Piltdown Superman

Some misotheists begin with the assumptions that they are somehow more intelligent than theists because they pretend that there is no God, and that theists are incapable of rational thought. Especially biblical creationists. Wrong. They seem willingly ignorant that many of the greatest scientists of all time have been biblical creationists, and they exist today as well . Rejecting evolution on both theological and scientific grounds does not mean that someone is stupid or uninformed; such assertions are fallacious. It's ironic when atheopaths use logical fallacies to tell us they're smarter than we are! Sometimes, it becomes difficult to distinguish between the fallacies, especially when they are blended together. Is the above only prejudicial conjecture, or does it include the genetic fallacy? At any rate, we can see that it is an attempt to berate creationists from someone who has unwarranted presuppositions. This begins to show that Christians and creationis

"Tweets" are  Public , Not Copyrightable  Proponents of evolution will sometimes attempt to distance themselves from the problem of the origin of life itself. Some will deny that evolution has anything to do with that subject (which is news to writers of textbooks, Neil deGrasse Tyson's Cosmos, David Attenborough's First Life  and so on). But still, they defend the arbitrary, circular reasoning of the  failed Miller-Urey experiment  and try to find explanations for abiogenesis, even though it violates scientific laws. The most logical explanation is that life was put here by the Creator. Goo-to-you, molecules-to-man, chemicals-to-cats,abiogenesis—all these terms refer to the essential starting point for evolution of life through natural processes. Yet in a massive review published in the American Chemical Society’sChemical Reviews, researchers report, “The origin of life is a fascinating, unresolved problem.” And it will remain unresolved for them until they a

I managed to keep this one under seven minutes. The False Dilemma Fallacy is used frequently. It is slightly misnamed, sometimes used unwittingly, but I have found that it is usually a cunning attempt to force someone to choose between two possibilities when there are really more than two.  One example that I forgot to include in the video and remembered after it was complete is often found on Facebook. People will post something along the lines of, "If you care about this problem, you will share this picture". It implies that you either care (demonstrated by sharing the thing) or that you do not care (by not sharing). Possibilities that were omitted include: You spotted the fallacy and will not participate even though you really do care about the issue Thinking that sharing does not help solve the problem Someone was busy and forgot to come back and share it. I've seen things related to this where someone says, "I'm updating my friend list, comment i

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Creationists expect to be ridiculed, lied to (and lied about) by atheists and anti-creationists. That goes with the territory. But what happens when someone wants to gain information about creation science and theology but may not realize that the site or social media location has a more insidious goal? Recent experiences prompted me to seek counsel from Christian friends, and this article is the result. It is going to be different from most of the material here; I want to caution people who are looking for good creation science and theological material. That sounds strange, but stay with me on this as it can be very important for your spiritual well-being. Background I choose from a variety of sources for the featured articles and to include in the Creation Links section. Sometimes the individual article is acceptable, but I do not want to risk sending someone to a site that may lur

Many people find various creatures to be creepy or annoying, and sometimes both. Darwin's Cheerleaders are unable to have a coherent explanation for the evolution of the mole because (yet again) the fossil record is a hostile witness. Creationists see the different kinds of moles as yet another testimony to the wisdom of the Master Designer. For fans of Kenneth Grahame’s classic The Wind in the Willows, mention of a mole conjures up images of a quaint bespectacled creature renowned for his loyalty to his friends. However, to most residents of Europe, Britain and the US, moles are simply pesky animals that leave behind untidy molehills, destroy crops and fields, and damage tree roots and plants with their burrowing.  Neither conception does justice to the remarkable physical traits of the mole. Classified in the family Talpidae and the insect-eating order Insectivora, moles have an array of design features perfect for their subterranean lifestyle. Dig into the rest of this

Have you seen that picture with the caption, "We have the fossils. We win"? It's not true. Well, you can "win" if you move the goalposts by reinterpreting the data. Nobody has their own facts. The disagreements come when people interpret the evidence differently. Image * After (modified) As I keep saying, everyone has presuppositions by which they interpret data. Evolutionists start with the assumptions that the earth is billions of years old, that evolution happened, and that so-called "index fossils" are reliable. When fossil discoveries persistently cause difficulties for paleontologists and they have to resort to increasingly absurd explanations for discrepancies, they should seriously consider using the far more believable Noachian Flood model. Do rocks and fossils hold clues that demand millions-of-years? Not the fossils from China's Daohugou beds. On the contrary, their clues speak to more recent origins.   Accessible from severa

