Piltdown Superman

We have already shown that textbooks contain bad and even fraudulent material . Although the secret is out, it is still happening: Junk is still in textbooks ( as you can see in the articles here ). Worse, people like Eugenie Scott and others encourage "educators" to lie to their students . The end justifies the means, ja mein herr?  One of the perpetually perpetrated propaganda pieces is the use of the Haeckel drawings that have been known to be fake for years. Let's not let false similarities deceive us. And yet, the topic is still controversial; not only is the subject a huge embarrassment to evolutionists, but some are still trying to defend the fraud! (One guy Tweeted to me that it didn't matter that the drawings were fake, they were still true — *facepalm*). While creationists may make mistakes, we do not resort to defending, rehabilitating and excusing outright fraud. It would help curtail the embarrassment if they did not keep putting this nonsen

If there is a formerly undiscovered continent in the Indian Ocean, cherry-picked data from radiometric dating and uniformitarian assumptions are a lousy way to prove it. But then, an ancient Earth is imperative for evolution, and must be justified, yes? morgueFile/embalu By examining zicron in sand from Mauritius, bad "science" has led to the amazing conclusion that there was once a continent in the Indian Ocean, which is now submerged. Never mind the more prosaic data, it's more entertaining (and sensationalistic) to produce tendentious interpretations of a limited amount of other data. Perhaps Atlantis moved? The lost city of Atlantis has been the source of much legend and folklore for centuries. The search for archaeological evidence for this missing city has continued even today, but mostly by amateurs and fortune-seekers. Now, scientists are making claims of a missing continent lurking deep beneath—not the Atlantic, but—the Indian Ocean. A group of

Earlier, I posted some material on the origins of the belief system of evolution . Now it is time to go into more detail, and I have three items for your perusal and edification. Evolution has roots in pagan religious beliefs which had nothing to do with science. For that matter, people treat "science" as some sort of entity. They will say things like, "Science will solve the problem" (fallacy of reification). No, maybe someday scientists will solve the problem. There are methods to obtaining and processing data in scientific disciplines. All of it is philosophy! The requirements for doing things a certain way, the presuppositions and worldviews for determining data, the conclusions reached — all based on philosophy. So, watch out when someone refers to "science" as some sort of life form, or even a deity. A friend of the ministry shared a link to this video . It is rather long, but can be downloaded for offline viewing, and definitely worth your tim

USFWS/Jerry Reid Every once in a while, uninformed proponents of evolution resort to using the "proof" for their view that, since we have certain elements in our blood that are also in the sea, we must have evolved from the sea. Not only does such an assertion smack of desperation, but the "facts" we are given about the mineral concentrations are not similar at all. (It is as if someone with the attitude similar to, "I am a physicist , therefore, I am qualified to prove evolution and disprove the biochemists, medical doctors, biologists, geologists, paleontologists, mechanical engineers, botanists and all the other disciplines in creation science" wrote the falsehoods of the alleged sea-water-to-blood similarities.) There are other insurmountable difficulties with these pretend similarities as well. It strikes me that this idea is contrary to evolutionary thinking, which requires huge changes and adaptations in organisms. So why should our blood refle

As you probably remember from your basic science courses, photosynthesis is the process where plants process sunlight and make food. This video explains a bit more in a couple of minutes: Dry Lake, San Gorgonio Wilderness/San Bernardino National Forest Carol Underhill, USDA Forest Service Recently, more details of the speed and efficiency of the process have come to light (heh!). The process is truly amazing, and, as usual, evolutionists put on their Darwin Spectacles to give praise and glory to "nature" and "evolution" as if they were intelligent deities. The transformation of sunlight to food gets all the way down to the level of quantum physics! The magic of light capture by plants is so small and fast, its secrets are only now being understood. Lightning is slow compared to photosynthesis. A press release from the Institute of Photonic Sciences (ICFO) explains how “antenna proteins” capture photons of sunlight and ferry the energy to reaction cen

When watching some of those "Let's see if we can find the real creature" shows on TV, a couple of sea monster sightings were dismissed as sturgeons. While I was not convinced that a real mystery had been found, I thought it was simplistic to blame a fish. (Sort of like when UFOs had been dismissed as the planet Venus, which was not visible at the time of the alleged sighting.) Later, I learned that sturgeons (which are a bit high in cholesterol) can grow to an impressive size. Ugly, too. fws.gov  But never mind about that now.  Evolutionists want to claim that they are "living fossils". You know, those things that have not changed much in the alleged "millions of years" from what we see now, and the impressions they made in the fossil record. And yet, they contradict themselves. Darwin's Cheerleaders are carping that the sturgeon does not cooperate with the expected rate of change. Nor do they change enough. But they "evolve" too

