Piltdown Superman

Sometimes, evolutionary "explanations" require the suppression of remarks like, "You gotta be kidding!" in public because they are ridiculous even on the surface. Of course, if a silly explanation of how something evolved is challenged, you may have to endure the standard, "What's your  degree in?", as if only the educated elite are allowed to challenge evolution. But I know stupid stuff when I hear it. Evolutionists attempt to use their worldviews and extrapolate faulty principles with unintentionally humorous results. Sometimes Darwinians are funny.  They take themselves so seriously, applying natural selection to everything on earth except their own seriousness.  Charlie Green:  At New Scientist, Mark van Vugt and Vladas Griskevicius think a little applied Darwinism can turn us a different color.   “ Let’s use evolution to turn us green ,” they said.  People want to be green, but they are too stuck in their old ways.  Why? It may be time

As most of you probably know, evolution cheerleader Bill Nye let fly with an anti-creationist video that got him into trouble with creationists. Ken Ham, Dr. Georgia Purdom and Answers in Genesis issued a debate challenge , followed by an additional challenge . Modified from Clker An update in Ken Ham's October 25,2012 Weblog has additional information: A number of people have asked Answers in Genesis if we would be open to the possibility of debating the TV personality known as “Bill Nye the Science Guy” (of PBS TV and the Disney Channel)—after Nye’s harsh anti-creationist video went viral on YouTube.  At last count, over 4.8 million people have watched him make a number of misrepresentations about the creationist position. We posted our own rebuttals to YouTube (“ Bill Nye, Creationism is Highly Appropriate for our Children ” and “ Ken Ham Responds to Bill Nye ‘The Humanist Guy’ ”). We did publicly challenge Bill Nye to a debate on my blog, but we have also made a

A Republican Congressman, Representative Dr. Paul Broun, Jr. is a medical doctor. In addition to having a science background, he is the Chairman of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee for the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee". He spoke at a church function . He referred to evolution as "lies from the pit of hell". This set evolution propagandists into a frenzy. After all, what business does someone knowledgeable in science have badmouthing a state-sponsored belief system? He should keep his views to himself, because freedom of speech is only allowed if it is acceptable speech! That bulwark of unbiased journalism known as CNN did a piece on this story. They interviewed "scientist" Bill Nye (funny how someone whose only earned science degree is a Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering is referred to as a scientist, but PhD scientists who believe in creation are not "real" scientists, go figure). CNN also interviewed Dr. Jason

Once again, evolutionists have had things wrong and have been misrepresenting the data. It had been assumed that intelligence was based on cranial capacity, and evolutionary fitness came about from having a larger brain. But it turns out that things are much more complicated than that, and the body would have to evolve in order to accommodate a larger brain. Creationists do not have to come up with such cockamamie schemes. Brain size can’t be used as an independent measure of fitness, five evolutionary anthropologists contend. How long have evolutionists told us that our relative brain size gave us the fitness edge as we evolved from apes?  That assumption has been called into question by Jeroen B. Smaers and four European colleagues in a new paper in  PNAS. . . . Dr Jeroen Smaers ( UCL  Anthropology and  UCL  Genetics, Evolution & Environment), lead author of the study said: “When using brain size relative to body size as a measure of intelligence,  the assumption has

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.” — Charles Darwin It has long been established that evolution is racist in nature , and has been used to justify racism . This goes back to Darwin's writings as well. But what happens when one racist-based pseudoscience is used to support another racist-based pseudoscience? Phrenology , was pseudoscience that postulated that the size and shape of the skull indicated levels of intelligence. Although its advocates stu

This edition will probably appeal to Christian apologists most of all. Sunday, October 14, 2012 was an interesting day for me. I was invited ("invited" as in, "hounded the guys until they gave in") to be on the "Evidence 4 Faith" radio show/podcast . Host Keith Kendrix was away, and Kirk Hastings was filling in. It was my first live guest spot on a radio show , not including call-in shows. (Before that, I was involved in a three-part   podcast for Theopologetics , but that was recorded and not a live broadcast .) I was hesitant a few times, not wanting to steamroll over Kirk — it's not my  show. And I had a dry throat problem on occasion. By the way, they've read my letters a coupl e of times on the air. One of my haters wrote to them in response and told them what a bad man I am. I bet he loves this development. Enough of the personal stuff. We discussed several things, including logic, atheism (which is fundamentally flawed), e

One of the most interesting insults that I have ever been given was that of a "serial fact denier". This was from someone who was confused that evolutionary conjectures were actually proven. Very few evolutionists have the courage to examine contrary evidence. Most of these are filtering the facts through their evolutionist worldview, and whatever does not comport with their assumptions is considered "wrong", or even "lies". Very disingenuous. Sean B. Carroll is frustrated so many still deny evolution, but he shoots his own argument in the foot. Carroll, portrayed as wandering around the Smithsonian in ecstasy at all the exhibits showcasing evolution, was given ample space in a  press release from Tufts University  (echoed on  PhysOrg ) to rant about all the fools who disagree with him.  He can’t believe that people enter the museum and continue to carry their God bias even after sights like these: The sign in front of the tall display cas

What do you get when you present only one side of the scientific evidence, cherry-pick data to support your belief system, misrepresent those who disagree with you, resort to stalking, harassment and libel, present outdated and fraudulent information as fact? Yep, you guessed it! Evolutionary indoctrination. Let's be blunt: It is brainwashing. How do the "educators" delude themselves as well as their  students? Today's article is so short, I am not even going to post the first part as an introduction. Instead, you can read " Training Non-Skeptics One Course at a Time", here .

When having what passes for discussions online, Darwinoids often resort to "proof" or "evidence" that is jaw-droppingly dreadful in their efforts to stifle creationists. Those of us who have a grasp of scientific thinking and news are baffled that nonsense is offered. They should be thinking things through and asking questions in science classes. But what good is "should be" when we must deal with what actually happens? People like Mohamed Noor will offer bad logic and outdated science to his students. Since they trust him to deliver material that their parents are paying for, they accept the stuff and pass it along. Not good. Today’s first set of lectures in Mohamed Noor’s Introduction to Genetics and Evolution course would seem downright bizarre to anyone not familiar with evolutionary thinking. Noor is teaching this course via through the coursera on-line service and the Earl D. McLean Professor and Associate Chair of Biology at Duke Univer

Creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design have been saying for years that the concept of "junk" DNA belongs in the dustbin. Ironically, people like Eugenie Scott, Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins and others want to believe that the biblical worldview is false, and yet, an evolutionary worldview based on chance, mutations, random processes and so forth make science impossible! To depend on the uniformity of nature, they have to stand on the biblical creation worldview because their own will not support them! Here is an episode of "Real Science Friday", where Bob Enyard and Fred Williams discuss ENCODE and more. Since the Web page is full of information, you may have to search for the download or streaming audio links. Let me help with that, they're near the top: Click here to access the page .