Piltdown Superman

Evolutionists generally assume that evolution is true in the first place, and interpret their evidence based on that presupposition. If the facts do not fit, then there is something wrong. Get another "fact" to support evolution. This extends to creation scientists. "Creation scientist is an oxymoron". Unfortunately for that view, facts are facts; it is not a case of their facts versus our facts. It is the interpretations of the facts that cause the dissent, whether between creationists and evolutionists, or between scientists with similar biases. Many of these people are uninformed about the nature of "proof", as well. Here is a letter to Answers In Genesis: I read through your article concerning the existence and life of dinosaurs. Have you ever heard of radiometric dating? Different radioactive isotopes can be used to date material from bone fragments to rocks so in fact, yes there is a great amount of proof that the Earth is billions of year

Evolutionists sometimes seem almost hysterical. They will often find some example of "change" and then proclaim it to be evolution in action. The change they see is natural selection within genetic limits, not large-scale change into another creature altogether. Here, let a microbiologist explain. Photo by Scott Bauer/USDA The headline read, “Instant Evolution in Whiteflies: Just Add Bacteria.”[1] Any time I see the words instant , speedy , or sudden together with evolution, I’m intrigued. Evolution, as the term is commonly used, denotes an unobservable process that occurred in the past over eons of time resulting in the change of one kind of organism into a completely different kind of organism. According to evolutionary ideas, changes in organisms aren’t supposed to happen rapidly, hence the need to modify the word evolution with an adjective such as “instant” when a change does occur quickly. The whitefly under investigation was Bemisia tabaci or

If people were taught critical thinking instead of simply accepting what "science" tells them because it came from "science", there would be less credulity when it comes to evolutionary pronouncements. "It evolved this capability" could be met with, "How?" People do not seem to realize that the abilities that organisms have are complex, and everything must be in place at the same time. Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 all need to be fully functional, and there is no need  to evolve Item 1 by itself. The more specialized an organism's abilities, the more startling it becomes to us. Paddlefish, also known as spoonbill catfish, are cartilaginous fish that inhabit freshwater lakes. They only like to feed on plankton, a category of aquatic food that includes tiny crustaceans like brine shrimp and water fleas. Paddlefish hunt using sensors on their paddle, or nose, that guide them right to their small prey. Biologists from Ohio University recently dis

Evolutionists chant their mantras, including, "Gradual change over long periods of time". Natural selection is credited with not only having the ability to do the selecting for gradual change, but the power to bring about entirely new creatures. The orthodox evolutionist will often dream up explanations (and terms) that defy rational thought, but still cling to their faith. It would be helpful to everyone if they would just listen to themselves, and also follow where the evidence leads. How do species change? According to Darwinists, physical differences result from the accumulation of small changes over many generations. But observations—like a recent report of steelhead salmon that changed in one generation—show that dramatic trait changes happen fast. What does that mean for the evolutionary concept of the way species develop? While observing the migrating salmon population that inhabits Oregon's Hood River, an Oregon-based team of researchers built detailed fami

NOAA The faith of the evolutionist is amazing. This faith is based on their uniformitarian materialistic worldview, so it is difficult to show them that their presuppositions and, therefore, their explanations are faulty. Since many people have blind faith in scientism ("Maybe someday scientists will find an answer for our questions, but they're scientists, so they must be right"), it is difficult to get them to use their God-given thinking parts. They should be asking questions instead. Where is the evidence of this alleged evolution — really? It seem to me that common sense should be an enemy of evolutionism. When we are told that something evolved an amazingly unique capability, we should not have to suspend our disbelief so we can accept "what scientists say". Here is an example: An international team of biologists recently reported on the supposed evolution of sound production in perch-like fishes. Researchers know that some fish cause their

Here is a creationist discussion about dinosaur extinction. Did the K-T Boundary spell the end of the dinosaurs? What about that meteorite impact that some scientists believe caused their extinction? Perhaps it had something to do with the Global Flood. Reuters has reported that a panel of 41 scientists, presumably in lab coats and hailing from Europe, the United States, Mexico, Canada and Japan, have finally identified the smoking gun behind the extinction of the dinosaurs. Sorting through 20 years worth of research, the panel decreed that a giant asteroid 9 miles wide pounding into the Earth at  Chicxulubi is the only – I repeat – “only plausible explanation” for the extinction of the dinosaurs. Glad that’s settled. Well, pretty much. And only if you ignore the other theories that have been proposed over the years: that the dinosaurs died because it was too dry, too cold, too hot, too wet. That flowering plants didn’t provide adequate nutrition for the dinosaurs or ju

Continuing Dr. Oard's investigation of the Global Flood explanation of the K-T Boundary. Three further evidences commonly presented for the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary being the location of the Flood/post-Flood boundary are: (1) the Tertiary cooling trend, (2) Tertiary mammals of the western United States, and (3) Tertiary bird and mammal tracks and the Devils corkscrews. However, a close analysis of these suggests that they raise more questions than they answer, supporting the idea that the end of the Flood corresponds to the Late Cenozoic. Read the rest of "Is the K/T the post-Flood boundary?—part 2: paleoclimates and fossils", here .