People will interpret things according to their worldview. This includes their experiences, education, religion, upbringing and presuppositions. It is not unexpected when proponents of evolution will attempt to interpret data using an evolutionary framework, as creationists will interpret data within a creationist framework. But sometimes evolutionists get ludicrous when they attribute just about everything to evolution. Now it is posited that beards are a product of evolution. Yes, really. But this smacks of desperation (or possibly obsession), since the research is extremely slipshod. But it is true to other evolutionary models: Incomplete data while ignoring better explanations. Noting shifting fashions in men’s facial hair, some evolutionists are trying to link them to Darwinism.  It’s not controversial that beards go in and out of style; they’re hip now, but may be on the way out. What should make men twirl their mustaches is the notion that their morning soliloquy,

"Why don't you write a paper that refutes evolution, get it peer reviewed and get a Nobel Prize?", he smirked. Similarly, "Show me proof of creation, but only from peer reviewed sources", she insisted. Generally, there are some assumptions made with statements and questions like that: Creation science is not "real" science Creationist scientists are not "real" scientists Creationist scientists do not publish in scientific journals, nor have they had their work peer reviewed Peer review guarantees that the material is accurate Peer review us uncluttered with biases and personal views Also, people making such statements are showing ignorance of what really goes on in the peer review process, and that the Nobel Prize has been awarded to people who were rejected by the peer review process. It is a valid process, but peer review does have some serious drawbacks . And yes, creationist scientists do  publish in scientific journals . But

Someone may ask why creation science ministries discuss theology and the historical fact of the bodily Resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Biblical creationists take Genesis very seriously, as it is the foundation for all major Christian doctrines . Jesus is God the Creator , the second person of the Trinity, who became a man . He suffered on the cross for our sins, reconciling those who receive him to God, rose from the dead and defeated death . Jesus is " the last Adam ", not, "the latest in a chain of evolutionary processes". Jesus and the apostles referred to Genesis as literal history, not as allegorical or fictional. Biblical creationists would like to plead our case to other Christians and show them why Genesis matters . Rembrandt, "Resurrection of Christ", 1639 Below is a short video discussing "The Resurrection and Genesis", and here is a link to the article under discussion , which has a great deal of useful information that

This is written primarily for Christians, although unbelievers may be interested in the historical and cultural material. Edited 10 April 2022, added a video at the end that addresses some of these issues and more. It is interesting that some mockers will ridicule Christians by saying, "You celebrate Easter! That's a pagan holiday!" The joke is on them because they are simply parroting bad information that conflicts with scholarly research. Unfortunately, some Christians also believe this pagan origins stuff; there are even modern Christian sources (such as Got Question.org) that pass along erroneous information. It is sad when some Christians will use the same bad sources as misotheists in their efforts to scold other Christians for celebrating Easter. Ignorance of actual history is bad enough, but looking down on brethren in Christ out of pride and out of disdain for the Bible that they claim to believe is far worse. Even if the claims that the origin of the wo

Here is a song that has always resonated with me. Although the song is not specifically for Good Friday, the video that was made is appropriate for the day. The song is "The Dark Hills" by Day of Fire. God the Son, the Creator , humbled himself and became a man . He died on the cross and bodily rose from the dead on the third day out of love for my sinful self. And for you, if you will repent and receive the free gift of salvation . Sunday's coming!

In an article called " Radical Environmentalism and the War on Humans ", it was pointed out that environmentalism has some good elements that are based on compassion and what should be common sense. The extremist view is dangerous; I do not say that lightly, since some people advocate exterminating millions, or billions of people because Earth is more important than humans to some of them.  One aspect of this is "animal rights". This, too, is based on compassion and what should be common sense. Indeed, standing against animal cruelty is in line with biblical values. However, the extremists want to give animals the status of "personhood". (Hypocritically, an unborn human child is not a person to them and has the moral equivalent of lettuce.) This is based on evolutionary thinking. Creationists point out that people are made in God's image, and are special. Evolutionists degrade humans because of their evolutionary mindset. (Will bigoted, hat

Human eyes are a marvel of the Designer's ingenuity, even if Richard Dawkins and other atheopaths (who know nothing about ophthalmology) claim that it is "bad design" — which has been thoroughly refuted . Darwin said that the evolution of the eye by natural selection was "absurd", but because of his worldview, he chose to believe that it evolved anyway . Not only the design of the eyes themselves, but the brain has to be able to process the images so we can function. "Jesus had compassion and touched their eyes. And immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed Him.” Just as quickly as He made the first human eyes out of dust, Jesus the Creator fixed two men’s broken vision systems as only a Master Biotechnician could. Today, new inner-eye wonders are regularly uncovered, exposing the eye’s miraculous origin.  One critical vitamin-like eye molecule bears the chemistry-friendly name “11-cis-retinal.” When this molecule is embedded in its

