Piltdown Superman

It is acknowledged that members of the media will run off with sensational science stories and exaggerate information, sometimes even making claims of which the scientists themselves are unaware. This brings two questions to my mind. First, should science publications show some restraint? Second, should they do some checking to make sure they are not contradicting their own worldview, even if scientists did make off-the-wall speculations? Image sources: Wikimedia Commons / PD / US morgueFile / dee37 In this case, evolutionists are up to their old tricks, imagining a connection (homology) so they can bolster their belief system even though the connection is unwarranted. Plus, claiming that birds evolved from hadrosaurs...oh, my. Never mind that they are continuing the mythology that dinosaurs evolved into birds, because dinosaurs ate birds , and bird fossils are found with dinosaur fossils . Then they have to explain how a fleshy appendage lasted for an alleged 65 million years

People say that "science corrects itself". (But "science" is not an entity, so right away, they are guilty of the fallacy of reification .) This is not completely true. When it comes to evolutionism, proponents will resort to various tricks to keep their worldview going despite the evidence. There are anti-creationists who insist that creationists (especially biblical creationists) are "liars" and "fact deniers". Their basis for such accusations? It is primarily because we do not believe in the atheistic, old-earth, evolutionary interpretations of the evidence. Further, we promote evidence that refutes evolution and affirms a young earth. This is contrary to the spirit of scientific inquiry. Interestingly, those who call us "liars" are guilty of blatant hypocrisy, promoting not only bad science, carelessness (by people who should know better), deception and even outright fraud. Worse than this, shoddy research and dishonest pron

The last podcast before Christmas! It's just under eight minutes, many of us are busy this time of year, no need to be lengthy. Continuing our series on informal logical fallacies, we examine and give examples (two, in the Atheopath Follies) of the "Straw Man Fallacy". The MP3 version can be downloaded here .   The straw man is a favorite among evolutionists and atheists, but is actually just a distraction. Don't fall for it. Be better than they are.  Apologies for the replacement microphone. I'll have to replace the replacement, this one makes it sound like I have a cold.

Some evolutionists postulate that stromatolites are an instance of the earliest life forms on Earth. (There are astrobiologists who hope to find the same things on Mars.) Unfortunately for them, the things they consider to be evidence in favor of evolution cause more problems than they solve. Wikimedia Commons / Didier Descouins Not only are microbially induced sedimentary structures remarkably the same today as they were in their multi-billion-year alleged history, they foul up the evolutionary timeline. And give support to the Noachian Flood model. Microbially induced sedimentary structures (MISS) in ancient Australian Archean rock match marks made by modern microbes. Strolling along the Dresser Formation in Western Australia, geobiologist Nora Noffke noticed that ancient Archean rocks were tattooed with familiar markings. The marks were identical to those made by mats of modern microbes as they interact with sediment that accumulates on top of them. Noffke is an exp

We often hear about "consensus" among evolutionary scientists. Well, not really. There is often dispute or even a complete absence of explanations as to how a critter evolved. For example, the shark. Evolutionary scientists do not know how teeth evolved , let alone the evolution of shark teet. Or the jaws. Or the eyes. Or... Credit: Freeimages / Tash Whiteley As usual, creationists do not have to come up with amazing tales that do not hold water. During a recent visit to Florida’s Clearwater Marine Aquarium, I peered into a tank containing a host of animals, including a sleek and formidable shark, and thought of evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Let’s test this statement by taking a closer look at prominent evolutionary research on the shark—teeth to tail. You can sink your teeth into " Shark Origins: An Evolutionary Explanation ".

In olden times, Art Linkletter had a presentation called Kids Say the Darndest Things (Bill Cosby tried it for a few years, too.) Someone should make a show called Scientists Say the Darndest Things . There is some weird stuff that is actually published and seriously presented as "science". What is stranger yet is that some people are receiving it as if to say, " Yahyuh, yahyuh, that makes good sense! " But perhaps I should not be surprised. There is a great deal of misinformation spread around as science, and people are not being taught to examine it. Rather than think critically, they are being conditioned to accept the proclamations of scientists without question. If people were trained (and even allowed) to examine evolution with contrary evidence included, there would be far fewer evolutionists in the world. Creationists do not need to resort to desperation or fabrication to fool people because science supports creation, not evolution. Things no one c

The good folks over at Creation Ministries International (easy to remember the site, creation.com ) have thousands of articles to help people see that microbes-to-microbiologist evolution is not supported by actual science. Actually, the science supports biblical creation. Regular readers know that it is one of my regular "go to" sites for information on these subjects. It is vital that organizations like this exist, because the Evo Sith are doing their best to obfuscate the facts, "spin" their interpretations of observable evidence, and even resort to deceit. (This is natural for their worldview, since it is rooted in materialism, time, random chance and mutations; they have no consistent moral standard and fight evidence for the Creator.) Textbooks are inaccurate, and evolutionist organizations actually tell people what and how to teach, and to tell the students what to think and believe. Sorry, Skippy, that is not education, it is indoctrination. The book