Piltdown Superman

Although some people try to deny it, evolution has been used as a "scientific" basis for racism . White Europeans had largely forgotten that their lifestyles originated with biblical principles, and believed that they were racially superior. Such ideas became justified by Darwinism, and were found in the United States and elsewhere. (Why do you think Elliot Marston thought it was just fine to hire Matthew Quigley to kill off Aborigines ?) Some people thought that blacks were "less evolved" than whites, so they should be treated like the inferiors that they considered to be. Biblical principles, genetics and medical science give a far different perspective than the fantasies resulting in evolutionary presuppositions. It is a sad fact that there is a large gap in social stability and opportunities between Australia’s Aboriginal people and the rest of the society there. But why is this so? A reader wonders whether the evolutionist sentiment that Aboriginal

People like to say that "Science is self-correcting". Well, "science" is not a living entity, but people mean that scientists will make adjustments for new data and even discard theories and hypotheses if they are falsified. It amazes me that people will cling to a "theory" when the evidence is against it. I am referring to evolution. Instead of trashing the thing (which should have been done over an 'undred years ago), they hide evidence, make excuses, ignore conflicting data, proceed from presuppositions, conduct bad science (including outright fraud) and more. Tyrannosaurus Rex Holotype specimen at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh Wikimedia Commons / Scott Robert Anselmo When anomalies were found in 1966, they were discarded because they did not fit with evolutionary presuppositions. Various soft tissues in dinosaur bones have been found, and excuses have been made. More discoveries, more excuses. Now that blood and soft ti

The "Appeal to Motive" Fallacy (a form of the "Circumstantial Ad Hominem" is considered. People pretend that they know why someone makes certain statements, holds a particular view or takes a course of action. But this is just an attempt to attack the person and avoid the topic. The MP3 version can be downloaded here .

Evolutionary Visigoths have raided real science and rational thought. A huge part of the problem is their own presuppositions, biases and barbaric scientific practices that have actually hindered scientific progress for a long time. For example, DNA. Using bad science, people have perpetuated the myth that "humans and chimps are 98 percent similar in DNA" (the number varies, depending on who you talk to). That has been refuted .  Then, using evolutionary presuppositions, the difference between the numbers of human and ape chromosomes was assumed to be due to "chromosomal fusion". This was "proved" because of sloppy science — the so-called fusion was in something they considered a "pseudogene". Why was it called a pseudogene? Because they could not see any evolutionary purpose for it, so it must not be important (not true, pseudogenes are actually very important ). Once it was decided that DNA should be more completely sequenced, the problems

The Curiosity rover on Mars is going to work on analyzing what appears to be a dry lake bed. It has been named the Yellowknife Bay formation. The thinking is, if there was water, there may have been microbes. Various minerals found appear to be friendly to such life there. Other conditions on Mars, however, are not so friendly. NASA / JPL-Caltech / MSSS What if some kind of life is actually found there? As we have seen, evolutionists (and especially their press) will probably make the wild leap of faith masquerading as logic: Life on Mars, therefore, evolution on Earth. Of course, they would need to demonstrate how life evolved there. It would be quite a task, since molecules-to-man evolution has not been observed here, nor is there a plausible mechanism for such a thing. Curiosity , the eighth Mars landing in the ongoing quest for life on the Red Planet, has found in the dry mudstone of Gale Crater’s Yellowknife Bay the chemical elements ordinarily associated with living o

On Christmas Eve, 1968, the Apollo astronauts did a live television broadcast from near the moon. They read the first ten verses of the Bible. (Naturally, atheopath Madalyn Murray O'Hair filed a lawsuit. Atheists protest a lot of things Christians do that threaten their worldview. Intolerant lot.) This is still a popular event all these years later. So I will let this video (which has some great music) be my Christmas greeting to you. May the Creator of the universe, who humbled himself and took on the form of a child, died for our sins, was bodily raised on the third day, become a very real part of your life. Have a blessed Christmas! — Cowboy Bob Sorensen

