Piltdown Superman

As biblical creationists have pointed out for quite some time, the study of origins is historical in nature. Both creationists and evolutionists use science in their efforts to determine what happened way back when. Something I learned from Ken Ham at a creation science seminar many years ago was the simple question, "Were you there?" (I used it in presentations of my own as well.) A follow-up question is, "Do you know anyone who was there?" Asking this cuts through a wagon train-load of bluster and assertions, and evolutionists get mighty agitated. Night sky, Pixnio / pattomolina They dislike it because some folks think for themselves instead of accepting evolutionary propaganda. It also puts a bit of pressure on secularists, and we need to keep that up. Evolutionists and atheists appeal to the authority of evolutionary and deep-time scientists, but they usually evosplain things and expect people to accept it. "Were you there?" also reveals the lack for c

It is bad enough that Darwin's votaries pretend that they are driven by science and not by faith in naturalism, but they celebrate the Bearded Buddha with religious fervor. It happened on the 150th anniversary of the Marxist-adored Origin of Species , and now this. Some professing atheists think evolution makes them " intellectually fulfilled " Celebrations are planned for the 150th anniversary of The Descent of Man , and by the time this is published, there will undoubtedly be more. (This may include dancing around the maypole.) Interestingly, there are no significant calls by the cancel culture gang to deplatform Darwin . Falsehoods abound about this owlhoot's "wonderful discovery" and how he was a "great scientist", but he only hijacked natural selection and retooled existing evolutionary views for his own purposes. Also, Darwin had no formal scientific training. It is about worldviews. Evolutionism is naturalism and is opposed to special creat

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  In anticipation of the tenth annual Question Evolution Day on February 12 , we should mount up and head for yonder hill to get a bigger perspective. Misotheists and other evolutionists say that biblical creationists believe "myths" and "fairy tales" despite  scientific evidence. This raises some important questions. Image Credit: US Geological Survey (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Actually, the questions that are raised fit under an umbrella question: Why don't biblical creationists fear science? People who have something to hide or know that their belief systems won't withstand scrutiny seem to shun science, logic, and good theology. But we embrace such things. If natural sciences like geology truly support deep time, why are there organized tours by creationists? There are many, with people and organizations such as: Russ Miller of  Creation, Evolution & Science Ministries Eric Hovind of Creation Today Gra

A spell back, a reader of The Question Evolution Project on Fazebook messaged a link to us involving the dinosaur extinction impact theory with information on new fossil discoveries (several versions of the report are circulating). You know the basic story: 65 million Darwin years ago, a meteorite/asteroid/comet hit the earth and killed off the dinosaurs, but left other critters still alive. Credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) I didn't get back to that link for a while. What I did find was some of the usual arbitrary assertions that secularists make based on deep time and evolutionary presuppositions. They also tend to go with the prevailing view (an impact by a space object caused dinosaurs to push up daisies), but also ignore the flaws in this theory. For that matter, scientists are divided on what caused dinosaur extinction. What I noticed right away is that scientists found catastrophic, rapid burial with lots of water involved. Really? S

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen First of all, I'll allow that I'm biased regarding Bill Nye the Scientism Guy (like so), because of his atheistic anti-creation activism, abuse of logic, and militant advocacy for his version of global climate change. Even so, I shall endeavor to be as objective as I can in this article about the unofficial "second debate" between Nye and Ken Ham at the Ark Encounter [ 1 ]. I was annoyed while watching it, and one time, a Nye fallacy actually made me LOL. A bit of background is in order. Bill Nye made vituperous attacks on creationism, and against Answers in Genesis in particular. Two AiG scientists challenged him to a debate [ 2 ], especially Dr. Georgia Purdom. He ignored them. Is it because "the Science Guy" is not an actual scientist? He earned a Bachelor of Science, but went no further in his formal education. [ 3 ] Eventually, the formal Ham-Nye debate was established [ 4 ]. I wrote an article about it, which included several

