Piltdown Superman

"Evolution is true because of vestigial organs!", claim the Autons of Evolution. These are supposedly remnants of evolution that have no function, but that is an outdated claim based on circular reasoning, arguing from ignorance — and wishful thinking. Some evolutionists even embarrass themselves by claiming that the human appendix is a vestigial organ (or "vestigial structure"), which is a long discredited claim .  In their efforts to hound creationists into believing that they're right, some proponents of microbes-to-microbiologist evolution are making the claim that the clavicle of dogs is also vestigial. But again, they are barking up the wrong tree. Creationists are proved right yet again. In comparison to human beings, dogs have a rather different shoulder design, and the same applies to many other carnivorous and hoofed animals too, such as and cats and horses. The shoulder bones appear somewhat disconnected from the rest of the skeleton an

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen In the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye the Evolutionary Dogma Guy, Nye decided it would be a good idea to ridicule Noah's ark and the Genesis Flood. In his prepackaged-sounding objections to creation science and the Flood, he engaged in numerous logical fallacies. One was asserting uninformed opinions that would have a negative influence on listeners (prejudicial conjecture). One of these was that some shipbuilders designed a ship that sank, therefore, Noah's ark could not have worked. Like so many others of his nature, he did not do his homework, embarrassing himself and other evolution propagandists. Both Bill Nye and Ken Ham managed to get people thinking and asking questions. Don't Miss the Boat — Facts to Keep Your Faith Afloat by Paul Taylor answers some questions and will prompt further investigation. The Genesis Flood is a biblical event, and Paul gives us a clear biblical viewpoint as well as the science of the Flood, draw

Once again, evolutionary scientists (with the help of their press) are spinning sensationalistic speculations as fact. This contrivance is to "explain" the evolution of the face from fish. Hopefully, there will be some scientists who will disagree. Naturally, Darwin's Cheerleaders will pass this along as proof for evolution and carp that creation science is wrong. It is indeed unfortunate that too many people lack the critical thinking skills needed to discern the scale of this latest futility. For one thing, this is loaded with assumptions and presuppositions. Another problem is that the long-discredited embryonic recapitulation idea is being dredged up yet again. Creationists do not have to resort to such disingenuous tactics. Evolutionists say they have filled in the gaps in the origin of the human face. Building on a 2013 report about a placoderm that turned an earlier fish story on its head the latest contributor to facial history— Romundina —is being advanc

Trilobites, those (probably) extinct marine bug-like critters that sometimes resemble the horseshoe crab, are fouling up evolution again. The so-called "Cambrian explosion" has been a thorn in the side of evolutionists for a long time: The Cambrian strata is full of fully-formed creatures. Bam! They keep trying to explain away this evidence of Creation and the Flood to no avail. Trilobites are a part of it. Trilobite fossils are found in many sizes and have several classifications. They were also rather complex, with no sign of evolutionary ancestors. That is bad enough for evolutionists, but their fossils strongly indicate rapid burial through a catastrophic Flood. Trilobites are one of the most popular fossils for collectors and are found all over the world. The Ute Indians used one species as an amulet, and there is even a cave in France called the Grotte du Trilobite that contained a relic made out of one of these extinct marine creatures. Trilobites are mem

The mainstream media and the science press have a few things in common. One is the presentation of one-sided news. Both are fond of the sensational stuff, and will be inaccurate to further their worldviews as well as increase sales. Secularists in the science press will take discoveries that are not yet fully analyzed, grab take the speculations of scientists or even make up their own "facts" by twisting or even ignoring actual facts . When given only one side of the story and getting dishonest with the truth, they go beyond propaganda and into brainwashing. Unfortunately, people are no longer trained to think analytically. Instead, they believe what "scientists say" and "studies show" . The more enthusiastic of Darwin's Cheerleaders will call us "liars" for daring to ask questions and show flaws in logic. (Ironically, when they call us liars for presenting evidence that they do not like, they are the ones who are liars, because they

A Bill Nye the Propaganda Guy fanboy was acting like his hero and decided that he needed to set us st00pid dumb Xtians straight and heroically save "science" with his mighty intellect. One of his main objections is my statement that evolutionists do not do their homework. Ironically, he did not do his homework and helped prove my point! It seemed that he was grousing about "winning" arguments (I believe a lot of this kind of trolling is all about ego). Can't help you, I won't let someone declare a conclusion with faulty premises and bad reasoning. Like Nye, he was full of stuff and nonsense, but he exceeded Nye in non sequiturs and other logical fallacies. I took his diatribe apart, and showed that you can do this too. There were other fallacies I did not bother to address, but I think you will get the idea. The MP3 can be downloaded here .