It is acknowledged that members of the media will run off with sensational science stories and exaggerate information, sometimes even making claims of which the scientists themselves are unaware. This brings two questions to my mind. First, should science publications show some restraint? Second, should they do some checking to make sure they are not contradicting their own worldview, even if scientists did make off-the-wall speculations? Image sources: Wikimedia Commons / PD / US morgueFile / dee37 In this case, evolutionists are up to their old tricks, imagining a connection (homology) so they can bolster their belief system even though the connection is unwarranted. Plus, claiming that birds evolved from hadrosaurs...oh, my. Never mind that they are continuing the mythology that dinosaurs evolved into birds, because dinosaurs ate birds , and bird fossils are found with dinosaur fossils . Then they have to explain how a fleshy appendage lasted for an alleged 65 million years

People say that "science corrects itself". (But "science" is not an entity, so right away, they are guilty of the fallacy of reification .) This is not completely true. When it comes to evolutionism, proponents will resort to various tricks to keep their worldview going despite the evidence. There are anti-creationists who insist that creationists (especially biblical creationists) are "liars" and "fact deniers". Their basis for such accusations? It is primarily because we do not believe in the atheistic, old-earth, evolutionary interpretations of the evidence. Further, we promote evidence that refutes evolution and affirms a young earth. This is contrary to the spirit of scientific inquiry. Interestingly, those who call us "liars" are guilty of blatant hypocrisy, promoting not only bad science, carelessness (by people who should know better), deception and even outright fraud. Worse than this, shoddy research and dishonest pron

The last podcast before Christmas! It's just under eight minutes, many of us are busy this time of year, no need to be lengthy. Continuing our series on informal logical fallacies, we examine and give examples (two, in the Atheopath Follies) of the "Straw Man Fallacy". The MP3 version can be downloaded here .   The straw man is a favorite among evolutionists and atheists, but is actually just a distraction. Don't fall for it. Be better than they are.  Apologies for the replacement microphone. I'll have to replace the replacement, this one makes it sound like I have a cold.

Some evolutionists postulate that stromatolites are an instance of the earliest life forms on Earth. (There are astrobiologists who hope to find the same things on Mars.) Unfortunately for them, the things they consider to be evidence in favor of evolution cause more problems than they solve. Wikimedia Commons / Didier Descouins Not only are microbially induced sedimentary structures remarkably the same today as they were in their multi-billion-year alleged history, they foul up the evolutionary timeline. And give support to the Noachian Flood model. Microbially induced sedimentary structures (MISS) in ancient Australian Archean rock match marks made by modern microbes. Strolling along the Dresser Formation in Western Australia, geobiologist Nora Noffke noticed that ancient Archean rocks were tattooed with familiar markings. The marks were identical to those made by mats of modern microbes as they interact with sediment that accumulates on top of them. Noffke is an exp

We often hear about "consensus" among evolutionary scientists. Well, not really. There is often dispute or even a complete absence of explanations as to how a critter evolved. For example, the shark. Evolutionary scientists do not know how teeth evolved , let alone the evolution of shark teet. Or the jaws. Or the eyes. Or... Credit: Freeimages / Tash Whiteley As usual, creationists do not have to come up with amazing tales that do not hold water. During a recent visit to Florida’s Clearwater Marine Aquarium, I peered into a tank containing a host of animals, including a sleek and formidable shark, and thought of evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Let’s test this statement by taking a closer look at prominent evolutionary research on the shark—teeth to tail. You can sink your teeth into " Shark Origins: An Evolutionary Explanation ".

In olden times, Art Linkletter had a presentation called Kids Say the Darndest Things (Bill Cosby tried it for a few years, too.) Someone should make a show called Scientists Say the Darndest Things . There is some weird stuff that is actually published and seriously presented as "science". What is stranger yet is that some people are receiving it as if to say, " Yahyuh, yahyuh, that makes good sense! " But perhaps I should not be surprised. There is a great deal of misinformation spread around as science, and people are not being taught to examine it. Rather than think critically, they are being conditioned to accept the proclamations of scientists without question. If people were trained (and even allowed) to examine evolution with contrary evidence included, there would be far fewer evolutionists in the world. Creationists do not need to resort to desperation or fabrication to fool people because science supports creation, not evolution. Things no one c

