Piltdown Superman

As we have seen numerous times, secularists are thrilled that the number of people are believing in minerals-to-microscopist evolution is increasing. At the same time, they  increase their indoctrination efforts . We saw what their bleak worldview does to young people . When a person is under the control of drugs or alcohol, in a cult, exhibiting harmful behavior, etc., friends and family may stage an intervention. A wake-up call, if you will, in an effort to correct the situation. The secular science industry does not want "consensus" science questioned, and some sidewinders want to have interventions to make people agree. Good sheep obey the consensus, image used:  Jo-Anne McArthur at Unsplash According to the United Nations, " We own the science ." That should tell you a great deal right there. Many creationists, including myself, encourage people to use critical thinking and spot logical fallacies. This is especially useful when someone is attempting to deceive

Something we often hear about in discussions of science is consensus. While that can be useful in some situations, it is not helpful in science. In fact, consensus is used to censor evidence that is contrary to the view of the majority. Anti-creationists often claim that microbes-to-materialist evolution is "settled science" and appeal to a consensus (as do other people with an agenda), as if that settles the matter under discussion. Credit: Unsplash / Pedro Lima Climate change alarmists really take the rag off the bush by appealing to their selected authorities and becoming irate when contrary scientific evidence is presented. (Indeed, I have been called a "science denier" and a "bigot" for presenting refutations.) Global warming alarmists have been proven wrong repeatedly, such as in this article about the prediction that the Maldives and other areas would be under water by now . Some jaspers will exclaim, "Weather is not climate!", t

There are some notable similarities in proponents of molecules-to-merchandiser evolution and anthropogenic climate change, so that is the main reason an article on climate change appears here. One of these connections is the way adherents of each take a cultlike approach to promoting their views through emotional appeal and by denouncing those who offer cogent rebuttals and contrary scientific evidence.  Another similarity is that both evolution and global climate change claim "consensus" as if bandwagon support was actual science. Third, both areas underplay or even ignore important details that should be considered. Global climate change advocates overlook the existence of natural sources of methane — which is "worse" than carbon dioxide. Credit: Freeimages / Michael Ring Many of us have heard about government funding to study bovine burps and flatulence because of methane emissions. Some folks even want to vaccinate livestock against the organisms that e

As we have noticed on this site alone many times, peer review is not a guarantee of truth or even accuracy. In a like manner, scientific consensus is not a guarantee of truth or accuracy, either. Browbeating consensus skeptic is not conducive to the scientific process. Labeling someone as a "science denier" is a childish way to avoid examining legitimate objections to majority opinion, you savvy? The coming ice age — I mean, global warming — I mean, global climate change — has deep political motivations, including globalism and taxation to force people into submission. It also is based on materialistic evolutionary beliefs including deep time and that there is no sovereign God who is in control. Climate change is definitely not an established fact, old son. People indulge in groupthink and listen to yahoos like Bill Nye the Stalinist Guy (who believes in throwing "climate change dissenters" in jail ) to support their beliefs. Climate change enthusiasts wave away

Imagine some cowboys at the campfire on the trail: "I see you got that fire built up pretty high. Ain't that a tad much for heatin' up beans?" "Normally, yep. But I'm making coffee, it's gonna be a long night". "Well, hope that firewood's loaded up with phlogiston." "What's phlogiston?" "The stuff that makes things burn. If it don't have no phlogiston, it won't burn. Johann Becher explained combustion back in 1667. You really should do some science reading now and then." Too bad the dude doing the explaining didn't read further, or something more up to date. While phlogiston was the dominant scientific theory for a spell, Lavosier became skeptical and determined that it was oxygen , not phlogiston (the dark matter of the 16th century?) that caused burning. RGBStock / Krzysztof Szkurlatowski Unlike Darwinism, phlogiston theory had some explanatory merit. Like Darwinism, the idea of ph