From " Ark Encounter " The K-T boundary is a thin layer in the geologic column marking the transition from the Cretaceous system of rocks to the Paleogene system. The Cretaceous was the last  period of the Mesozoic era, and is traditionally abbreviated as "K". The Paleogene is the first period of the Cenozoic era, and the deprecated term tertiary ("T") refers to the the combination of the Paleogene and Neogene periods. The popular view is that this boundary was caused by the impact of a large asteroid 65.5 ± 0.3 million years ago, which also led to the extinction of the dinosaurs, although a number of mainstream geologists have questioned both points. [ 1 ] Biblical creation scientists do what other scientists do: Propose ideas and models, then see if the evidence supports them. One proposal is to determine if the "K/T boundary" could have been deposited during the Global Flood of Noah's time. Like many other forensic uncertain

“This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.” — Karl Marx, in a letter to Friedrich Engels about Darwin's book Although evolutionists attempt to deny history, evolutionary views ("survival of the fittest", " nature red in tooth and claw ", "natural selection") have been essential for all sorts of evils when applied to people. After all, using "science" seen in nature, it is natural to apply it to humans, yes? Darwinism has been at the root of " Social Darwinism ", the Nazi legal system , eugenics, abortion and other horrors . Since evolution gives a pseudo-intellectual rationale for a materialistic disbelief in the Creator, atheist communist power-lovers applied Darwinism to communism. Summary: A review of the writings of the founders of communism shows that the theory of evolution, especially as taught by Darwin, was critically important in the development of modern communi

Documentation has been presented here on  bad science , misconduct , silly mistakes that should not happen if care had been exercised, untruthful textbooks , fraud — and outright lies. It appears that "science" (that is, the evolutionary belief system about the past being equivocated with empirical science) needs to be protected. In that case, evolutionism does  need to be defended , because it is not true science. You can listen to her humiliate herself here . Are they afraid that the truth will come out? (Just earlier this evening, I had an atheist evolutionist lie to me, ridicule both me and creation science, adhere to his fundamentalist orthodox evolutionary religion and use horrible logic to protect evolutionism.) Dr. Eugenie Scott has been on a relentless crusade to keep Intelligent Design and creation science out of education. It appears that her ethics are severely lacking. In listening to this podcast, it really struck me how proponents of evolution  must lie

Somehow, the public has an image of scientists that are clever, dispassionate about facts, realistic about evidence and are above reproach. In last week's articles, we saw that they are indeed human, being prone to having ulterior motives and making mistakes [ 1 ,  2 ]. Here is some more information on scientific misconduct. Several recent articles by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) focused on the problem of unpublished clinical research trial data. University of Oxford's Richard Lehman and journal editor Elizabeth Loder wrote of "a current culture of haphazard publication and incomplete data disclosure [that] make the proper analysis of the harms and benefits of common interventions almost impossible for systematic reviewers."  Here's a sampling of recent issues that illustrate the problem: You can see the sampling and read "Is Scientific Misconduct on the Rise?" in its context, here .

Once again, I feel compelled to say this: If creation science and/or Intelligent Design did not have viable interpretations of the facts, then evolutionary theories would be able to put the competition away forever. But instead, "science" must be protected (such as banning the teaching of creation in British schools ). Perhaps evolutionists know that their system is intellectually and morally bankrupt, and have to keep the competition away? And then Dawkins gloats about educational censorship. Richard Dawkins and the British Humanist Association (BHA) are celebrating this week. Following the launch of their ‘Teach Evolution, not Creationism‘ campaign in September last year, the UK’s Department of Education has revised the regulations relating to teaching about origins in government funded schools. Those ‘free schools’ that teach creation or intelligent design (ID) in science lessons will, from now on, have their financial support withdrawn. Despite the media furore

To continue with our bad science education focus, today's article will discuss how the number of retractions has escalated dramatically. As I said before , people want the grants and prestige with being the one to discover or make up a new theory, so they rush their work to market. This results in some retractions. But even so, bad "science" is still in the textbooks. The number of retracted scientific papers has skyrocketed in the last decade. In 2010, two science editors started Retraction Watch, a blog dedicated to tracking science paper retractions. So far, the site has tracked about 200 papers. Retractions can occur for different reasons. About 73 percent of retracted papers in 2010 had errors, either in the research methods used or in the writing, and about 27 percent contained fraud, according to a recent presentation on the blog. But just because a retraction occurs doesn't mean that the flawed report goes away. Nature reported that 235

It seems that from the beginning of popular evolutionary theory, there has been a great desire to be the "next big thing". Darwin hurried to get his book published after he learned that Alfred Russell Wallace had a very similar idea. "Science" has subjected the public to Nebraska Man (built from the tooth of an extinct pig), Piltdown Man (a fake that fooled the scientific establishment for decades ) and many other spurious, suspicious, fraudulent "finds" in a relentless quest for self-promotion to be the next "discoverer" of nonexistent evolutionary proof. Since evolution is not observational science, but rather, a theory about past events using scientific methods ("historical science"); it is not testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable, verifiable and so on. But evolution is well funded, and people want that government grant money. (What happened to the alleged separation of church and state? Evolution is based on faith more

Any skilled revolutionary knows that one of the best ways to maintain power is to control the propaganda. For long-term power, control the education of children. "Scientific atheism", anti-religious propaganda and so on were standard operating procedure in the Soviet Union . Whether the old USSR or modern scientism, evolutionary propaganda is so blatant, it is downright arrogant. Misinformation, outdated material, bad science, cherry-picked "facts" — and any evidence contrary to evolutionism is strongly resisted. What chance does a student have to be able to think rationally and weigh the evidence if only pro-evolutionary propaganda is presented? A friend recently showed me a copy of his teenage son’s new science text book. He’s studying in a government high school in Queensland, Australia, and there’s a whole unit on evolution .  It made my blood boil. Kids have great text books these days—colourful, attractive, well laid out, and interesting.