The good folks over at Creation Ministries International (easy to remember the site, creation.com ) have thousands of articles to help people see that microbes-to-microbiologist evolution is not supported by actual science. Actually, the science supports biblical creation. Regular readers know that it is one of my regular "go to" sites for information on these subjects. It is vital that organizations like this exist, because the Evo Sith are doing their best to obfuscate the facts, "spin" their interpretations of observable evidence, and even resort to deceit. (This is natural for their worldview, since it is rooted in materialism, time, random chance and mutations; they have no consistent moral standard and fight evidence for the Creator.) Textbooks are inaccurate, and evolutionist organizations actually tell people what and how to teach, and to tell the students what to think and believe. Sorry, Skippy, that is not education, it is indoctrination. The book

Another attempt at manipulation is to use the Fallacy of Assertion, as well as Prejudicial Conjecture. They are very similar, and rather sneaky. Also includes another edition of the Atheopath Follies. The MP3 version can be downloaded here .

Instead of doing exploring how real science refutes evolutionary hypotheses and affirms biblical creation, we're going to look at the personal story of a scientist. Some atheists make the assertion, "You are only a Christian because you were born in a Christian country", but they cannot explain how they became atheists in "Christian" countries, nor can they explain Christians in countries that are atheist, Muslim, Hindu or have other religions. CreationSwap / Nichole McMaster My dear friend Ruby Faraday is probably one of the least likely people to become a creationist astronomer. Born in a Muslim country, raised with occult influences, victim of abuse, sometimes mocked for her dreams. Yet, the truth of the Word of God came through to her, and she worked hard to achieve her goals. And she still works toward her goals. I was born in a Muslim country and raised by non-Muslim parents, so how did I become a Christian Creation Scientist? Perhaps I am th

Secular scientists have a great deal to say about life, the universe and everything. But do they really know all that they pretend to know? Not really. Evolutionary pronouncements are ever-changing piles of speculations that are often riddled with bad science and even fraud, but fundamentalist evolutionists cling to their faith despite the evidence, not because of it. They do not want to admit that there is a Creator because that would mean that we should learn what he has to say. Satellite Image of Earth's Interrelated Systems and Climate / NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center Once in a while, an evolutionist admits that their views are loaded with difficulties. Of course, the faithful scream, "Quote mining!", but such charges are usually spurious. Especially when there are several in one article. There’s not much data, and there’s a lot of doubt and debate. That’s what a geologist admits about theories of early earth history. In "The Conversation"

Time and again, we run into acolytes of Scientism as the way to know truth and morality. Atheists will tell Christians, "We will replace you, and your kind will be gone in a hundred years", forgetting that this foolishness has been stated for a very long time. I remember seeing a news clip where someone was expressing her faith in science, "Scientists will come up with a pill or something". Science has severe limitations, and scientists acknowledge this fact. Some people view mathematics as the ultimate, purest form of science, but there are uncertainties there. (Ironically, many insist on materialistic presuppositions, but math is transcendent of matter .) Medical science has had many advances, but some things are remain incurable. Technology has given us many things to improve our lives, and also to destroy them. Why have faith in "science"? Perhaps it is to replace the God who is there and will hold us accountable. [Link removed, I learned tha

It appears that scientists may be giving up the notion that cranial capacity is a measure of intelligence that has been around a long time. For instance, in " The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle ", Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had his brilliant detective Sherlock Holmes use this belief: "For example, how did you deduce that this man was intellectual?" For answer Holmes clapped the hat upon his head. It came right over the forehead and settled upon the bridge of his nose. “It is a question of cubic capacity,” said he; “a man with so large a brain must have something in it.” That evolutionary assumption has been disproved . Now they're studying the intelligence of birds, a field that had been dismissed because of the same assumptions. (How about quantum mechanics used in their navigation ?) It turns out that crows, ravens and the like are much more intelligent than had been previously suspected. morgueFile/jpkwitter What began as a nice narrative about

We are taught in school that, essentially, a scientific theory uses accumulated knowledge and can be tested through empirical methods. (This differs from common use of "theory", which has a variety of loose definitions.) Every so often, a discovery that threatens goo-to-you evolutionary ideas is announced. Normally, a theory is adjusted to fit observed phenomena or even replaced. Phlogiston theory was proposed in 1667 as an explanation of why things burn (they contain the mysterious stuff), but with further research and discoveries, it was eventually abandoned. The General Theory of Evolution is the modern equivalent of phlogiston , but evolutionary scientists make guesses and conjectures to keep it going. The True Believers™ accept these stories as if they were verified facts, then claim to believe in "science" and call themselves "thinkers". Alternately, scientists and the faithful often ignore data that cause cognitive dissonance and continue to beli

