Piltdown Superman

Sometimes, evolutionary "explanations" require the suppression of remarks like, "You gotta be kidding!" in public because they are ridiculous even on the surface. Of course, if a silly explanation of how something evolved is challenged, you may have to endure the standard, "What's your  degree in?", as if only the educated elite are allowed to challenge evolution. But I know stupid stuff when I hear it. Evolutionists attempt to use their worldviews and extrapolate faulty principles with unintentionally humorous results. Sometimes Darwinians are funny.  They take themselves so seriously, applying natural selection to everything on earth except their own seriousness.  Charlie Green:  At New Scientist, Mark van Vugt and Vladas Griskevicius think a little applied Darwinism can turn us a different color.   “ Let’s use evolution to turn us green ,” they said.  People want to be green, but they are too stuck in their old ways.  Why? It may be time

As most of you probably know, evolution cheerleader Bill Nye let fly with an anti-creationist video that got him into trouble with creationists. Ken Ham, Dr. Georgia Purdom and Answers in Genesis issued a debate challenge , followed by an additional challenge . Modified from Clker An update in Ken Ham's October 25,2012 Weblog has additional information: A number of people have asked Answers in Genesis if we would be open to the possibility of debating the TV personality known as “Bill Nye the Science Guy” (of PBS TV and the Disney Channel)—after Nye’s harsh anti-creationist video went viral on YouTube.  At last count, over 4.8 million people have watched him make a number of misrepresentations about the creationist position. We posted our own rebuttals to YouTube (“ Bill Nye, Creationism is Highly Appropriate for our Children ” and “ Ken Ham Responds to Bill Nye ‘The Humanist Guy’ ”). We did publicly challenge Bill Nye to a debate on my blog, but we have also made a

A Republican Congressman, Representative Dr. Paul Broun, Jr. is a medical doctor. In addition to having a science background, he is the Chairman of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee for the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee". He spoke at a church function . He referred to evolution as "lies from the pit of hell". This set evolution propagandists into a frenzy. After all, what business does someone knowledgeable in science have badmouthing a state-sponsored belief system? He should keep his views to himself, because freedom of speech is only allowed if it is acceptable speech! That bulwark of unbiased journalism known as CNN did a piece on this story. They interviewed "scientist" Bill Nye (funny how someone whose only earned science degree is a Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering is referred to as a scientist, but PhD scientists who believe in creation are not "real" scientists, go figure). CNN also interviewed Dr. Jason

Once again, evolutionists have had things wrong and have been misrepresenting the data. It had been assumed that intelligence was based on cranial capacity, and evolutionary fitness came about from having a larger brain. But it turns out that things are much more complicated than that, and the body would have to evolve in order to accommodate a larger brain. Creationists do not have to come up with such cockamamie schemes. Brain size can’t be used as an independent measure of fitness, five evolutionary anthropologists contend. How long have evolutionists told us that our relative brain size gave us the fitness edge as we evolved from apes?  That assumption has been called into question by Jeroen B. Smaers and four European colleagues in a new paper in  PNAS. . . . Dr Jeroen Smaers ( UCL  Anthropology and  UCL  Genetics, Evolution & Environment), lead author of the study said: “When using brain size relative to body size as a measure of intelligence,  the assumption has

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.” — Charles Darwin It has long been established that evolution is racist in nature , and has been used to justify racism . This goes back to Darwin's writings as well. But what happens when one racist-based pseudoscience is used to support another racist-based pseudoscience? Phrenology , was pseudoscience that postulated that the size and shape of the skull indicated levels of intelligence. Although its advocates stu

This edition will probably appeal to Christian apologists most of all. Sunday, October 14, 2012 was an interesting day for me. I was invited ("invited" as in, "hounded the guys until they gave in") to be on the "Evidence 4 Faith" radio show/podcast . Host Keith Kendrix was away, and Kirk Hastings was filling in. It was my first live guest spot on a radio show , not including call-in shows. (Before that, I was involved in a three-part   podcast for Theopologetics , but that was recorded and not a live broadcast .) I was hesitant a few times, not wanting to steamroll over Kirk — it's not my  show. And I had a dry throat problem on occasion. By the way, they've read my letters a coupl e of times on the air. One of my haters wrote to them in response and told them what a bad man I am. I bet he loves this development. Enough of the personal stuff. We discussed several things, including logic, atheism (which is fundamentally flawed), e