Some people have difficulty learning. For example, with the "junk DNA" fiasco, scientists put on their Darwin spectacles, examined a section of the genome, declared that things they didn't understand were "junk" — and were embarrassed by creationists , who said all along that it was not junk . A similar thing happened with pseudogenes. They look sorta like genes, but they're not really genes. So they're not important, right? Actually, they are important. The PTEN pseudogene is much more complicated than anyone imagined. Perhaps if they removed the evolution glasses and did not act so hastily, evolutionary scientists might get closer to the truth sooner. Not only have many pseudogenes been proven to be highly functional, a recent study has unveiled mind-boggling complexity behind the PTEN pseudogene, showing that it functions both forwards and backwards as part of an intricate gene network. Pseudogenes were once thought to be nothing but

Where did evolution come from? The minds of men. But Darwin (who was not a great scientist — his only degree was in theology ) plagiarized others, including his grandfather Erasmus . Various proposals of evolution cropped up throughout history, and it can be found in ancient pagan Greek religious beliefs. People seem to be desperate to find excuses to deny the Creator his rightful place. Science was the province of Christians, who established scientific methodologies. Unfortunately, with the geology of Lyell (a lawyer), Hutton and others in the 1800s, plus bold pronouncements that the Bible is wrong or misunderstood, the one-sided rewriting of history, science and theology had begun. A press release titled “The Evolution of Creationism” in a geology journal is just asking for a spoof. The Geological Society of America ( GSA ) posted the following press release on its publication, GSA Today : Throughout history, people have sought to understand how the world came to be and h

Biases. Preconceptions. Presuppositions. We all have them. It's all a part of being human. The belief that scientists are completely dispassionate, assembling data and following where the evidence leads is very naive. Evolutionists have already decided that evolution is true, and that makes it much more difficult for them to accept the evidence that refutes evolutionism and affirms creation. Their belief system heavily influences their interpretations of the data — often with absurd results. Are scientists always objective? Do they always interpret the evidence with an open mind? Some time ago I experienced first-hand how a scientist’s beliefs affect the way he looks at the evidence. Whilst a geology student at university, I needed to identify a fossil. After consulting the Atlas of Invertebrate Macrofossils I had tentatively identified it as a belemnite of the genus Hibolites . However, paleontology was not my specialty so I sought advice from an expert. T

In an earlier post, the claim that "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" was shown to be a false claim . Now we can examine how Dobzhansky's article was bad science and worse religion. Bob Enyart was published in the prestigious, peer-reviewed Creation Research Society Quarterly , and his radio show did a four-part discussion of the paper. Here is a hint on where you look for the free audio on each page (click picture for more bigness): Part 1 is here . Part 2 is here . Part 3 is here . Part 4 is here .

Magicicada: Wikipedia/Bruce Marlin Although I am reluctant to bug you with this, but it is about time for the 17-year periodic " Magicicada " to appear. Would you like to hear them? Good. After 17 years and when the temperature is 64 degrees Fahrenheit, they burrow up from the ground in huge numbers to wreak vengeance upon the living. All right, so the part about vengeance is exaggerated, but it does sound like a kind of science fiction or horror movie device, what with waiting for the right time, temperature and all. It is eminently logical to see that they are the product of a Master Designer, but people foolishly give undue credit to evolution. Entomologists study insects and spiders. They regularly discover examples of mathematical genius hardwired into various tiny-brained arthropods. And as young students know all too well, math doesn't come easy. Science writer Seth Borenstein recently wrote an AP article describing why residents of the

fws.gov A new candidate for the first bird that allegedly evolved is in the limelight. Not only is there doubt that the critter is actually a bird, but there is another problem: archaeopteryx. Although this failed "transitional form" has been classified as a true bird , some evolutionists tenaciously cling to the idea that it was something else . The timeline of bird evolution has to be rearranged yet again — unless the new guy is not real, then they can continue with their existing chaos of bird evolution guesswork. Feathers are ruffled in the evolutionary community because the newest candidate for the world’s first bird upsets the currently popular claim that Archaeopteryx was not a bird at all. Pascal Godefroit and colleagues can only achieve bird-status for their non-feathered fossil if the slightly “younger” and clearly feathered Archaeopteryx can be called a bird. While evolutionists worldwide argue over just how the evolutionary history of birds should be adj

Despite the attempts of the Evo Sith to "explain" evolution, when the data are examined by people who are not trying to influence people to believe the evolutionist worldview, the actual facts come to light. The "Tree of Life" is still tenaciously grasped, even though it should have been discarded years ago. DNA analysis? Well, be disingenuous and filter the data. Then, fiddle with it. When there isn't a creationist or ID proponent around to call you on it, then present it as "truth". (Of course, when the dishonesty and bad reasoning are pointed out, the whistle-blowers are told, "You're a liar!", or, "You don't understand evolution!" They keep using that word "liar"... We know more than those people want to believe, and we don't like being played for fools.) They'll persist in believing their failed evolutionary worldview, even though it is full of errors, conjecture, guesswork and fraud. One of evo

