Piltdown Superman

Vultures. Ugly birds that are assigned with the unenviable duty of eating dead things, thereby helping clean up the environment. Right? Not necessarily. Just because something has sharp, pointy teeth or its relatives are carnivores does not mean that it, too, is a carnivore. Appearances are not everything. A vegetarian vulture easily fits in with a biblical creationist model. I'm not saying that this proves anything, it's just something to take into consideration. But it does interrupt the chain of thought that if something looks like a carnivore, it must be a carnivore. Here, take a look: Images of vultures circling ominously overhead are often used by Hollywood to signal the imminent demise of someone lost or dying out in the wilderness. So, many people would know vultures to be carrion-eaters, picking the flesh off carcasses of animals that succumbed to the scorching midday sun or were killed by predators. But one species of vulture is very different. Known a

Most of the text in the above "meme" is directly from the linked article, so it is an indication that the article is not a bit of fluff. This seems interesting. People who pretend that religion and science are at odds and want nothing to do with anything hinting of the supernatural apparently do not realize that the Nebular Hypothesis of the formation of the solar system had its roots with Emanuel Swedenborg [ 1 ] , who also formulated a crackpot cult that was named after him. [ 2 ] Disenchanted members of this cult become some of the most bitter and irrational atheists one could ever have the misfortune of encountering. So anyway... The idea that a huge cloud of hot gas coalesced and particles collided, fusing and forming the sun, moon planets and so on has been popular for a long time. It does not make sense even under a cursory examination, but it has been popular for a while now. After all, why let scientific evidence conflict with an anti-Creator worldview?

Biological evolution has been taken as a scientific truth in nature and misapplied to society as a whole, with all kinds of evil as a result. Tyrants have based their murderous regimes on evolutionism [ 1 , 2 ] , eugenics and abortion [ 3 ] , and more are based on evolutionary concepts like "survival of the fittest". Of course, Darwin's Cheerleaders are popularizing evolution with bad science, relentless publicity and rewriting history. Ideas have consequences. Over the past century evolutionary thought has become dominant in much more than just the historical sciences. Other branches of science as well as education, law, history, public policy and media have increasingly been influenced by the idea that the world arose spontaneously. This tremendous influence of evolutionary thought has consequences that are largely misunderstood. The misconception is that, while there have been some missteps along the way such as in the twentieth century’s eugenics moveme

This is one of the more interesting things that I have encountered. It is an online book of sorts, written in narrative fashion with a bit of snark. The author refuses to discuss biblical matters and "religion", the topic is strictly about evolution's massive failings. Click here to see "Evolution is Stupid!" .

Many evolutionists cling to their presuppositions that dinosaurs evolved from birds, even citing experts that make that very declaration with certainty. However, they ignore other evolutionist experts who dispute that concept ( cherry-picking ). Evidence is mounting that, even in an evolutionary worldview, dinosaurs and birds were contemporaries. One does not simply become one's own grandfather. Anyway. Dinosaurs ate birds. Of course, proponents of the view that dinosaurs evolved into birds go into frantic damage control, throwing out far-fetched speculations and guesses that cannot be substantiated. It would be productive and scientific to re-examine their conjectures, but they appear to be locked into their belief systems. You can read all about it at "Dinosaurs Ate Birds" . Edit: A newer article on this topic is here .

When presented with the observed fact that life only comes from life and never from non-life, proponents of evolution distance themselves by claiming that evolution only deals with the development of life and not the origin of life. This is a disingenuous ploy, similar to when atheists attempt to change the established definition of atheism into " lack of belief in God "; both are transparent attempts at moving the goalposts. It is interesting that evolutionists will claim that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, but will gleefully accept poor "evidence" that they think accepts abiogenesis, and will also defend the discredited Miller-Urey experiment — usually by ignoring facts and citing outdated and unfounded rhetoric by other evolutionists as "proof". Despite theories, conjecture, guesses, wishful thinking and loud bullying, the fact remains that life comes from life. Assumptions based on faith will not change that.