Amber is plant resin that dripped down trees, trapping insects and so on. It became fossilized, and paleontologists have a great time studying the amber as well as whatever was inside of it. (There is jewelry made from amber as well, with or without insects and things.) Amber has been an excellent preservative agent. morgueFile / Karpati Gabor Evolutionary scientists have their presuppositions and assumptions, which include how many millions of years to assign to amber. These speculations drip to the ground when the stuff has encased something that should not exist according to their presumptions. In this case, flowers from alleged millions of years ago. And they are just as "advanced" as modern flowers. Instead of supporting evolution, it fouls up their timeline and it needs to be adjusted. Again. But this is exactly what biblical creationists expect to find. Flowers preserved in amber from Myanmar (aka Burma) are not only breathtakingly beautiful but also demonstra

One of the most annoying things I found about Bill Nye the Talking Points Guy in the debate with Ken Ham was that he regurgitated "science" that creationists have addressed years, even decades, previously. (He was also condescending, but never mind about that now.) Nye also used lame arguments that have been brought up many times, and we still see them now. Atheists and evolutionists seem to dislike doing their homework, being hopelessly locked into defending their fundamentally flawed worldview. When people use the same kind of "argument" that Nye brought up about evolution being essential to science, some of us will point out that great scientists of the past were biblical creationists, Christians, theists and so on. The counter-claim is that sure, they were clever people, and they would have believed evolution if Darwin had written back in their time. Such a claim reeks of desperation. Also, they are inadvertently claiming godlike powers because they &q

And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the sky. Let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise, we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” — Genesis 11.4, HCSB From the beginning, mankind has wanted to be important in his own eyes. Eve fell for the lie of Satan, "You shall be like God" ( Genesis 3 ). Somewhere around 2200 BC, people were still trying to make a name for themselves and challenge God's authority. The ancient pagan religion of evolutionism has been a justification for the rejection of God; Darwin popularized it as "scientific" and put this paganism in a lab coat. Using evolutionary presuppositions and assumptions, charts are made for their timelines and data is force-fit into a naturalistic paradigm. There are frequent discoveries that rattle the cages of the Evo Sith, but they manage to carry on with their worldview despite  the evidence. In this case, a compression fossil of a mosquito

Evolutionists should try removing their Darwin spectacles, because their evolutionary presuppositions cause them to see things in a very distorted manner. Homo antecessor  has been the recipient of some creative, unusual and possibly even desperate stories. morgueFile / zabmo Using assumptions that evolution is true, rocks that footprints were found in are a certain number of millions of years old, Homo antecessor  lived at that time — this, and other wild conjectures about our alleged evolutionary ancestors are not based on evidence, but on storytelling of things that are not really there. And ignoring more rational explanations for what has been observed. Details make the story of Homo antecessor an improbable tale of human evolution. It was Europe’s entry into the early human evolution story.  It was the pride of the Spaniards.  It was Europe’s answer to Africa’s  Homo ergaster , the earliest population of  Homo  outside of Africa.  It was named  Homo antecessor , an ev

This episode of Real Science Radio with Bob Enyart and Fred Williams has some detailed information available. They are discussing the "List of Not So Old Things", a regular feature on the show where scientific observations demonstrate that the earth is young, not old. There is an audio version available giving an overview, but I encourage you to read the post as well, since they cover a great deal of material and give supporting links. The picture below shows where to look for the audio.  RSR's 2014 List of Not So Old Things .

I fouled up, and I feel quite badly about it. One of my sources of material turned out to hold some theological positions that I cannot condone. I felt that if I used them, I was risking sending people into error if they got involved with this group. Although I will defend creation science and refute evolution, I try very hard to avoid using material from groups that are heretical, apostate, compromisers on the authority of Scripture, unchristian religions, cults and so on.  But I missed. Several posts are now missing, and some are partial posts because my introductions to the articles had relevant material and links, so I left those in. I want to give God my best service, and I want to give you the best material I can, too. (For that matter, there are articles from reliable sources that I will reject for various reasons.) Another learning experience for me. Sorry for the difficulties. — Cowboy Bob Sorensen  

Back in action, and back to discussing informal logical fallacies. This time, we'll deal with the related fallacies of Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Popularity. Since people tend to think with their emotions rather than their minds, they fall prey to people who want to manipulate them through these tactics, added with appeal to ridicule, the genetic fallacy and others. But truth is not determined by consensus or popularity. The MP3 can be downloaded here .  

Migratory birds flying in formation tend to cause people to look up in wonder. They have been doing this long before aircraft were invented. It was learned that fly in an aerodynamically efficient manner. As technology advances and scientists get more ambitious, further information comes to light. stock.xchng / scataudo Now scientists are learning that the flight formations are mathematically precise and intricate. Interestingly, the Evo Sith have not even bothered to some up with filghty evolutionary "explanations". They did not evolve these advanced, efficient flight systems, they were designed that way. Birds fly in that beautiful V formation for a reason, and it requires sophisticated abilities in high precision aerodynamics. Scientists have finally confirmed that the V-formation used by geese and other large migratory birds provides an energy benefit.  A new paper in Nature describes the work of Steven Portugal and team, who trained rare northern bald ibi

