Piltdown Superman

To say that evolutionists misrepresent creationists is not only an understatement, is is also not really news. Another "not really news" item is to report that evolutionists tend to make assertions that are unsupported by (or contrary to) the evidence. Those old news items are documented here and elsewhere. What is more interesting is the way that evolutionists will take evidence that refutes their paradigm and present it as support for their belief system. What is worse is that gullible people will simply take their word for it because they're "scientists", and then try to use it in their attacks on creationists. Here we see scientists giving credit to "evolution" ( fallacy of reification ) and making the bad news sound good. The truth is on the side of creationists, so we do not need to resort to creative deceptions and wild stories to convince people. The “modern optics” of arthropods found fossilized in ‘Early Cambrian’ South Australian sh

Atheism is an easy religion. Just say you don't believe. Standing up for the truth of the Bible is hard, and you will be persecuted. A 1987 song by Steve Taylor comes to mind, " Harder to Believe than Not To " (inspired by Flannery O'Connor). I like where it says, "Are you sturdy enough to move to the front? Is it nods of approval or the truth that you want? And if they call it a crutch, then you walk with pride, Your accusers have always been afraid to go outside" . Right! We take our stand for the truth, and atheopaths throw rocks from the safety of "I don't believe", yet consider themselves crusaders for "reason", even when they do not know how to use logic, nor do they have a source for a consistent moral standard. What about agnostics? I am convinced that many are atheists who want even less of a commitment, but they still throw rocks right along side the hatetheists. I still have hopes for those who are honestly seeking,

And now for something completely different. This will be much lighter fare, informative and possibly a bit entertaining. Two of the fallacies that creationists often encounter when giving evidence that refutes evolution is Appeal to Authority . Sometimes it's spurious (such as believing that atheist evolutionist Richard Dawkins is an expert on biblical creationist theology), sometimes it is valid (such as believing that Dr. Jason Lisle knows about astrophysics). And sometimes it is used instead of bothering to think, such as, "Most scientists believe in evolution, so they must be right". Or worse, appealing to some vague and often inaccurate concept of "consensus", because consensus does not validate truth or science . When scientists actually practice real science instead of furthering ideologies, various "facts" and things accepted by consensus have come and gone. Sometimes things are believed for a long time by many people and then they go

Several conjectures for the condition of the universe have been proposed through the years. The Big Bang was not widely accepted as the origin of the universe until the 1960s, even though the concept had been put forward years before. Some of the resistance was due to how it indicated that the universe had a beginning, and other concepts (such as the Steady State and the Static) had a kind of "it was always there" approach. Many secular scientists as well as biblical creationists reject the Big Bang due to various scientific difficulties. Both biblical and secular scientists have postulated erroneous explanations. Nine-Year Microwave Sky / NASA / WMAP Science Team Predictions were made that there would be background radiation. The idea was that if this was found, it would not only prove the Big Bang, but disprove the Steady State of the universe. This background exists in microwave form, and the Steady State was largely abandoned. Proponents of the Big Bang believe

When defending the truth of biblical creation science, sometimes we need to correct enthusiastic but inaccurate creationists about using bad arguments. It is indeed unfortunate that evolutionists do not feel the same way about correcting their  uninformed supporters. The article linked below describes several arguments that are common on the Web. Some of us are more public than others, so we encounter them frequently. It infuriates some of Darwin's Cheerleaders that we often know more about evolution than they do, and have to correct them about their own belief system! Why  they feel the need to patrol the Web and attack evolution unbelievers, I can only guess. Some even claim that they are protecting "science". Ridiculous. Science does not need protecting!  In fact, true science flourishes when scientists will examine contrary evidence instead of suppressing it like people are doing today. One "argument" that is not on the list is when we get people who

I was going to ignore this story until one of Darwin's Cheerleaders posted it at me as if it refuted this entire article exposing the Tyson version of Cosmos . Here is a bit of humor to start us off. It was originally an ethnic joke (the nationalities are changed in various places on the Web) that I re-purposed. After having dug to a depth of 10 meters last year, scientists from Dawkinsania found traces of copper wire dating back 100 years and came to the conclusion that their ancestors already had a telephone network more than 100 years ago. Not to be outdone by the Dawkinsanians, in the weeks that followed, Tysonian scientists dug to a depth of 20 meters, and shortly after, headlines in the Tysonian newspapers read: "Our archaeologists have found traces of 200 year old copper wire and have concluded that our ancestors already had an advanced high-tech communications network a hundred years earlier than Dawkinsania." One week later, "The New Phys Science N

Darwin's Cheerleaders falsely claim that a proper understanding of evolution is essential to the progress of science. (Another of their false claims is that scientists who reject evolution are not true scientists, which is essentially an arbitrary, ideological litmus test to define "scientist".) Evolution has nothing to do with the advancement of science and technology. A scientist's rejection of evolutionism will not affect his or her ability to perform medical science or calculate rocket trajectories, and this has been shown many times. Origins science has effects, and is not just a parlor discussion. The truth is that the presumption of evolution has actually been harmful to the advancement of science. Biblical-based presuppositions lead to better science. “It doesn’t really matter, in the real world, what you believe about creation or evolution,” the college student glibly challenged me. “Whether the evolutionists are right or whether Genesis is right

The public has an idealized concept of scientists as being dispassionate, willing to follow where the evidence leads, unbiased — you know, not really human. They may not even want to be on the pedestal that some people put them upon. In fact, they have the same ambitions, moral failings and even biases just like us reg'lar folk. Quite likely, even more so.  The worldviews of evolutionary scientists compels them to promote their own dogma. It is fine to deceive students because the end (belief in evolution) justifies the means. Darwin's Cheerleaders are willing to troll, libel, defame, and use bad logic. Not surprising, really, since many scientists and especially their press are setting examples with poor reasoning. There should be no reason to criticize them for fraud and other shenanigans such as tampering with the data or telling "stories". Survival of the fittest is a part of evolutionary theory, remember? They are being consistent with their worldview.

This is a great time to be a creationist! The more science and technology advance, the more we learn about God's creation — and the more absurd the hypothesis of evolution really is. Evolution has been repeatedly falsified on earth and in space, and creation science is being verified. NASA, ESA, and S. Beckwith (STScI) and the HUDF Team In space, no one can hear cosmologists scream about the failings of their presuppositions. Galaxies are " too perfect ", refuting the Big Bang. Blue stars , stars that should not even exist  — and galaxies that are "too mature". The Big Bang cosmology is in a death spiral, with circular reasoning, "maybe", "must have", "probably", plus other unfounded assertions, speculations and logical fallacies passed off as "science". Fifteen years ago, no cosmologist would have predicted mature galaxies early on, but they keep getting found – earlier and earlier.  Astronomers just set a new

It is expected that people will interpret what they see according to their worldviews. Scientists are like other people, everyone has a starting point. Forcing observed data into presuppositions instead of taking using their own guideline of "follow where the evidence leads" causes problems. Especially when their preconceptions are repeatedly shown to be flawed. Woolly mammoth cave art from Les Combarelles, France / PD In their attempts to explain the extinction of the woolly mammoths, scientists are assuming several things: There were several ice ages (we are between them right now), evolution is true, the earth is billions of years old and so on. When thoroughly examined,  latest "explanation" for extinction raises more questions than it answers. However, models of the global Genesis Flood are far more plausible.  Researchers claim to potentially have solved the mystery of the wooly mammoth’s mass extinction. After drilling permafrost cores in Alaska,