The MP3 version can be downloaded here . I had a bit of fun with this one, so I hope it's both entertaining and informative. The Genetic Fallacy is far too common among evolutionists and atheists, and is a bad excuse to avoid actually examining the evidence that is presented. It is also an excuse to approve of something (similar to the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy). But there are times it is not actually a fallacy...

Many evolutionists were in disbelief when the announcement was made that dinosaur soft tissues ( including red blood cells) had been found. Others did not even know about it, but they were still very knowledgeable about evolution, you betcha, just ask them. Someone "Tweeted" to me that it must be old and incomplete news, or that I was simply wrong. Unfortunately for him, it was not simply an isolated incident. Yes, they have been found and caused a great deal of consternation in the evolutionary community. It did not cause creationists difficulties, however, since this discovery gives further evidence for a young earth. Modified from Image*After Dr. Mary Schweitzer, discoverer of the first soft tissue in a T-Rex fossil, went to work on finding an explanation. She found one — sort of. In a previous post, the tentative and incomplete results did not stop the press from claiming victory . (Indeed, arrogant evolutionists posted comments and links on our Facebook Page as if

It is almost amusing when proponents of evolution will insist that the study of genetics supports their cause. But that is the opposite of the truth. Some will use the outdated claim based on bad science that " humans and chimps are ninety percent similar " (the number varies depending on who is speaking), but better research shows a much smaller similarity. Worse for evolutionists, gorillas are closer in DNA to humans than chimps , but that does not fit the storyline. And never mind McCarthy's idea that a pig and a chimp did the wild thing and produced humanity . He must be getting desperate. But he did say that current evolutionary thinking is fundamentally flawed . Too bad he refuses to accept the obvious, that there is a Creator. morgueFile/hotblack There are actually quite a few genomes that do not fit the evolutionary paradigm. It is interesting how Darwin's Cheerleaders do not bother to discuss this. Or perhaps they simply do not know. "Real Sc

Jupiter is the largest planet in our solar system, and is second in mass only to the Sun itself. You can get a good look at it with a backyard telescope. This bad boy is huge, but has a rotation rate of only ten hours. Also, it is graced with the most known moons (that we know of) at sixty seven, and Ganymede is the largest moon in the solar system. But it is mostly gas, so do not expect to land on it and meet residents that look like green and purple birds with orange beaks . The Great Red Spot is thought to be a storm. A big storm, the size of Earth, twice over. A high-resolution image of Jupiter taken by NASA's Cassini spacecraft. Credit: NASA   / JPL (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) But Jupiter also confounds evolutionary scientists. It is hot, and has a powerful magnetic field. And all those moons? They do not orbit in the same direction, many are in retrograde — which confounds planetary formation speculations and supports biblical creation models

One of the ways people attempt to explain away evidence for a young earth is textbook explanations of the formation of granite. Signs in national parks tell the public that something formed over millions of years. And people believe the pronouncements of scientists, because they must be right, what with being scientists and all. morgueFile/gracey Now we're finding out that scientists have been wrong about the length of time that it takes granite and crystals to form. (Looks like the signs in the tourist spots have to come down, huh?) In fact, the change in the explanation is so drastic, the findings support biblical creationism and the catastrophic Noachian Flood instead of uniformitarianism. Albany, on the south coast of Western Australia, is a popular stopping-place to explore the area’s beauty. A peninsula shelters Albany from the Great Southern Ocean, and is home to the famous ‘Gap’ and ‘Natural Bridge’ rock formations. Interpretive signs in the Torndirrup Nationa

You can download the MP3 version of the podcast here . The ad hominem  fallacy seems to be the most common. It is attacking the person instead of the topic. This is very easy to do, especially when someone throws down and indicates that they are not interested in rational discourse, they simply want to negate whatever you have to say with a distraction of insulting you instead of dealing with the discussion at hand. Edit: He kept at it. Some people do not learn.