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Taking a different approach on this Question Evolution Day . This article will have some thoughts, feelings and testimony. I am on record for saying that I became interested in creation science long ago, and enthusiastically learned it. For a while, I was presenting it in churches with both scientific evidence and the theological importance. Ken Ham was working with the Institute for Creation Research back then, and I attended seminars and presentations. I met Ken, Duane Gish, Henry Morris, John Morris, Don DeYoung and others. Also, I had an impromptu debate with a couple of evolutionists that had a lasting impact on my naïve approach — I tried to convince them through evidence. Due to various reasons, I put God on the shelf for about fifteen years. Long story, too long to repeat here. During my backslidden time, I was investigating Buddhism, involved in politics and doing other odds-and-ends on another Weblog. But I had not rejected God, and would e

Question Evolution Day is February 12. Just thought I'd remind you. Evolutionary paradigms assume that the box jellyfish (one species is called sea wasp because of its nasty sting) is a "simple" organism. But like so many other things, the more science advances, the more intricate scientists realize that some things are. Using typical circular reasoning based on assumptions, evolution happened, the jellyfish is one of the first creatures to evolve eyes, therefore we can find out what eyes were like back then. Wouldn't the eyes have evolved? It is virtually unchanged in "millions of years". One argument of convenience for evolutionists is the contradiction that evolution is a necessity of life, but if something is unchanged, then it did not need to evolve. With "reasoning" like this, they should not wonder that so many of us question evolution. The eyes of the box jellyfish are complex and unchanged? No surprise for creationists. Box jelly

One reason I think that Bill Nye's rhetoric sounds like it is canned is because I had heard much of it before. (Also, because he used "evidence" that had been written about by creationists years before, look for links to the Answers In Genesis and Creation Ministries International sites here .) One thing that stands out is the boilerplate slander that anti-creationists use. Although I am not sure Bill Nye directly used it, a common untruth is the claim that creationists do not contribute to science and are not published in scientific journals . Another untruth that Nye and others use is the claim that creationists do not make scientific predictions. This shows massive ignorance of the history of scientific inquiry. Or is it simply an attempt to poison the well? Perhaps something else. At any rate, my favorite example is how creationist Dr. D. Russell Humphreys made predictions about planetary magnetic fields that were proven right . In addition to that, Dr. David De

My shortest audio-video podcast ever. The MP3 can be downloaded here . Are you tired of videos? We had a lot going on in the past week, so I kept this short. That, and the fact that the one I had planned (and had started) was going to be dreadful. So, just a couple of comments about that Ken Ham - Bill Nye debate, a few other odds and ends, then back to work preparing for Question Evolution Day .

What went on in the Evolution Bunker after the #creationdebate? There are several opinions on who won the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, and why . Creationists tended to see flaws in both Ken Ham and Bill Nye, and especially in the debate format itself. Some of Darwin's Cheerleaders ranted that Nye won through "science" despite his numerous logical fallacies and condescending attitude (he disrespected the entire state of Kentucky, too). Some evolutionists admit that Nye failed. Most creationist accounts that I read did not give a clear victory to Ham. But the news spread, and Hitler found out...

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen There are quite a few reviews and editorials about the Ken Ham and Bill "I Played a Scientist On TV" Nye debate, so I am going to keep my remarks brief. No need for a full analysis, others are doing that rather well. Evolutionists and atheists are claiming victory. Creationists are doing the same, but are divided. Some of us (yes, us ) are not claiming it to be a "slam dunk". In an earlier interview , I stated that I expected Ken Ham to win the debate. I was right. Sort of. There were qualifiers, that Ham had to keep Nye on topic and watch out for logical fallacies. Nye did not disappoint, indulging in prejudicial conjecture (such as saying that the Bible is wrong, it can't happen, what about this that and the other, but didn't bother to do research on the topics, just made assertions), straw man arguments, elephant hurling (Nye was asking Ham numerous questions, but the format did not allow for proper responses), subtle ad ho

Writing this on Monday, February 3. The big debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye the Anti-Science guy should be over. For the three-year anniversary of this site, here is some science until I get time to write about the debate. The article that I will link is in two parts, the second part is linked at the end of the first where it says "to be continued". Evolution is an ancient pagan religion. After various attempts to make it appear scientific before and during the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin managed to popularize it in 1859 and 1871. People grabbed evolution as a means to reject God while appearing scientific and intellectual. Darwin taught that natural selection was the basis of changes in species. Creationists also believe in natural selection, as it eliminates organisms that are unfit for certain environments and is scientifically verified. However, traditional Darwinism had to abandon natural selection as a means of molecules-to-man evolution. (Surprisingly, so

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Atheists are in a tizzy over the debate, and have launched into damage control mode. Their assertions and accusations are amusing as well as defamatory and libelous. The big debate between creation science apologist Ken Ham and Bill "I Play a Scientist on TV" Nye is schedule to take place on February 4, 2014 at 7 PM Eastern Time.  Excuses are already being offered. One is that Bill Nye is naïve and going against an expert charlatan , so he doesn't stand a chance. Richard Dawkins thinks this debate is a bad idea as well . Various articles, comments and so on around the Web are polarized. Some say that Nye will make Ham crumble to scientific facts (news flash: assertions are not "facts", Skippy). P.Z. Myers seems to agree .  Humanists are saying it's a good thing for similar reasons , that "science" will win over Ham's faith-based assertions, which is more prejudicial conjecture (and there is a false claim in the p