Piltdown Superman

The past two weeks have had some complicated material on DNA and so forth. Next week, we will look at some shorter and less "heady" material. Library of Congress/F.B. Johnson (modified) One of the problems with evolutionism is when its fundamentalists accept the pronouncements of scientists and educators, even when the information is inaccurate, misleading, outdated and even fraudulent. (In some ways, it is not entirely the fault of the faithful, as they are not given knowledge of evolutionism's failings and errors  1 , 2 ,  3 , and being a liar for Darwin is acceptable to evolutionists  4 .) Then these fundamentalists spread bad science. When the general public are not skilled in chemistry, they can be fooled. Evolutionary biochemistry has some serious problems: Chemical stability, chemical reactivity and chemical selectivity are noteworthy. According to modern evolutionary theory, the recipe for life is a chance accumulation of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, a

Found this on Facebook, and then improved on it:

Kinesin image modified from Wikipedia This is another of those times that I am glad to be a creationist, since the science is on our side. The intricate detail and activities in a single cell (which was formerly thought of as "simple") is astonishing. There is no way that such a thing could be the product of the blind, gibbering mad god of chance. Natural selection? No way. It astonishes me that people who actually know something about the complexity of organisms can still cling to their materialistic naturalism worldview and say that there is no Creator. After having showcased some rather technical articles lately, this one was a nice change. The information is a bit technical at times, but presented with an analogy that is easily understood. Kinesin molecules are motor proteins found inside living things. Known as the ‘workhorse of the cell’, they haul vital cargo along roadways in cells called microtubules. Steven Block (professor of applied physics and of biologica

Over and over, the problem of confusion over definitions of terms arises. When someone says "evolution", they may be thinking of several possible definitions while the listener thinks they are referring to "molecules-to-man" evolution. This problem also exists in discussions about DNA, genes, mutations and especially "information". Do mutations add information to genes? Some people manipulate words to turn that into a "yes". So, it depends on your definitions. Here is a rather technical article. People who think they can refute it can also deal with the fifty supporting links: In the same way that species are not static, neither are genomes. They change over time; sometimes randomly, sometimes in preplanned pathways, and sometimes according to instruction from pre-existing algorithms. Irrespective of the source, we tend to call these changes ‘mutations’. Many evolutionists use the existence of mutation as evidence for long-term evolution, but

DNA Understanding Information: Why Snowflakes and the Lottery Have Nothing to Say about Evolution by Kevin P. Moritz The Lottery Frequently, in creation/evolution discussions and debates, the odds are brought up concerning the probability of random forces creating the order of amino acids in DNA. And it’s rightly pointed out by creationists that for such huge, encyclopedic amounts of genetic information, the odds that it could have come about randomly are practically 0. In reply, the opposition (usually those among it that have little understanding of the issue) often responds with arguments such as the following: “The odds that any one person will win the lottery are extremely small, but someone wins it every week” or “Shuffle a deck of cards, and the odds against its resulting order are inconceivably small, yet there it is.” There are two points to consider, though, in these types of arguments. The first is that when you shuffle a deck of cards, a resulting order has  to happen.

The concept that scientists observe phenomena and then develop hypotheses to explain them is an oversimplification. To say that scientists are neutral and completely unbiased is fiction. Everyone has a frame of reference (including education and experience) as well as biases. It is a part of being human. Like their secular counterparts, creationist scientists will see how data fit within their framework. This technical article about the KIT gene explores variation within a Biblical framework. Identifying mutations and patterns of their appearance and impact is important in furthering the biblical creation model. Genes affecting coloration are relatively easy to identify and several have been well studied. Here, variation in a gene affecting the development and movement of pigment cells,  KIT , is examined. This complex gene codes for a complex protein important in a number of pathways. Many mutations have been identified in each of the species studied. Interesting examples of epige

Those of us who do research and have interactions online deal with substantial venom from Darwin's cheerleaders. They assail us with various falsehoods: Evolution is a proven fact The Miller experiment proves evolution Haeckel's drawings of embryos prove evolution There are no creationist scientists There is no science in Intelligent Design And so on, ad nauseum. Outside the Internet, where policies, rules and education happen, the foolishness listed above is negligible compared to the additional attempts made to protect "science". The way to make a concept impregnable is to use rhetorical devices to render competition out of bounds, and then nationalize the favored view.  An  AP  story demonstrates how this is done with evolution. John Hanna’s report on PhysOrg about draft science standards in Kansas renders any competitors to Darwinian evolution off limits. “Kansas is now among 26 states helping to draft new science standards  alongside the National Research

This post will be in two sections. First, an encounter with a fundamentalist evolutionist and his blatant dishonesty. Second, an article by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell of "Answers in Genesis" regarding Russell Garwood's urging of the faithful to "defend evolution". stock.xchng/mrscenter YouTube is a free-for-all with rants from atheist evolutionists. Nearly anything goes, including bad logic, misrepresentation and outright dishonesty. The Internet is a hotbed of atheists, but few sites are as enthusiastically pa- trolled as YouTube: This tinhorn is either very ignorant, or, as I strongly suspect, very dishonest. (Unfortunately, it is typical of people of his ilk who want to protect their religion.) The old "there is no such thing as a creationist scientist" line is invoked to provoke; it is easily disproved by anyone who cares enough to do an Internet search. Here are two links. First, "Who We Are" at the "Institute for Cre

Evolutionists and atheists use logic that is unarguable. That is because it is so appallingly bad, the flaws are indescribable. The fact that they misrepresent their opponents is almost expected. But when an evolutionist goes further and misrepresents science itself, the result is rather startling. An obvious problem with evolution is its claim that complex designs arose spontaneously. Imagine some spark plugs, valves and other assorted mechanical parts coming together to form an engine. It’s unlikely no matter how many years you have. What evolutionists would need to show is that there is a long, long sequence of simpler, intermediate designs which gradually lead from a lifeless warm little pond to the incredible species in today’s world. Of course they have shown no such thing—not even close. So instead evolutionists use sophistry—explanations that are so flawed and illogical they cannot even be said to be wrong. For example, professor and National Academy of Sciences member