We are constantly being told that the fossils prove evolution. However, even though many ambiguous fossils are put forth as "transitional forms", knowledgeable paleontologists admit that they do not exist , despite the claims of Darwin's Cheerleaders. In addition, the " Cambrian Explosion " (where fossils of all major groups of animals alive today, and many that became extinct) has been a falsifier for Darwinism since Papa Darwin published his speculations; evolution should have been discarded for lack of evidence shortly after it was popularized. Credit: Freeimages / Dave Dyet The facts do not stop people from believing, however. People believe in evolution despite the evidence, and, with an attitude that is contrary to science, will refer to Darwin deniers as "liars" (possibly because they are terrified that they will realize that there is a Creator and they are accountable after all) and give "Science of the Gaps" excuses. Th

stock.xchng/raven2663 Cosmologists have their presuppositions about the age of the universe. When the observed data persist in troubling their beliefs, they do not abandon their erroneous ideas. Instead, they are "challenged" and try to explain the facts with unworkable conjectures. Biblical creationists do not have anywhere near the same amount of difficulties with their models. The story of the rise and fall of the moon's magnetic field constantly energizes planetary scientists. Simply put, under secular magnetism models, the moon is too small to have maintained its charge as long as evolutionists imagine and as strongly as its magnetic clues indicate. Secular scientists face a grave challenge in reconciling the moon's magnetic signatures with billion-year age assignments. The latest foray into this collection of highly charged lunar dilemmas resulted in a team of scientists selecting a solution that, in the end, still failed to fit all the facts

"Malicious Advice Mallard" gives malicious advice. Some people relish their intellectual and spiritual blindness. They say, "Prove to me that God exists!", or, "Give me evidence for creation!" The simplest approach is to simply look at nature. The amazing beauty, design, complexity and wonder — it is astonishing that some people are willing to suspend their own sensibilities to pretend that God does not exist, and indulge in the ever-changing whims of evolutionary philosophies. I'm going to send you to a Web page that has comments and several short videos (the last video is the longest, just over eight minutes) on the wonder and complexity of nature. You'll be amazed when you read and watch at " Beauty is Truth and Truth, Beauty. The remarkable creatures designed by God reveal the tragedy of Charles Darwin's foul hypothesis! It has drained from the propagandized an appreciation for the Creator's art ... "

Yeah, I know. My title and the picture will be out of date soon. A better title would be, "The Dumbing Down of Humanity is a Genetic Thing", but it's less interesting. I believe that everything is running downhill in a kind of societal entropy, an increase in negativity. More immorality, profanity, dishonesty. Businesses are ruining themselves by being downright cheap, sacrificing quality products and customer service for a few more grotzits. Spirituality is becoming more touchy-feely and less committed to truth. Scientists are more passionate about promoting evolution than accurately dealing with the scientific evidence. Some speculate that stupidity is a product of biological evolution, so there is no hope for humanity . Many folks assume that people in ancient times were less intelligent. A look at the Bible writers helps demonstrate that such a claim is the opposite of the truth. But I digress. The subject at hand is that people are getting more stupider. (In

"Scientists agree..." "There is a scientific consensus..." Those of us involved in presenting the truth of creation science and refuting evolution hear phrases like this quite often. They are usually proffered as an excuse to avoid hearing or considering evidence against their erroneous worldviews and presuppositions. Doing so is an attempt to shut down discussion by appealing to authority or the majority. This is counterproductive not only to a discussion, but to scientific advancement. Does this mean that they're right — and that they remain right? True scientists will consider the facts, revising their theories. They even discard them (except for evolution, which must be protected at all costs). There are times when the consensus is wrong and the paradigm must be changed. Whenever you hear “all scientists agree” or “we now know,” it’s no guarantee a finding won’t be disputed years later.  In the following examples, CEH focuses not so much

And now for something completely different. Sort of. We have seen that "skeptics" are often caricatures of themselves, cynically finding any possible way to bolster their evolutionary worldview and find excuses to disregard evidence for creation . Some people who call themselves "skeptics" are being dishonest with that name, as they are not open to any explanations or evidence other than what they want to see. The article that I am going to link was given to me by a friend. It is not exactly sympathetic to Intelligent Design or to creation science. Their primary focus is on the skeptical debunkers of the paranormal. The site is called " Skeptical Investigations ", and they are "skeptical about skeptics", promoting objectivity in scientific investigation. This article has several points in which ultra-skeptic atheist and evolutionists are guilty; these people often act in an irrational manner, and go against the spirit of true scientific inq

Is it possible for someone to enter a secular university with biblical (young earth) creationist views and not have to compromise or have his or her belief system replaced with evolutionism? Jason Petersen of Answers for Hope interviewed Jessica Roberts. She has degrees, including her recent bachelor's  in Molecular Biology, and has a master's in health science. Quite often, we have "educators" that want to belittle, intimidate, obfuscate and more to their students so they can protect their fundamentally flawed worldview. (Of course, true science and true education require actually examining the evidence.) Jessica's experience echoes many of the things creationists encounter. For her, the stakes were higher than just dealing with someone who wants to be contentious. But things went better than might be expected.  The interview is in two parts, written and video. Here is the written portion of the interview: 1. Why are you a Young Earth Creationist?