Piltdown Superman

Evolutionists dislike it when creationists bring up the fact that there are no true transitional forms in the fossil record. Part of the problem is that they understand "transitional" differently, with a vague definition similar to "a motorcycle is a transitional form between a bicycle and an automobile". We will point out that there are only a handful of candidates for true transitional fossils, where something is clearly on the way to becoming something else. There are no undisputed transitional forms, and evolutionists get angry when we quote paleontologists to that effect. We should see a huge numbers of fossils showing sequential progression (remember, there are billions of fossils in existence), but we see nothing of the kind. Bob Enyart and Fred Williams of Real Science Radio discussed the lack of transitional forms on their "Missing Fossils" show, click here to go to the page so you can listen online or download the show .

Some of Darwin's Cheerleaders think that they have a killing stroke against the biblical timeline by saying that counting tree rings reveals that some trees are older than the Genesis Flood. While this dendrochronology has some useful applications and can give general ideas, it is not a settled science. Credit: morgueFile / beglib The old adage of counting the rings to determine the age of the tree does not work as well as many people think. It is based on the assumption that a tree will yield one ring per year. However, trees can produce multiple rings in a year, skip a ring or produce indistinct rings. Other factors need to be considered. Dating a tree sounds simple—just count the number of rings from the trunk’s outer edge to its center and you discover the number of years the tree was alive. Secular researchers have determined that a few rare trees have more rings than the number of years since Noah’s Flood. Debater Bill Nye recently used these tree studies to chal

Some misotheists begin with the assumptions that they are somehow more intelligent than theists because they pretend that there is no God, and that theists are incapable of rational thought. Especially biblical creationists. Wrong. They seem willingly ignorant that many of the greatest scientists of all time have been biblical creationists, and they exist today as well . Rejecting evolution on both theological and scientific grounds does not mean that someone is stupid or uninformed; such assertions are fallacious. It's ironic when atheopaths use logical fallacies to tell us they're smarter than we are! Sometimes, it becomes difficult to distinguish between the fallacies, especially when they are blended together. Is the above only prejudicial conjecture, or does it include the genetic fallacy? At any rate, we can see that it is an attempt to berate creationists from someone who has unwarranted presuppositions. This begins to show that Christians and creationis

"Tweets" are  Public , Not Copyrightable  Proponents of evolution will sometimes attempt to distance themselves from the problem of the origin of life itself. Some will deny that evolution has anything to do with that subject (which is news to writers of textbooks, Neil deGrasse Tyson's Cosmos, David Attenborough's First Life  and so on). But still, they defend the arbitrary, circular reasoning of the  failed Miller-Urey experiment  and try to find explanations for abiogenesis, even though it violates scientific laws. The most logical explanation is that life was put here by the Creator. Goo-to-you, molecules-to-man, chemicals-to-cats,abiogenesis—all these terms refer to the essential starting point for evolution of life through natural processes. Yet in a massive review published in the American Chemical Society’sChemical Reviews, researchers report, “The origin of life is a fascinating, unresolved problem.” And it will remain unresolved for them until they a

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