Piltdown Superman

Last week, I posted about some evolutionists being honest enough to admit that they do not really  understand evolution. Today, you can read an article demonstrating that many scientists as well as Darwin's Cheerleaders do not understand their own belief system. Science would be useless without logic and critical thinking. Circular reasoning , straw man fallacies, formal logical fallacies and outright deception are used to keep the faithful fundamentalist evolutionists in line and fool people who do not put forth the effort to check things for themselves. Giving credit to evolution as if it were an actual entity ( Fallacy of Reification ) is contrary to evolutionary dogma — but people do it anyway. This happens frequently. The following article has several examples that can cause people to wonder about how poorly scientists and their press actually understand evolution. But then again, if the public was told evolutionary dogma in a straightforward manner, people would plainly

Have you heard the one about the monkeys and the typewriters? ( If you're too young to know what a typewriter is, click here .) So here it is: Given enough time, typewriters and so forth, monkeys will produce all or part of the works of Shakespeare. Isn't that hilarious ? But seriously, folks, the concept of "given enough time, anything can happen" is a fundamentally flawed faith tenet of evolutionism. This is why the Evo Sith desperately cling to "deep time" and ridicule young-Earth creationists. (Ridicule is utilized when science and logic are ineffective at silencing their opposition.) The fact is, given an infinite  amount of time, some things will never happen . Prominent evolutionist Julian Huxley said that, given enough time, monkeys typing randomly could eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare.  When arguing that life could have arisen by chance, evolutionists will often state that—given enough time—any

People have a simplistic view of the processes of science. It does not have a basis in atheistic materialism. In fact, the origins of an effective, consistent approach to doing science has a long and complicated history. The political, social, religious and philosophical environments underwent many changes. The greatest scientific minds of the past (as well as many in the present) were Theists, usually Bible-believing Christians.  Radar's article give you an overview of the factors influencing the development of modern scientific methods. Many people who claim to be experts on science (and evolution) do not know much of this material at all! "Yes, it is a press, certainly, but a press from which shall flow in inexhaustible streams the most abundant and most marvelous liquor that has ever flowed to relieve the thirst of men. Through it, God will spread His word; a spring of pure truth shall flow from it; like a new star it shall scatter the darkness of ignorance, and cau

Flickr/Ed Uthman (image use does not imply endorsement of this post) Let me over-simplify: Neo-Darwinism relies heavily on a series of gradual mutations so that one organism can, eventually, turn into another organism. Microbes to microbiologist, goo to you, that sort of thing. This flies in the face of observational science. Everything has to be in place at the same time, or an organism cannot change, or even survive, because mutations are meaningless at best, but usually harmful. The startling complexity of DNA and genetics should make anyone an evolution denier with even a cursory glance at the processes. It helps illustrate the design and wonder of life. For example, embryonic development has genes that switch growth processes on and off... Here, let the author explain: As they say in the real estate business, location is everything. It looks like the same working principle applies to genes and their control sequences in the genome during embryo development. And not j

Some people claim to have a thorough knowledge of evolution. Amazingly, there are tinhorns who claim to know more than evolutionary (and non-evolutionary) scientists! Evolution is inconsistent and constantly changing, and needs a great deal of tweaking to keep the pseudoscience in line with scientific observations. Do evolutionary scientists themselves claim to have full understanding of evolution? Not hardly. Some will actually admit to having a lack of understanding. Yet, they persist in keeping the faith despite the evidence. Philip Ball’s opinion piece in this week’s Nature, the most popular science magazine in the world, is news not because he stated that we don’t fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, but because he urged his fellow evolutionists to admit it. On this 60th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double helix, Ball reviews a few of the recent findings that have rebuked the evolution narrative that random mutations created the biol

“In science, people argue for their ideas, in terms of the evidence that they have. There should be more opportunities to look at why some ideas are wrong, as well as what the right ideas are.” — Jonathan Osborne When discussing origins with proponents of evolution, we find that they simply repeat what they have been taught. Unfortunately, they have been taught "facts" that are conjecture, and "evidence" that is based on presuppositions and circular reasoning. Questioning evolution as a fact is effectively forbidden, and fundamentalist evolutionists strive to suppress critical thinking and examination of the evidence. Jonathan Osborne wants to do things differently. Instead of reciting facts (both real and imagined), he wants students to do something radical: Argue from the available facts instead of starting with a conclusion. Although it's a step in the right direction and interferes with evolutionary indoctrination, it's not quite enough. A pr

by Robert ("Cowboy Bob") Sorensen This article is for the creationists, and I implore you to spare ten minutes to read it. Science is on our side. Most of us are aware of th is fact. Also, our numbers are growing and atheism is on the decline [ 1 ] . It is an exciting time to be a creationist! There are many organizations that present the science and theology supporting creationism and make material available on the Web  [ 2 ] , as well as books, videos and so forth. So what are people doing with this wealth of information? Some will learn a bit, but after the entertainment value wears off, they lose interest. Others will become enthusiastic but do not continue to learn, and become intimidated when challenged by scoffers. There will be some who lose sight of the importance of the message because of their other concerns and leave it behind. Then there are the ones who are excited about the message, the science, the relevance and more, so they dig in deeper. These will lea

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen The term “Luddite” refers to a rebellious movement in the early part of the Industrial Revolution. At that time, some people were destroying machinery that was going to put them out of work because they could be replaced by unskilled, low-paid people who would run the machines  [ 1 ] . Although most people do not know the real meaning of “Luddite” today and the fear of unemployment and starvation that motivated the movement, many know the disparaging term from definition number two, “One who opposes technical or technological change” [ 2 ] . Even that meaning is being lost because the term is being used imprecisely. People who want an emotionally-charged word for their political or religious enemies will call them “Luddites” [ 3 , 4 ] . I have encountered the term dreadfully misused several time in reference to creationists. Since someone who believes in Intelligent Design or biblical (Six Day) creation is tagged with this term, it seems fitting to t

NOAA To journey to the ocean floor, special equipment must be used because the tremendous pressure can crush a submarine like an eggshell. Yet, there are living things there. Even more amazing, they live in  darkness around hydrothermal vents that exude great temperatures and toxic gasses. The existence of such creatures (and the symbiosis of many) defies evolutionary explanations. Some locations on earth seem just too extreme to support life. One such extreme environment is vents at the bottom of the ocean that spew out superheated water and toxic chemicals. Yet even here we find an abundance of living things, well designed for life at the extreme. An ugly gash slices across the earth’s surface, zigzagging 49,700 miles (80,000 km) around the globe. Superheated water gushes out of underwater fissures, spewing clouds of toxic chemicals. Temperatures can reach 700°F (400°C), and pressures can exceed 10,000 pounds per square inch. Surely this should be the most desolate s

The famous "geologic(al) column" that is presented as evidence for uniformitarianism and evolution has several problems. The first one is that the sequences do not exist except in textbooks and the imaginations of Evolution's True Believers ®. The layers are out of order. A second problem is the circular reasoning used to date the layers by use of index fossils (we know how old a layer is because of the fossils in it, and we know how old a fossil is because of the layer in which it was found).  A further problem for evolutionary geologists and paleontologists are the missing layers, totally disrupting the expected sequences. These are not minor aberrations in small areas that can be dismissed. Instead, they cover large areas and involve alleged millions of years. The frequent flatness add to the annoyance. To make matters worse for uniformitarianism, these gaps support  Noachian Flood models postulated by creationists. ‘Flat gaps’, generally known as paraconfor