One of the most interesting insults that I have ever been given was that of a "serial fact denier". This was from someone who was confused that evolutionary conjectures were actually proven. Very few evolutionists have the courage to examine contrary evidence. Most of these are filtering the facts through their evolutionist worldview, and whatever does not comport with their assumptions is considered "wrong", or even "lies". Very disingenuous. Sean B. Carroll is frustrated so many still deny evolution, but he shoots his own argument in the foot. Carroll, portrayed as wandering around the Smithsonian in ecstasy at all the exhibits showcasing evolution, was given ample space in a  press release from Tufts University  (echoed on  PhysOrg ) to rant about all the fools who disagree with him.  He can’t believe that people enter the museum and continue to carry their God bias even after sights like these: The sign in front of the tall display cas

What do you get when you present only one side of the scientific evidence, cherry-pick data to support your belief system, misrepresent those who disagree with you, resort to stalking, harassment and libel, present outdated and fraudulent information as fact? Yep, you guessed it! Evolutionary indoctrination. Let's be blunt: It is brainwashing. How do the "educators" delude themselves as well as their  students? Today's article is so short, I am not even going to post the first part as an introduction. Instead, you can read " Training Non-Skeptics One Course at a Time", here .

When having what passes for discussions online, Darwinoids often resort to "proof" or "evidence" that is jaw-droppingly dreadful in their efforts to stifle creationists. Those of us who have a grasp of scientific thinking and news are baffled that nonsense is offered. They should be thinking things through and asking questions in science classes. But what good is "should be" when we must deal with what actually happens? People like Mohamed Noor will offer bad logic and outdated science to his students. Since they trust him to deliver material that their parents are paying for, they accept the stuff and pass it along. Not good. Today’s first set of lectures in Mohamed Noor’s Introduction to Genetics and Evolution course would seem downright bizarre to anyone not familiar with evolutionary thinking. Noor is teaching this course via through the coursera on-line service and the Earl D. McLean Professor and Associate Chair of Biology at Duke Univer

Creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design have been saying for years that the concept of "junk" DNA belongs in the dustbin. Ironically, people like Eugenie Scott, Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins and others want to believe that the biblical worldview is false, and yet, an evolutionary worldview based on chance, mutations, random processes and so forth make science impossible! To depend on the uniformity of nature, they have to stand on the biblical creation worldview because their own will not support them! Here is an episode of "Real Science Friday", where Bob Enyard and Fred Williams discuss ENCODE and more. Since the Web page is full of information, you may have to search for the download or streaming audio links. Let me help with that, they're near the top: Click here to access the page .

Common sense tells us that humans and chimpanzees are not really that much alike. Amazingly, Darwin's Cheerleaders insist on using the idea that similarities in human and chimpanzee DNA is a really big deal, but there are many differences. In fact, there are irreconcilable differences in brain cells as well. Evolutionists are trying to explain away the data, and creationists are happy to be proved right. Again. New research adds to an ever-lengthening stream of discoveries that confirm exactly what a Bible-believing scientist would expect—humans are distinct from chimpanzees. They should be, if they were created in the image of God, not as an imaginary pre-human primate. The study, published in American Journal of Human Genetics , investigated DNA methylation patterning in human and chimpanzee brains.Two observations from this research support the biblical origins of mankind. In a process called methylation, cell systems add methyl groups to some regions of chromo

