as well as Prejudicial Conjecture. They are very similar, and rather sneaky. Also includes another edition of the Atheopath Follies. The MP3 version can be downloaded here .

Instead of doing exploring how real science refutes evolutionary hypotheses and affirms biblical creation, we're going to look at the personal story of a scientist. Some atheists make the assertion, "You are only a Christian because you were born in a Christian country", but they cannot explain how they became atheists in "Christian" countries, nor can they explain Christians in countries that are atheist, Muslim, Hindu or have other religions. CreationSwap / Nichole McMaster My dear friend Ruby Faraday is probably one of the least likely people to become a creationist astronomer. Born in a Muslim country, raised with occult influences, victim of abuse, sometimes mocked for her dreams. Yet, the truth of the Word of God came through to her, and she worked hard to achieve her goals. And she still works toward her goals. I was born in a Muslim country and raised by non-Muslim parents, so how did I become a Christian Creation Scientist? Perhaps I am th

Secular scientists have a great deal to say about life, the universe and everything. But do they really know all that they pretend to know? Not really. Evolutionary pronouncements are ever-changing piles of speculations that are often riddled with bad science and even fraud, but fundamentalist evolutionists cling to their faith despite the evidence, not because of it. They do not want to admit that there is a Creator because that would mean that we should learn what he has to say. Satellite Image of Earth's Interrelated Systems and Climate / NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center Once in a while, an evolutionist admits that their views are loaded with difficulties. Of course, the faithful scream, "Quote mining!", but such charges are usually spurious. Especially when there are several in one article. There’s not much data, and there’s a lot of doubt and debate. That’s what a geologist admits about theories of early earth history. In "The Conversation"

Time and again, we run into acolytes of Scientism as the way to know truth and morality. Atheists will tell Christians, "We will replace you, and your kind will be gone in a hundred years", forgetting that this foolishness has been stated for a very long time. I remember seeing a news clip where someone was expressing her faith in science, "Scientists will come up with a pill or something". Science has severe limitations, and scientists acknowledge this fact. Some people view mathematics as the ultimate, purest form of science, but there are uncertainties there. (Ironically, many insist on materialistic presuppositions, but math is transcendent of matter .) Medical science has had many advances, but some things are remain incurable. Technology has given us many things to improve our lives, and also to destroy them. Why have faith in "science"? Perhaps it is to replace the God who is there and will hold us accountable. [Link removed, I learned tha

It appears that scientists may be giving up the notion that cranial capacity is a measure of intelligence that has been around a long time. For instance, in " The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle ", Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had his brilliant detective Sherlock Holmes use this belief: "For example, how did you deduce that this man was intellectual?" For answer Holmes clapped the hat upon his head. It came right over the forehead and settled upon the bridge of his nose. “It is a question of cubic capacity,” said he; “a man with so large a brain must have something in it.” That evolutionary assumption has been disproved . Now they're studying the intelligence of birds, a field that had been dismissed because of the same assumptions. (How about quantum mechanics used in their navigation ?) It turns out that crows, ravens and the like are much more intelligent than had been previously suspected. morgueFile/jpkwitter What began as a nice narrative about

We are taught in school that, essentially, a scientific theory uses accumulated knowledge and can be tested through empirical methods. (This differs from common use of "theory", which has a variety of loose definitions.) Every so often, a discovery that threatens goo-to-you evolutionary ideas is announced. Normally, a theory is adjusted to fit observed phenomena or even replaced. Phlogiston theory was proposed in 1667 as an explanation of why things burn (they contain the mysterious stuff), but with further research and discoveries, it was eventually abandoned. The General Theory of Evolution is the modern equivalent of phlogiston , but evolutionary scientists make guesses and conjectures to keep it going. The True Believers™ accept these stories as if they were verified facts, then claim to believe in "science" and call themselves "thinkers". Alternately, scientists and the faithful often ignore data that cause cognitive dissonance and continue to beli

The MP3 version can be downloaded here . I had a bit of fun with this one, so I hope it's both entertaining and informative. The Genetic Fallacy is far too common among evolutionists and atheists, and is a bad excuse to avoid actually examining the evidence that is presented. It is also an excuse to approve of something (similar to the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy). But there are times it is not actually a fallacy...