Piltdown Superman

Over and over, atheists and evolutionists claim that most of the greatest mass murderers in history, who happened to be atheists, were not motivated by their atheistic worldviews . This is clearly false. Evolution has been embraced by tyrants; Hitler used eugenics to accelerate the natural process of evolution. Communist leaders were anti-Christian, anti-Jew, anti-religion. Darwinism is a dangerous philosophy. Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) endorsed a program in Germany to breed a superior race. The scheme was based on a horrific evolutionary theory called “eugenics” that was founded by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. The idea of eugenics was to improve the human race using principles promoted in the theory of evolution. The idea was simple: partition the human race into two groups, the “fit” and the “unfit.” Eugenics seemed to be a way to make sure the “fit” had children and the “unfit” did not. In Germany, the leaders of the eugenics movement got mon

Answers in Genesis It happens all the time: Evolutionists hit creationists with complete nonsense about what we believe. I think it is for two reasons: They do not bother to check their facts and actually get information about creationists from the creationists themselves, and also because they are being misled by bad propaganda. Here is a hint to evolutionists: If you want to discuss creationism, do not tell us what we believe. You can ask, and you can learn our side of the story from us, not from evolutionary disinformation tanks that are more interested in appealing to emotion than in the true scientific attitude of learning the truth. Appealing to public emotions is a tool employed by politicians, media, and anyone trying to win supporters for a specific agenda. Naturally, such efforts can skew or omit facts, as is often the case in mainstream presentations of the ongoing battle between evolution and creation science. A recent Discovery News feature provides a tellin

Many evolutionists do not do their homework when it comes to creationism and Intelligent Design. I have had several people presuming to tell me what I believe, as well as proclaiming what creation science and Intelligent Design advocates teach. However, they embarrass themselves with their uninformed presuppositions. One of the presuppositions is that "believers" are extremely credulous and unscientific in our views. Here is an example to demonstrate that the opposite is true. It seems that every few years, someone claims to have discovered Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat. The location is obscure and very difficult to find, and verification has been pretty well nonexistent. Another expedition excitedly claimed that they had found Noah's Ark, and wanted creationist support. On April 25, 2010, a press conference was held in Hong Kong to announce to the world the potential discovery of the remains of Noah’s Ark on Mt. Ararat in Turkey by a joint Chinese–Turkish team

CreationWiki (modified) You know that "tree of life" thing that is in all the school textbooks? You know, it shows everything branching out, tracing back to the alleged "common ancestor"? Darwin's tree of life was wrong . Well, some of us knew it all along, but evolutionists are finally admitting it. Oh, but getting the word to the textbook publishers? We'll see. It will probably be misleading information in textbooks for decades yet . Charles Darwin drew his first "evolutionary tree" in his "B" notebook in 1837, with the words "I think" scrawled above it, to illustrate his idea that all of today's species arose from a single common ancestor. This concept lies at the heart of evolutionary thinking, and the tree-like images that often accompany its instruction have been effective indoctrination tools.  However, if today's creatures evolved from some other creature millions or billions of years ago, then the

The more we learn about the complexities of genetics, amino acids, the cell itself, mutations and so many other things, the more we can see that evolution is an empty, unscientific philosophy that should have been discarded years ago. For example, people still insist that the long-discredited Miller-Urey experiment regarding the "primordial Earth" is proof of chemical evolution. What did they really  get from this experiment? Image modi fied from Yassine Mrabet   /Wiki media C ommons First, cheating pays off in "science", because they started with amino acids, broke them down, and then got amino acids again. Second, it shows that intelligence, not chance, made things happen (such as the "cold trap" trick). Third, that a bad experiment (a spark does not equal a lightning bolt, get real) can yield "results" if they fit preconceptions. Even worse for evolutionists, this faulty experiment manages to argue against abiogenesis. Abiogene

The old "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" mantra is not only worn out, but absurd from the beginning. Using evolution as a prerequisite for understanding biology (and all of science, for that matter) is actually detrimental. Here, I'll let Dr. Sarfati explain in his reply to a letter. I read with some interest the text and annotation of your debate with Dr Mark Farmer. While I could raise many points, I will confine myself to the passage quoted below: ‘Has the evolutionary paradigm been the great benefit to mankind that is claimed? MF quoted Dobzhansky as saying how important it is to biology. However, Dr Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School states: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” (quot

On 8 April 2010, Marcus Chown writes in an article entitled “ Time waits for no quasar—even though it should ” for  New Scientist  online “Why do distant galaxies seem to age at the same rate as those closer to us when big bang theory predicts that time should appear to slow down at greater distances from Earth?  No one can yet answer this new question  [emphasis added] … .” Background photo by NASA Halton Arp cites many examples of quasars found aligned within ± 20 degrees of the minor axis of the active nucleus of a galaxy. The minor axis is perpendicular to the plane of rotation of the galaxy. They are often seen within a few arcminutes of a parent galaxy, in pairs, on opposite sides as though they were ejected from the active nucleus. Their redshifts are large compared to the parent but they have a higher probability than the background average of being near the putative parent. This suggests physical association and that their redshifts are intrinsic, of an unknown orgin, but not

In the same way that species are not static, neither are genomes. They change over time; sometimes randomly, sometimes in preplanned pathways, and sometimes according to instruction from pre-existing algorithms. Irrespective of the source, we tend to call these changes ‘mutations’. Many evolutionists use the existence of mutation as evidence for long-term evolution, but the examples they cite fall far short of the requirements of their theory. Many creationists claim that mutations are not able to produce new information. Confusion about definitions abounds, including arguments about what constitutes a mutation and the definition of ‘biological information’. Evolution requires the existence of a process for the invention of new information from scratch. Yet, in a genome operating in at least four dimensions and packed with meta-information, potential changes are strongly proscribed. Can mutation

Science is one of my favorite subjects. I really looked forward to it in school. Technology is something I like as well. It's really great finding out about the intricacies of how things are made, how they function and so on. I am baffled by some things. One is that evolution is considered "science", as if it is foundational for an astrophysicist, physician, molecular biologist or whatever to be thoroughly indoctrinated in evolutionary "facts" to be able to perform their various disciplines. I thought those were all sciences in and of themselves. Another item I find baffling is that the "science" of evolution must be protected. I thought that an essential component in science is the quest for knowledge. To attain knowledge, facts and observations must be compared and analyzed. This cannot be done if facts and evidence contrary to evolutionism are ignored, rejected out of hand and even suppressed. Brits are guarding evolutionary indoctrinati

When I was giving creation science presentations, I mentioned that Archaeopteryx was not a transitional form, but rather, a true bird. I was surprised that  some die-hard types refused to relinquish their claim that Archie is a "transitional form". Now he keep flying back into the news. The latest news: He's still just a bird. A strange one with odd features, but still just a bird. The fossilized bird known as Archaeopteryx has had quite a history of identity crises. Researchers once classified it as a "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds. It was considered to be an ancient bird, then changed to a dinosaur, and now it's supposed to be a bird again. So, what is it?  Nature News reported in July that an analysis of fossil traits "suggests that Archaeopteryx is not a bird at all," but instead more closely resembled dinosaurs.  ICR News responded at the time that because "it had core features that define birds, such as flight