From the Ministry of Irrelevant but Somewhat Interesting Material: This post was scheduled for 08.09, 10-11-12 , Eastern Daylight Time, New York, USA. It seems that some evolutionary scientists are not happy about the findings of ENCODE. The findings do not support the presuppositions of an evolutionist worldview. (One arrogant assumption was that since they cannot find a use for something they do not understand, they label it as "junk", leftover from our imaginary past evolution.) The data fit the biblical creation model without any problems, but evolutionists would rather force-fit the data into their faulty premises than accept the better explanation. Dr. Georgia Purdom continues her discussion about the ENCODE project. If you missed Part 1, that is here . In part two I want to discuss the opposition of many evolutionists to the ENCODE findings. Rather than put words in the evolutionists’ mouths, I will let them speak for themselves as to how they regard approxima

"Prove to me that creationism is scientifically valid with peer-reviewed papers!" First of all, creationists do  have peer-reviewed scientific journals, and are published in other scientific publications . But what of the secular peer-review process? It is seriously flawed and biased . We should not be surprised, really. Evolution is about the survival of the fittest, after all. If submitting a fraudulent paper will improve someone's life, then they are acting like a Darwinist should act; they do not have a consistent moral standard. Creationists, however, do have a consistent moral standard . Unfortunately, the problems are not confined to research on origins or other irrelevant, impractical matters. Rather, they involve real science that impacts people's lives. And the fraud is increasing. Ethicists are becoming alarmed at the explosive increase in scientific fraud cases – and those are just the ones that were caught. Fraud on the Rise It’s a tru

Graphic liberated from Sye Ten Bruggencate   A debate challenge has been issued to Bill Nye , but so far, he has shown no interest in backing up his assertions. If he is even remotely aware of his poor logic skills, he is wise to hide: If we raise a generation of students who don’t believe in the process of science, who think everything that we’ve come to know about nature and the universe can be dismissed by a few sentences translated into English from some ancient text, you’re not going to continue to innovate. Statements like this are fundamentally flawed and should be disappointing to any of his fans who actually know about science. Not only is he appealing to emotion and making a straw man fallacy , but he is equivocating evolutionary philosophy with practical science . The truth is, evolution is not at all important to true scientific and technological development! (For that matter, the Dobzhansky myth that "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolu

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen In some ways, the spirit of scientific inquiry has little or no resemblance to the real goal of "a system of acquiring knowledge"  [ 1 ] . Since people look to science for answers and turn science into the false religion of scientism, where "science" is a kind of entity and the final arbiter of truth [ 2 ] . Science is used as a political tool — the scientists themselves are often used to further political agendas. For example, Adolph Hitler attacked Albert Einstein and "Jewish physics" in 1931 by enlisting one hundred scientists to denounce him. (Einstein made a simple but strong point: "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough".)  [ 3 ]  More recently, global warming has been a political tool for the leftists' green agenda, even with the dishonest claim that it is "settled science" [4 no longer available] . Heidi Cullen embarked on a coercive campaign "advocating that broadcast meteorolog

Eugenie Scott, anti-creationist, anti-Intelligent Design atheist and popular liar for Darwin , made dog matic assertions about so-called "junk DNA". Even when this radio show was made, she sounded ridiculous with her assertions, obfuscation, dodging, dishonesty and basic silliness. This rebroadcast with additional comments shows the strength of the creationist position. Since the Web page is full of information, you may have to search for the download or streaming audio links. Let me help with that, they're near the top: Click here to access the debate .  

Uniformitarians do not seem to grasp reality. Their worldview causes them to interpret data in convoluted ways, and when the evidence does not support their presuppositions, they come up with even more implausible explanations.    morgueFile/mconnors  Of course, this includes dismissing better explanations out of hand. Unfortunately for them, more and more evidence supports the Noachian Flood model. Earlier this year [2012] , a well-known geologist stood with a group of people at the rim of Horse Shoe Bend, Arizona, (figure 1) and declared that Noah’s Flood could not have formed this feature. During an energetic event such as Noah’s Flood, he said, the water would flow in a large gush in one direction. According to this professor of geology at a university in California, the winding course of the Colorado River indicates that the river had low energy and would have been flowing just above sea level at that time.  You should carve out a few moments and read the rest of "H