Remember the February 4, 2014 debate between Ken Ham and Bill "I'm not a scientist, but I played one on TV" Nye? You know, the debate that Ham is encouraging people to watch, and it can be seen for free here , but Nye doesn't talk about? Strange, evolutionists and atheists were claiming victory. Actually, Nye used numerous logical fallacies as well as thinly-veiled personal attacks , and his supporters ( such as this one ) tend to use fallacies as well. Recently, I was contacted by Michael Boehm of " Youth Apologetics Training ", and have been listening to his podcasts. (Don't be ruffled by the "youth" part, this isn't kid stuff and adults like the podcasts, too.) He covers many topics. I was pleasantly surprised to find that he interviewed Ian Juby of "Genesis Week" , and I regret not knowing about both Michael's work and this interview long ago. Sorry about the picture, I couldn't get a more recent picture of Ian J

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen The creation-evolution controversy has been kicking up dust like a cavalry charge out on the plains. There's a great deal of noise, and all the dust makes it hard to see what's really going on. Atheists and anti-creationists use the confusion to try to sway people to their way of thinking. Much of this involves manipulation of emotions with name calling (labeling), blatant misrepresentation and outright falsehoods about what creationists actually believe and teach, and presenting bad evolutionary "science" as facts. The whole thing has been intensifying , which can be seen after the Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate on February 4, 2014, where Nye used bad science, dreadful logic, and sneaky debate tactics — much to the delight of his adoring fans. The orig ins controversy is not restricted to academic interests. There are people who will insist that their leftist, materialist worldview is the only one that is rational, and if someone is running

So, Bill Nye wrote a book. Ken Ham, his debate opponent on February 4, 2014, has authored, co-authored and edited dozens of books. Ham writes a lot, nobody bats an eye. Nye writes one book, and everyone loses their minds . The difference is that Nye is a celebrity propagandist for evolution, which he equivocates with "science", and Ham teaches biblical creation science — which is considered "cool" to bash nowadays. Wikimedia Commons / Ed Schipul  ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ) Bill Nye apparently can't stand Ken Ham. In interviews and things, he refers to Ham as "that guy" . The question has been raised that if Nye trounced Ham in the debate like his fans claim, why doesn't he promote the video, which is available to watch free online? Perhaps it's because he misrepresented many things and told several untruths. Or maybe because the debate format itself was appallingly bad. Even so, Ken Ham's not afraid or ashamed of the debate. I had to edit i

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 .

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

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

Creation science is a very hot topic these days!  The debate between Ken Ham and Bill "I Play a Scientist on TV" Nye will happen very soon,   Creation Sunday   is coming, movies about Noah and the Ark are going to be released (including   a creationist version with the real account ), the   Genesis 3-D  movie   is in the works, a recent survey shows that   people are not accepting evolution nearly as much as atheists would like , a site lamented that   2013 was "a terrible year for evolution" . And there's   Question Evolution Day . Question Evolution Day   is, on the surface, about basic human rights: We can say that we question (or reject!) evolution, and should be able to do so without loss of intellectual, academic, professional, speech and other freedoms. But it is important on deeper levels, including why it is important theologically and that evolution is a foundation to the religion of atheism — both of which are fundamentally

My wife came into the room and noticed my moist eyes. Someone I had respected had moved on to his permanent home with Jesus. I'm not ashamed to admit that I had an emotional moment. Although I was not a personal friend of Dr. Duane Gish, he had made an impact on me. I met Dr. Gish, Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. John Morris and Ken Ham at a creation science conference in Schaumburg, Illinois in 1991. Heh, I just remembered that the conference people needed some help with the projectors for films between presentations, so I jumped at the chance to do that. Interesting...Dr. Gish was one of the "fathers" of the modern creation science movement. His handwriting was rather like my own father's. Although they remained faithful to their calling, I did not. I fell away from the faith for about fifteen years. After I renewed my commitment to Christ, my creationist calling came back, stronger than ever. Duane Gish was loved and respected by many. He was also hated by so