Piltdown Superman

Every once in a while, an atheopath will claim that "an omniscient God negates free will". This shows a blatant special pleading fallacy: imposing a different standard on others than for oneself. Why is this special pleading? Because free will is impossible in a materialistic evolutionary worldview that atheists presuppose! It is also a ridiculous objection because the owhoot is fabricating a simplistic excuse to rebel against the God that he pretends does not exist (Romans 1:18-23, Psalm 14:1). Why is free will impossible for an evolutionist? Because we are just bundles of chemicals responding to what electrochemical dictate, according to materialists. They are atheists because of their chemistry. The Japanese did not have free will when they bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. Chemistry also "explains" mass murderers, abortionists, faqirs, doctors, philanthropists, biblical creationists — we are all "born that way". So, an atheist has no right to complai

Atheists and evolutionists mock biblical creationists for believing in the observed work of the Creator, but have their own blind faith and "miracles". One example is their fact-free presuppositional assertions that neutron stars make gold in space . Another example of faith in their own schemes is discussed below.   A serious problem for long-age cosmic evolution is the existence of comets. Those nuclei of those bad boys are small by astronomical standards (but you would not want one in your driveway), and are seen when they get close enough to the sun. Then, some of the surface burns off and we see the glow and long gaseous tail. They go orbiting again, and more of the nucleus burns off on the next pass. Repeat and fade until nothing is left, or it crashes into a planet or something. Using the dating methods and assumptions of secular scientists, comets should not exist because they would have been entirely used up millions of Darwin years ago. This is where the scienti

Advocates of minerals-to-microbiologist evolution are none to fond of information that contravenes their worldview. One way they do this is through outright censorship of creationary evidence . Another is to pile on misrepresentations, logical fallacies, and outright falsehoods . When caught lying, keep on lying. It's what they do. For that matter, I am convinced that many atheists and other evolutionists are afraid of creationary material, so they won't read it; some are so determined to contradict us that they will ridicule material based on a title or introduction alone — and have humiliated themselves by contradicting the evolutionary scientists they adore! CSIRO scientist sequencing DNA credit: CSIRO / Health Sciences and Nutrition Another tactic, frequently observed in leftist news media, is to ignore inconvenient truths and pretend that they do not exist. Darwin's Flying Monkeys© on the internet and other places bombard evolution skeptics with "mountains

Proponents of atoms-to-astronomer evolution often tell the world that there are "mountains of evidence" for their interpretations of scientific evidence. Those of us who believe in biblical creation science know that those mountains are molehills, and the evidence not only refutes evolution, but supports creation. Government indoctrination centers (also called "schools") and other sources of information saddle people with the idea that we are the products of time, chance, random processes, mutations, and the like. Live has no meaning, there is no ultimate justice, and when you die, you're worm food. This materialistic worldview actively rejects the Creator, who gives us meaning, there is ultimate justice and Judgment. Logic and science are impossible in a materialistic worldview, and only the biblical worldview makes sense of life, and makes logic, science, love, and other intangible aspects of our daily lives possible. Taking an honest look a

As Christians who believe the Bible and also use science, creationists are often challenged by mockers to explain biblical passages that appear to deny established scientific facts. Scripture does not contain anything that actually  defies scientific facts, and it certainly does not call on us to deny observable science. Dishonest atheists often use the logical fallacy of conflation, saying that since we deny evolution, we deny science. Evolution is historical in nature, and has numerous flaws; it is not a scientific fact. Still, the question remains: how do we deal with apparent conflicts between science and the Bible?  Planetary Orbits , Andreas Cellanius, 1660 The same owlhoots that call creationists "science deniers" for rejecting evolution also go to the stables and saddle up the old swayback of a falsehood that Christians persecuted Galileo because he taught true science (the heliocentric view, Earth moves around the sun), which supposedly conflicted with what t

So, when rock layers that have assigned ages are separated by non-depositional or erosional surface, that surface is called an unconformity.  There are four of them, with words that are unlikely to be found in casual conversation: nonconformity, angular unconformity, disconformity, and paraconformity. The last is the most troubling for uniformitarian geologists. Angular conformity near Catskill, NY, about half an hour north of me ( street view , I drove right by this) Credit: Wikimedia Commons /  Michael C. Rygel ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Since geological activity happened in the past, it is history, and not strictly science, so there cannot be eyewitnesses. Scientists have speculations, reasoning, models, and so forth based on the presumption of an old earth. Errors are made, and some facts are neglected. What we really  have is geology that is best explained by the rapidly-flowing water and catastrophic tectonics of the Genesis Flood. What are unconformities and what do they mean to

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen "I spy with my little eye...something beginning with F." "Fossil!" "Right. How did you guess so fast?" "Because we're in the fossil section of the natural history museum, doofus. So which fossil?" "That one — hey, it's gone! Those people are taking it away!" "Bad luck, pal." Hidden in the Museum It is a fact that museums have much more in their collections than are visible to the public. This applies to archaeology, religious art, erotica, paleontology, and more [ 1 ], [ 2 ], [ 3 ], [ 4 ], [ 5 ], [ 6 ], [ 7 ], [ 8 ]. They are so secret, we can read about them on the web. Is there a conspiracy  here yet? Actually, some artifacts and such are hidden away for the safety of the items, additional research is needed, offensive nature of ancient art, to simply rotate the stock because they have so much to exhibit, and other reasons. In addition, some people who do not know how to hand

Supporters of universal common ancestor evolution claim that the fossil record contains some of the strongest evidence for their belief system. Evolution requires huge amounts of time so things can go about the business of changing into other things, so there should be a multitude of transitional forms. Ain't happening, Zeke.  " But we've got excuses because you're wrong becaus e evolution !" The hands at the Darwin Ranch have worked overtime down at the propaganda mill to cover the fact that there are no undisputed transitional forms. Sure, they cite propaganda mills like Wikipedia, propaganda.talk.origins, and so forth that state what they want to believe, but those shnooks are at odds with the experts. I'd like to see trilobites do a coelacanth trick and suddenly get discovered alive Credit: Freeimages / Dave Dyet Doesn't a proper scientific attitude require evidence before a hypothesis is formed? Darwin admitted in Origin of Species, "

Proponents of fish-to-farrier evolution find the subject of dinosaur soft tissues distasteful, and I've even seen some outright deny that they exist! Others tried to downplay and ignore them, but they're here — and they're spoiling Darwin's party. It shouldn't be a surprise to learn that Darwin's disciples are loathe to have dinosaur fossil tissue tested for carbon-14. After all, that would mean their deep time presuppositions are wrong. No soft tissues in this bad boy, he's entirely concrete. Credit: Library of Congress / Carol M. Highsmith Several years ago, radio host Bob Enyart offered to pay $23,000 USD to Jack Horner, the paleontologist without an earned degree , to test his T. rex fossil for C-14. He declined . Other evolutionists have resisted having specimens carbon-14 tested as well. If you dig out your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™, you'll get, "We can't handle the truth!" That is, there would be further eviden

A favorite argument by biblical creationists and advocates of Intelligent Design against Darwinism is irreducible complexity. The simplified version is that everything must be in place at the same time, from the beginning, or nothing works or makes sense. This applies to the human eye and even down to the molecular level. Papa Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” He also said that he could "find no such case". I reckon he didn't try to see the evidence, just like his disciples today — who have even less excuse because of advances in science and technology. Matthew 13:14 comes to mind. Anti-creationists say that irreducible complexity "can be explained", but their arguments can be summed up as, "I found someone on teh interwebs that says irreducible complexity isn't so, and he says what