Piltdown Superman

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is expressing surprise that the Cosmos  series has been examined by Answers In Genesis (among others; Creation Ministries International reviewed a couple of episodes ). AiG put a considerable amount of work in showing how he expressed his opinions as facts, gave incomplete information and did quite a bit of misrepresentation of Christian material. In fact, AiG wants people to watch the episodes, then use their material to learn the truth. Neil deGrasse Tyson, host of TV’s Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey, says he wonders why anyone pays attention to what Ken Ham says about science or about his 13-part Cosmos series. Tyson, in an interview with Alternet, suggests biblical creationists like Ken Ham and the scientists at Answers in Genesis are a small and insignificant Christian fringe group that only bothered writing weekly critiques of the Cosmos series to take advantage of media attention garnered through the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate in February: You have to ask

Uncle Pilty wants me to remind you that we use unregistered assault keyboards in the creation resistance army against the establishment of evolutionary dogma. Let's go... Evolution is called a theory (and many of its adherents refer to it as an incontrovertible fact), but it has very little resemblance to what Darwin popularized long ago. Today's Darwinism relies to a great extent on DNA and the amazing idea that we can have genetic mistakes causing us to evolve upward. Evolutionists will say that DNA is proof of evolution, and that they have made accurate predictions. Oh, really? Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures Darwinists will claim that there are predictions based on DNA that are fulfilled in evolutionary theory. That is not quite right. They use logical fallacies like circular reasoning , affirming the consequent , insufficient evidence (including ignoring other possible explanations for what has been observed), and so on. The truth of the matter is, DNA is a frien

At this writing today is August 30, 2014 and the Rosetta spacecraft has entered orbit around Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenk. (It is an understatement to say that this is an ambitious undertaking, since the flight alone has taken ten years.) The Philae probe is expected to land on the comet in a few weeks, and several sites have been projected . Comet on 23 August 2014 - NavCam / Copyright ESA / Rosetta / NAVCAM And I thought the 1986 Vega probes that dealt with both Venus and Halley's Comet were big deals! Well, they were for that time. It's interesting to me that the Rosetta will be using outdated equipment, because a great deal has changed in the ten years since it was first launched. But "old" does not mean ineffective. Secular scientists are starting with the presuppositions that comets are building blocks of the solar system. By rendezvousing with this comet, they hope to find secrets to the origins of many things, possibly even life itself. Not har

Give us a kiss... It is becoming more frequent when "science" is promoting an agenda — usually, a leftist agenda. Sure, science is great when discussing sex properly and scientists are actually doing real science. But when we have bad science and pseudoscience being used to ridicule traditional sexual values, promote promiscuity and abortion, get involved in government-mandated contraception, supporting gender confusion — the false researchers and the science press do not keep their own domain and abandon their proper abode, there is a problem. Especially since so many people will accept what "scientists say" without question, even when scientist say things that have nothing to do with science. To what extent should scientists presume to offer advice about sexual matters? Beyond providing descriptions of body parts and how they work, science exits its domain when telling people how they should behave or think about sex. Yet repeatedly, editorials in jou

It has been made into a joke where royal persons referred to themselves in the plural, such as, "We are not amused". Although they had no way of knowing it, they were more correct than they knew — but for different reasons. We are not alone inside ourselves. There are billions of microorganisms living there, coexisting and even helping us thrive. Naturally, evolutionists will assert that they gradually evolved along with us, but they do not offer models, believable explanations or anything other than assertions. In fact, to want us to believe such a thing is asking quite a bit. Further, they equivocate "evolution" with "adaptation", and make it sound like microbes-to-man evolution is realistic, but such a word game is disingenuous at best. It makes much more sense to believe that they are doing what they are designed to do from the beginning. By learning more about “who” lives in you in sickness and in health and what they are doing, medical scient

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen When running this online creation science ministry, and being in contact with others who stand for biblical creation, we see some pretty vicious stuff from anti-creationists and misotheists. (When I say that I am a biblical creationist, I mean that I believe in a literal six-day recent creation as well as the global Flood, according to what the Bible teaches.) Evolution is a cornerstone for atheism and liberal Christianity (or a word I like to use for liberal religion, “churchianity”), and they detest those of us who will not compromise on what the Bible says. Several creationist Pages on social media are what I consider "link mills", simply pasting links to creation science articles ( sometimes sending them to sites that are, as a whole, opposed to our message even though the specific articles may be adequate). Some of us strive to aim higher, and are very selective in what links we post. In addition, we encourage people to learn how to

Helium was detected on the moon during solar eclipses. There are claims that helium-3 is too abundant for the young universe models of biblical creationists, but there are problems with these claims. One is that it is rather difficult to actually measure. Another is that there are many assumptions involved. A third problem is that several factors that can lead to an abundance of He-3 are not taken into account by evolutionists, and the amount of helium on the moon is not a problem for creation science. Helium-3 arises from the radioactive decay of tritium, a ‘heavy’ isotope of hydrogen containing one proton and two neutrons. Through beta decay one of the neutrons in the nuclei emits an electron and is converted into a proton; thus the new atomic nuclei has two protons and one neutron turning an isotope of hydrogen into an isotope of helium (31H → 32He + e). This decay process has a half-life of about 12.3 years. Helium-3 also arises from complex nuclear processes in the sun and