Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen An occasional plot device in books, movies, and television is when a character uses untoward means to make a point. Perhaps he or she was ignored by the government or an employer about serious problems in software or something that were ignored, so the problem is dramatically demonstrated. In a similar manner, hoax papers have been submitted to peer-reviewed journals — and accepted. Credit: Unsplash / Christin Hume One notable incident was when Alan Sokal submitted an article to a postmodern journal in 1996, causing academic embarrassment. Postmodernism is where truth is relative and absolute truth is rejected. It is also self-refuting, inconsistent, and unlivable. Like atheism, when someone following either philosophy says that something is evil or wrong, that person is appealing to an absolute standard. Ultimately, they are appealing to the truth of God! Secular science has a definite leftist bias . Current sexual preference and science-denying &quo

Today is the 100th anniversary of Dr. Henry M. Morris' birth. I think he would approve of the continuing work of the Institute for Creation Research. Have you had the experience of buying a gift for someone and having it used for a purpose other than what it was intended? Maybe a thing that is sometimes called a "hot mat" or "hot pad" where cooks can take pots off the stove and set them on those so they do not damage the counter top. Some have nice images, which adds to the kitchen décor. I've seen them used as decorations on the wall. I wonder if Dr. Araujo may feel that way about her work on cells and mathematics. Image of cells credit: CSIRO  ( CC BY 3.0 ) Sure, there's no escaping math, it seems. You thought you were safe studying biology? Not happening, old son. Dr. Araujo's strength is in mathematics, but did a great deal of research in the logic used by cells for adaptation. Although she tried to apply her work to molecules-to-m

When hearing a Darwinist evosplain the process of how something got here, you are going to hear a wagon train-load of arbitrary assertions. Instead of beginning at the beginning and investigating if  something evolved according to their definitions of the word, they skip that step and begin with how  it evolved. That is, they presuppose Darwinism. Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Pirex Imagine this scenario where a creationist is having a discussion with Rusty Swingset, the foreman at the Darwin Ranch: Rusty Swingset: Now we'll look at how this plant evolved. Inquirer: How do you know it evolved? Rusty: That's how things work. Inquirer: You have quite a few assertions and tell an interesting story, but do you have a mechanism? Rusty: It evolved the way all things do. Inquirer: Is there any empirical evidence to go with the story? Rusty: It evolved, ya idjit! Now shut up and swallow your propaganda! They get on the prod when people do more than just accept their mate

The Grand Canyon is a destination for people who are interested in geology, whether professionals or amateurs. A passel of tourists go there as well. Purveyors of deep time claim that it is a great place for their beliefs, and biblical creationists say that it has evidence for the Genesis Flood. In fact, several creationary organizations organize tours and explain how the evidence supports the Flood. Instead of shying away, they get intense and some even go rafting. Credit: Pixabay /  Bettina Nørgaard As creationists have said many times, everyone has the same facts. It is the interpretation  of the facts that bring on the science shootouts. Those interpretations are based on worldviews. Secularists demand deep time so Darwin can perform his prestidigitation, and have a bad habit of ignoring evidence that supports the Genesis Flood. See those layers that the woman is seeing out yonder? Those layers are all over the world, but they're not always nice and level. Some are at a

A persistent purveyor of evoporn named Nathan Lents wrote a book to continue the oft-refuted untruth that the human body is poorly designed. An article derived from his book was syndicated in several newspapers, and Darwin's Flying Monkeys© gibbered with glee. It also caused some irritation to creationists, since we have to explain why this otherwise well-informed individual is saying things that are not true. They also defy common sense; for being "poorly designed", our bodies do quite well. Notice that they ignore material that they cannot explain away, such as " Humans: Better Designed and Capable than Darwinism Can Explain ". People are willing to confiscate excuses to deny God, so they pay people like Lents to provide them. I lack belief that he is being truthful. Credit: Unsplash /  Kristopher Roller Whenever you come across an argument from dysteleology (if there's a Creator, he fouled up), it smacks of personal preference, ignorant statements

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Back in the 1960s, the "Age of Aquarius" was supposedly dawning, and everything would be peace, love, and grooviness, man. People were investigating Eastern spiritualism, using recreational drugs, having casual sex, rebelling against "the establishment", and more. In later years, these attitudes, beliefs, and actions were somewhat unified under what became called the New Age. (Ironically, those who rebelled against the establishment have become  the establishment themselves, but never mind about that now.) There is still an undercurrent in many New Age philosophies that include Eastern mysticism. You may get a blank stare if you use the term New Age. It is less popular now, and some people prefer to call it new spirituality , but it is still the same. What practitioners do not realize is that there is not much "new" happening, it is actually a conglomeration of repackaged very old religious views. Some of the trimmings seem ne

Evolutionists did bad science with the chimpanzee genome so they could propagate the "humans are 98.5 percent  similar to chimps" falsehood.  To do this, they used their limited knowledge of genetics (a field which is still growing rapidly) and did some dirty science by selecting data that would confirm their biases, stitched the chimpanzee genome together , and even had samples contaminated by human DNA. Then Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ grabbed the sanitized false report and whooped all over that Darwin was right. But they're wrong. Credit: RGBStock / Savvas Stavrinos Creationists have been saying all along that even if that genome similarity number was true, there are still massive dissimilarities between apes and humans, genetics notwithstanding. The small number of genetic difference between humans is apparent in the variations between people if you take a stroll down a city sidewalk. Creationists have pointed out that the science promoting genomic similarities