Piltdown Superman

I managed to keep this one under seven minutes. The False Dilemma Fallacy is used frequently. It is slightly misnamed, sometimes used unwittingly, but I have found that it is usually a cunning attempt to force someone to choose between two possibilities when there are really more than two.  One example that I forgot to include in the video and remembered after it was complete is often found on Facebook. People will post something along the lines of, "If you care about this problem, you will share this picture". It implies that you either care (demonstrated by sharing the thing) or that you do not care (by not sharing). Possibilities that were omitted include: You spotted the fallacy and will not participate even though you really do care about the issue Thinking that sharing does not help solve the problem Someone was busy and forgot to come back and share it. I've seen things related to this where someone says, "I'm updating my friend list, comment i

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Creationists expect to be ridiculed, lied to (and lied about) by atheists and anti-creationists. That goes with the territory. But what happens when someone wants to gain information about creation science and theology but may not realize that the site or social media location has a more insidious goal? Recent experiences prompted me to seek counsel from Christian friends, and this article is the result. It is going to be different from most of the material here; I want to caution people who are looking for good creation science and theological material. That sounds strange, but stay with me on this as it can be very important for your spiritual well-being. Background I choose from a variety of sources for the featured articles and to include in the Creation Links section. Sometimes the individual article is acceptable, but I do not want to risk sending someone to a site that may lur

Many people find various creatures to be creepy or annoying, and sometimes both. Darwin's Cheerleaders are unable to have a coherent explanation for the evolution of the mole because (yet again) the fossil record is a hostile witness. Creationists see the different kinds of moles as yet another testimony to the wisdom of the Master Designer. For fans of Kenneth Grahame’s classic The Wind in the Willows, mention of a mole conjures up images of a quaint bespectacled creature renowned for his loyalty to his friends. However, to most residents of Europe, Britain and the US, moles are simply pesky animals that leave behind untidy molehills, destroy crops and fields, and damage tree roots and plants with their burrowing.  Neither conception does justice to the remarkable physical traits of the mole. Classified in the family Talpidae and the insect-eating order Insectivora, moles have an array of design features perfect for their subterranean lifestyle. Dig into the rest of this

Have you seen that picture with the caption, "We have the fossils. We win"? It's not true. Well, you can "win" if you move the goalposts by reinterpreting the data. Nobody has their own facts. The disagreements come when people interpret the evidence differently. Image * After (modified) As I keep saying, everyone has presuppositions by which they interpret data. Evolutionists start with the assumptions that the earth is billions of years old, that evolution happened, and that so-called "index fossils" are reliable. When fossil discoveries persistently cause difficulties for paleontologists and they have to resort to increasingly absurd explanations for discrepancies, they should seriously consider using the far more believable Noachian Flood model. Do rocks and fossils hold clues that demand millions-of-years? Not the fossils from China's Daohugou beds. On the contrary, their clues speak to more recent origins.   Accessible from severa

People will interpret things according to their worldview. This includes their experiences, education, religion, upbringing and presuppositions. It is not unexpected when proponents of evolution will attempt to interpret data using an evolutionary framework, as creationists will interpret data within a creationist framework. But sometimes evolutionists get ludicrous when they attribute just about everything to evolution. Now it is posited that beards are a product of evolution. Yes, really. But this smacks of desperation (or possibly obsession), since the research is extremely slipshod. But it is true to other evolutionary models: Incomplete data while ignoring better explanations. Noting shifting fashions in men’s facial hair, some evolutionists are trying to link them to Darwinism.  It’s not controversial that beards go in and out of style; they’re hip now, but may be on the way out. What should make men twirl their mustaches is the notion that their morning soliloquy,

"Why don't you write a paper that refutes evolution, get it peer reviewed and get a Nobel Prize?", he smirked. Similarly, "Show me proof of creation, but only from peer reviewed sources", she insisted. Generally, there are some assumptions made with statements and questions like that: Creation science is not "real" science Creationist scientists are not "real" scientists Creationist scientists do not publish in scientific journals, nor have they had their work peer reviewed Peer review guarantees that the material is accurate Peer review us uncluttered with biases and personal views Also, people making such statements are showing ignorance of what really goes on in the peer review process, and that the Nobel Prize has been awarded to people who were rejected by the peer review process. It is a valid process, but peer review does have some serious drawbacks . And yes, creationist scientists do  publish in scientific journals . But

Someone may ask why creation science ministries discuss theology and the historical fact of the bodily Resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Biblical creationists take Genesis very seriously, as it is the foundation for all major Christian doctrines . Jesus is God the Creator , the second person of the Trinity, who became a man . He suffered on the cross for our sins, reconciling those who receive him to God, rose from the dead and defeated death . Jesus is " the last Adam ", not, "the latest in a chain of evolutionary processes". Jesus and the apostles referred to Genesis as literal history, not as allegorical or fictional. Biblical creationists would like to plead our case to other Christians and show them why Genesis matters . Rembrandt, "Resurrection of Christ", 1639 Below is a short video discussing "The Resurrection and Genesis", and here is a link to the article under discussion , which has a great deal of useful information that

This is written primarily for Christians, although unbelievers may be interested in the historical and cultural material. Edited 10 April 2022, added a video at the end that addresses some of these issues and more. It is interesting that some mockers will ridicule Christians by saying, "You celebrate Easter! That's a pagan holiday!" The joke is on them because they are simply parroting bad information that conflicts with scholarly research. Unfortunately, some Christians also believe this pagan origins stuff; there are even modern Christian sources (such as Got Question.org) that pass along erroneous information. It is sad when some Christians will use the same bad sources as misotheists in their efforts to scold other Christians for celebrating Easter. Ignorance of actual history is bad enough, but looking down on brethren in Christ out of pride and out of disdain for the Bible that they claim to believe is far worse. Even if the claims that the origin of the wo

Here is a song that has always resonated with me. Although the song is not specifically for Good Friday, the video that was made is appropriate for the day. The song is "The Dark Hills" by Day of Fire. God the Son, the Creator , humbled himself and became a man . He died on the cross and bodily rose from the dead on the third day out of love for my sinful self. And for you, if you will repent and receive the free gift of salvation . Sunday's coming!

In an article called " Radical Environmentalism and the War on Humans ", it was pointed out that environmentalism has some good elements that are based on compassion and what should be common sense. The extremist view is dangerous; I do not say that lightly, since some people advocate exterminating millions, or billions of people because Earth is more important than humans to some of them.  One aspect of this is "animal rights". This, too, is based on compassion and what should be common sense. Indeed, standing against animal cruelty is in line with biblical values. However, the extremists want to give animals the status of "personhood". (Hypocritically, an unborn human child is not a person to them and has the moral equivalent of lettuce.) This is based on evolutionary thinking. Creationists point out that people are made in God's image, and are special. Evolutionists degrade humans because of their evolutionary mindset. (Will bigoted, hat