Circular reasoning in evolution extends to cosmology. Start with current assumption that the universe is 13.75 billion years old, add the constant speed of light, leave out contrary evidence, add a generous helping of conjecture, mix in some genuine observable science (leave out a workable mechanism) and your concoction conveniently "proves" cosmic evolution. Except that the speed of light may very well not be constant , and other observations simply do not support such an old universe. But never mind the details, "science of the gaps" prevails. The formation of stars has not been observed, and the data indicate that may not be happening at all. An international team of astronomers recently analyzed a specific frequency of light that hot gas clouds in outer space produce. Very hot stars, like blue stars, are thought to burn near or within these clouds, energizing the gas so that it can emit this characteristic light signature. Secular astronomers

We have explored the willingness of evolutionists to indoctrinate children, even though their critical thinking skills suffer. (After all, belief in evolution is more important than thinking, yes?) Eugenie Scott has been downright dishonest in her crusade to attack creation science and Intelligent Design, and textbooks contain outdated and fraudulent material . It should not come as a surprise that students are presented with the long-debunked drawings of Haeckel and told that they are real. In addition, their reasoning skills are hindered with question-begging exams!  A government education institution recently provided a textbook example of how evolutionary dogma blinds the eyes of educators, crushes the ability of students to think critically and hinders the progress of true science. The biology paper in the Higher School Certificate exam on 19 October 2012, a major public matriculation exam in New South Wales, Australia, contained a question featuring Haeckel’s fraudulent em

A frequent presupposition from evolution is that ancient man is extremely primitive. After all, he was just a brute that had recently evolved, and had not yet learned to do those things typical of civilized humans. But excavations keep contradicting that bias. An excavation in Bulgaria predates ancient Greece by about 1,500 years, they say. Yet there are signs of civilization, even though they had not invented the wheel. Oh, really? That is an assumption, a kind of argumentum ad ignorantiam — because no wheels were found, they must not have existed . The evidence for civilization would imply otherwise, wouldn't it? Researchers are calling an ancient ruin near Provadia in Bulgaria Europe's oldest town. Its carbon age between 4700 and 4200 B.C. predates the accepted calendar age of ancient Greece by about 1,500 years. Investigators have uncovered enough clues from the intriguing site to attempt reconstructing the lives of its ancient inhabitants, but it appears that t

People believe in evolution despite the evidence. Even when scientists admit that discoveries work against them, they quickly make up implausible stories to cling to their fundamentally flawed worldview. And the faithful spread these tales as if they were fact. In this article, three items are featured. Read " Three New Fossil Finds Challenge Evolution ".

"We know evolution is true because we have transitional forms!" No, you have things that look something like other things, but you do not have undisputed "transitional forms ". "We know evolution is true because we have the fossils!" mnh.si.edu No, you have preconceptions loaded with assumptions. Fossilization is uncommon. Although there are billions of fossils, there are many more creatures that were not fossilized. The overwhelming majority of fossils are marine life, and over ninety-five percent are marine invertebrates . By the way, we have fossils too. It's not a case of your facts versus our facts; everyone has the same facts. The questions arise on the interpretations of the facts. The coelacanth fossils were dated at 70 million years old, and it was assumed that it "disappeared" because no more were found in the fossil record. But the coelacanth was simply playing peek-a-boo, as it was discovered to be alive an

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen There are many fallacies that Darwin's Junior Storm Troopers use when criticizing Intelligent Design proponents and creationists. Many of these have been discussed elsewhere . There is something that, frankly, (mind if I call you Frank?) I cannot slap a label on. It could be a form of the Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence , where relevant data are ignored when reaching a conclusion. Here are some ways that I have found that evolution adherents will deceive others.  First, I must reiterate that their insistence on calling other people "liars" because they do not accept evolutionary orthodoxy is both childish and reprehensible. Further, it is an attempt to protect evolutionism from critical examination. Here are some disingenuous obfuscations involving absence of information that I have encountered: Commenting on articles without reading. We all do it to some extent. But to simply be a troll and say, "That's not true", make

Ever notice that fundamentalist evolutionists have to actually resort to "No, it isn't!" denial and rapid-fire excuses when the facts cause their faulty worldviews to turn to a shes? Anyway... Back to a somewhat longer audio today, this one is twenty-eight minutes. Bob Enyart discusses some of the recent science news with Dr. Jonathan Sarfati . Among the items covered are things that have been on this site recently: "Junk" DNA and soft tissues in Dinosaurs. They discuss some other items as well. To go to the site click here , and to download, look for this near the top of the page:

If you say that you think that dinosaurs may not be extinct after all, you are likely to receive hails of derisive laughter. After all, people are conditioned to accept this false concept: All scientists agree that dinosaurs were killed when a meteorite struck the earth sixty five million years ago. (The truth is, scientists are not in agreement on that .) The entire problem is circular reasoning. Evolutionists start with the presuppositions that evolution is true, that the Earth is ancient and that the dinosaurs are long gone. This leads to interesting excuses when it comes to artifacts that depict dinosaurs, or when faced with accounts of dinosaurs still living in remote areas. Remember, there are species of various critters discovered every year; humans have not thoroughly explored every bit of this huge planet. However, evolutionists must deny the evidence according to their worldview — even though this often makes them look silly. By the way, if it's true that dino

Some evolutionists feel betrayed by the facts. When presented with evidence that the impossible exists ("impossible" according to their old Earth presuppositions), they deny the evidence. The love we share Seems to go nowhere And I've lost my light For I toss and turn, I can't sleep at night (From "Tainted Love" by Soft Cell) Some even accuse creationists of lying because evolutionists refuse to face the evidence (even thinking they're smarter than Mary Schweitzer, discussed in the link). Others will simply say that cited articles are outdated, misquoted or inaccurate. And we find some that even attempt to propose excuses that fly in the face of observed data. Sorry, Sammy, it's time to man up. Biblical creationists do not have these problems. Original dinosaur tissues in fossil bones are probably the most controversial finds in all of paleontology. Secular scientists have difficulty interpreting them. They debate whether the ti

Promoters of evolutionism tend to obscure the truth in their pursuit of "science". Sometimes, evolutionists are so determined that their naturalistic worldview is the only possible interpretation of facts, they see things that are not even there. In this case (and with help of the biased media), "feathers" were found on a dinosaur. Wow! Proof that dinosaurs evolved into birds! Except that evolutionary scientists are not in lockstep on the dinosaurs-to-birds bandwagon. More than that, the tendentious interpretations of this "evidence" is shameful. Any scientist with integrity should be embarrassed. The first North American “feathered dinosaur” has put the media in a frenzy of celebration over questionable data. Three Canadians from Alberta took a look at old fossils of the “ostrich-mimic” dinosaur Ornithomimus stored in drawers at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, and found fibrous impressions in the sandstone they interpret as fe

There are dinosaur footprints in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. People with an evolutionary worldview posit models that attempt to fit the facts into their presuppositions. This uniformitarian approach fails to explain the evidence in a credible manner, and requires explanations that defy credibility. On the other hand, biblical creationist scientists posit models for the Noachian flood, and the observed data support this view quite well. In October 2012, Catalyst , the science television show of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, featured amazing dinosaur footprints from the Kimberleys in north-west Australia. Catalyst reporter Mark Horstman says, "You’ve gotta be quick to study the fossils here. This tide is racing. And this was dry a few minutes ago. The tidal range is up to 10 metres, and the fossils are only visible at the lowest of low tides, so that’s for a few hours for a few days for a few months every year." Sand is washed in

As usual, I am going to give you an introduction and then link to a specially-selected article. And now for something completely different. For a bit. The article that I am going to link is on a site that is very difficult to read. Edit: It's been improved, so I am leaving this paragraph here for helpful browser hints. So I am going to offer a few practical options. First, many current versions of browsers will let you enlarge and reduce text on pages with CTRL+Plus Sign, or similar keystrokes. You may want to check your "View" in the menu bar. Second, you may want to have an RSS reader available. Several are listed here . Third, Send to Reader is useful for Firefox users with the free "bookmarklet", but works only for Kindle. Fourth, Push to Kindle by fivefilters also has browser extensions. It does what it says, strips out the clutter and sends to the Kindle. In addition, it also has a few other options where you can download the Kindle and EPUB format

To see Darwin's Cheerleaders resorting to logical fallacies to defend their errant worldview is commonplace. But to see several logical fallacies used in an attempt to influence political opinion and promote evolutionism is rather painful. And humorous. Here, we can see poisoning the well, name calling, prejudicial conjecture and more. The conviction that the world must have arisen spontaneously dates back to antiquity and is no less strong today. Its contemporary label is evolution and if you want your funding, or just respectability, you must accept it. Skepticism of the power of spontaneity is not allowed as this latest post from investor and all-around smart-guy Whitney Tilson makes clear: Even if Romney is a pragmatic centrist, I question his ability to act independently of a party that I fear has become beholden to people I view as extremists – anti-intellectuals who are hostile to women, minorities, the poor, immigrants, and gays, and who don’t believe