People are enamored with science. It is understandable, because scientists have given us fascinating glimpses deep into the universe, improved lifespans, advanced our technology and much more. Unfortunately, it goes beyond appreciation for the achievements of scientists. There seems to be a cult-like following of scientists. Source: U.S. Navy They are put on a pedestal and made into an all-knowing elite group. (Some people recognize this and joke, " Scientists have discovered  that people will believe anything when you say 'scientists have discovered that. . . '") This has been happening for a long time. In fact, "science" is spoken of as if it was a living being; watch for the reification when people say, "Science says". It is "scientism", where people are practically worshiping science and scientists. Sorry, but scientists are people and science is not an entity. Scientists speak of historical science (using what exists in th

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen An interesting and timely question prompted this article. Earlier, I wrote again about how facts alone can be incomplete . Giving information and evidence is good, but addressing worldviews and presuppositions are very important, and can give a more complete answer to a question or challenge. To briefly recap, everyone has a worldview based on presuppositions (things they assume to be true). When presented with evidence, we naturally use our worldviews to interpret it. When someone has an anti-Bible bias, he or she can easily reject evidence supporting the Bible (and especially biblical creation science). Cockatrice drawing by Oliver Herford, 1912 at Reusable Art Here is the question that I was given this morning (writing this the day before I publish it) at The Question Evolution Project on Facebook : If you can't make out the text in the picture, he wrote, "Hey again. Question for you. In Isaiah when it mentions cocktracies and saty

Edit: I fouled up and did Friday's post on Thursday night. Oh, well. Many times, Christians and creationists will point out that the evidence supporting the Bible and creation is on our side. However, we cannot just "out evidence" scoffers because for every fact, every bit of evidence, there is an equal and opposite rescuing device. That is, if someone does not want to accept the evidence, they will find a way to reject it. Everyone has a worldview built by their presuppositions, and their presuppositions are composed of beliefs, opinions and things that they consider self-evident truths. The "truths" of materialists are actually self-refuting because they are comprised of unsupported assumptions. (Often, they do not even realize that the things they take for granted as being true are unfounded.) Also, people will cling to their worldviews in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary. These will find excuses to avoid examining the evidence that suppor

Evolutionary speculation does wonders for the mind — it makes one wonder if some people can think productively. They are so locked into their billions of years and "deep time" presuppositions that contrary evidence is ignored, dismissed and even rewritten through blatant deception . (Yet, when we point out their logical fallacies and point out errors in the science, we are called liars.) Saturn's moon Enceladus is an example of cold reality being given the "spin", and problems with the speculations are ignored. Especially how the planets and satellites fit the creationist models and defy evolutionary cosmology. NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute Far too often, evolutionists present unsupportable assumptions as facts, and will give speculations that are actually laughable. Unfortunately, Darwin Drones believe that stuff. Some of the science reports about the possibility of an ocean of water on Enceladus started off with reasonable extrapolations based on re

Proselytizers of evolutionism are divided on the issue of the origin of life. Many know that life could not originate on this planet. Period. One option is to distance themselves and say, "Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, it's only about the development of existing life". Untrue, as anyone who reads an evolution textbook or watches a documentary on it, or even checks Wikipedia , one of their sacred texts, will clearly see. To further distance themselves from abiogenesis (chemical evolution), some evolutionists push the problem out into space — maybe aliens did it . Credit: Image * After Of course, it is also easy to simply ignore the problem and make assertions, expecting people who want to believe evolutionary theories on the origin of life to simply accept them because "scientists say so". (Unfortunately, to many people are unable to think critically.) Watch for when they redefine terms to suit their own purposes, or make false sta

Your genetic clock is ticking. For every generation, DNA in a species is modified and becomes less similar to that found in the "parents". When using mathematical calculations from secular scientists and their assumptions, their DNA predictions fail. Derived from " Clock " and " Modified DNA " at Clker.com Creation science researchers used the same mathematics and came up with preliminary results. These dispute evolutionists' results and affirm the calculations and predictions from a young earth biblical creationist model. Ticking within every species is a “clock” of sorts that measures the length of time that a species has existed on the earth. Since DNA is passed on imperfectly from parent to offspring, each generation grows more genetically distant from prior generations. Consequently, with each successive generation reproductively isolated groups within species grow more and more genetically distant from each other.  This is true for