People keep gnawing on that "global warming" or "global climate change" bone, citing "consensus" as a primary evidence that the subject is deadly serious and that man is the primary culprit. Not hardly! There have been climate changes throughout Earth's history, before human activity could be blamed. Further, although there is some amount of climate change, it is negligible, and the subject is primarily a political tool for globalism, and based on an evolutionary worldview. Modified from an image at Clker clipart Particles-to-planetologist evolution as well as climate change are fields that proponents declare "settled science", and secularists in the mainstream scientific community get on the prod if someone dares to present contrary evidence. Especially objectionable is when evidence regarding climate change comes from scientists who believe in special creation. There are credentialed scientists who reject the hysteria of global war

Funny how when people think they have things all figured out, things change and there's not so much understood after all. The predictability factor in cosmic and biological evolution does not inspire confidence. Sure, you'll find assertive tinhorn evolutionists who will believe in various forms of evolution despite  the evidence, but don't pay them no nevermind. The fact remains that fundamental beliefs in science keep getting overturned; consensus science isn't good science. Physics in particular has been taking a beating as of late. Moon rock from Apollo 14. Image credit: NASA/Sean Smith Analysis of zircon in moon rocks is being reconsidered, which has implications for the age of the Earth and, therefore, evolution. The study of subatomic particles called kaons  may change the Big Bang cosmogony (again). Dark matter and considerations of universal constants. Oh, yes, a whole passel of tinkering with things that are only theoretical, or based on evolutionary

Who are the people who advanced science? The ones who moseyed along with the herd? Not hardly. When you hear about famous scientists, they are usually the ones that broke away. You know, people like Louis Pasteur, Ray Damadian, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), Joseph Lister, Andy McIntosh, Isaac Newton, and many more are known for what they accomplished, not for supporting the prevailing views. "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus

People cotton to the notion that scientists in their nice lab coats are purveyors of truth — especially when there is a consensus involved. They're right because they're scientists, you know. Not necessarily. Scientists have been wrong on things through the ages (see " Can all those scientists be wrong? " and a fun list of " Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories [That Turned out to be Wrong] " for some interesting examples). Also, just because there's a consensus does not guarantee accuracy . Don't forget that. Credit: Modified from Freeimages / Kenn Kiser Evolution is a big thing, and the public as well as most secular scientists accept it as a "fact". There are folks who present scientists as having a unified front regarding evolution, but there are some who risk ridicule and resist peer pressure in disputing it. Darwinists have a great deal of pressure to perform (gotta get that grant money), so we get a passel of sloppy scien

The public seems to have a cognitive dissonance when it comes to science and the scientists that make science and technology happen. Many will blindly accept what scientists say (or what the science press claims what scientists say). Some go as far as to make man-made science philosophies the ultimate source of truth and knowledge. Then the disconnect. People are skeptical of what scientists say, while being enamored of science. Despite the claims of evolutionists, atheists, agnostics, and those tinhorns who go haywire alternating between atheism and agnosticism, it's not st00pid unedjamakated dumb Xtians who have doubts. Instead, there are people who think and are informed about science matters who have doubts. Can you blame anyone for having doubts? Scientists say things that are not exactly true, and the science press has the grace, dignity, and accuracy of a cattle stampede, making grandiose claims about "discoveries" that the scientists themselves do not reco

And now for something completely different. This will be much lighter fare, informative and possibly a bit entertaining. Two of the fallacies that creationists often encounter when giving evidence that refutes evolution is Appeal to Authority . Sometimes it's spurious (such as believing that atheist evolutionist Richard Dawkins is an expert on biblical creationist theology), sometimes it is valid (such as believing that Dr. Jason Lisle knows about astrophysics). And sometimes it is used instead of bothering to think, such as, "Most scientists believe in evolution, so they must be right". Or worse, appealing to some vague and often inaccurate concept of "consensus", because consensus does not validate truth or science . When scientists actually practice real science instead of furthering ideologies, various "facts" and things accepted by consensus have come and gone. Sometimes things are believed for a long time by many people and then they go

"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