Piltdown Superman

You can download the MP3 version of the podcast here . The ad hominem  fallacy seems to be the most common. It is attacking the person instead of the topic. This is very easy to do, especially when someone throws down and indicates that they are not interested in rational discourse, they simply want to negate whatever you have to say with a distraction of insulting you instead of dealing with the discussion at hand. Edit: He kept at it. Some people do not learn.

Still more press problems that get evolutionists excited, thinking they have a smoking gun to blow away all of creation science. They get going with a "take that!" attitude when they get (yet again) misleading information from the press based in incomplete information from scientists. But if they bothered to do a bit more reading (and thinking), these fans of evolutionism might be a bit slower to be full of glee and have their joy turn into embarrassment. Again. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech One absurd estimate for "habitable" planets in the universe reached forty billion. This "science" is based on luck and odds, not observations. It is also based on evolutionary presuppositions and assumptions. Remember, the press wants to make money on sensational claims, such as saying a planet is very much like Earth if we lived on a molten blob . The scientific community does not help much, since they want to make money and give sensational information themse

Darwin's Cheerleaders are having a laugh at creationists' expense because they believe that a valid "explanation" for the soft tissue in dinosaur fossils has been found. Here we go again (sigh). Someone thinks there is a wonderful proof of evolution, and runs screaming down the street without examining the evidence. Image * After (modified) Carelessness gets scientists into trouble, and fundamentalist evolutionists get arrogant with incomplete, careless "findings" and pronouncements. In this example of the apparently never-ending parade of preposterous presentations, scientists are making excuses giving explanations for the soft tissues and red blood cells found in dinosaur fossils. Their bias showed early on, because they "knew" that no soft tissues could last for "millions of years", so they did not look for it. (This is reminiscent of the "junk DNA" fiasco , because evolutionary scientists assumed that because they cou

NASA/NSSDC For life to supposedly evolve, it first had to originate in the first place. And it had to start very simply. From rocks. But the more we learn about life, the more we realize that simple cells are not so simple. Even the parts of individual cells are amazingly complex. Going all the way down to the level of DNA, amino acids, sugars and so on, the right things have to be in the right place at the right time. The odds against life originating by chance are nil. Atheists, agnostics and evolutionists are admitting that life could not arise by chance. Some are going into mysticism (such as pantheism and the "Gaia hypothesis" ), or pushing the problem out into space . But that does not solve the problem of the origin of life. The complexity of life and the impossibility of it forming by chance are strong evidences for the best possible answer: the Creator. How did life begin? The origin of life is a vexing problem for those who insist that life arose through p

People have the illusion that scientists are dispassionate and are willing to accept the evidence. Tampering? Fabrication? Sloppy science? Outright fraud? No way! At least, they have learned their lessons from the past. That'll be the day. Prestige and money make scientists just as avaricious as us regular folks. People leave comments at The Question Evolution Project proclaiming the virtues of science (apparently their religion is Scientism) and spewing anti-creationist vitriol, seemingly unaware that the scientific community is not full of beings that are above the rest of us in intellect an morality. For example, yet again, sensationalistic reporting from incomplete evidence regarding our alleged evolutionary ancestors is an embarrassment. Of course, biblical creationists do not have to deal with faking it to get money and applause; we just have to tell it like it really is. Evolutionists do have a good propaganda machine, though. And yes, "evolutionist" is a

In the past, we have seen how the Evo Sith are willing to resort to fraud and lie to students in order to promote evolution. It is no surprise that they are willing to deceive the general public as well. We are given information that is inaccurate, incomplete, sensationalistic — sometimes even promoting information that disproves  evolution as evidence for  evolution! Loading up to spread evolutionary propaganda Image credit: Library of Congress Shenanigans from evolutionists, I tell you! Unlike evolutionary spin , dung is actually useful. In this 4-part audio series (about 29 minutes each) on Real Science Radio , Bob Enyart and Fred Williams interview Walter ReMine about some of the illusions presented by evolutionists when they attempt to convince us that evolution is a fact. They also spend time on cladistics and Haldane's Dilemma. Each page has written information as well as the audio. Links to the shows are below the picture. (One caveat, though. Enyart teaches t

The MP3 version of the podcast can be downloaded here . As promised (threatened?), I'm beginning the series on logical fallacies with an introduction and an overview. There is no need for people to be intimidated by an aggressive evolutionist and/or atheist who wants to destroy your faith. Just learn a bit about logical fallacies and you can realize when you're being taken for a ride.  In an online discussion, a friend made this comment to me: "There is a perfectly logical explanation for the skeptics' double standard and blindness. They have not only their own heart's rebellion, but a powerful blinding force from outside. Our job is to pray they be released to find life and joy." Also includes another edition of the "Atheopath Follies". Plus a bonus video below about how to do an argument!

So often, evolutionary science is a game of words. Remember the new golden rule, that whoever makes the definitions makes the rules . In this case, it's the term "living fossils". This is generally applied when a plant or animal is found alive and well, but had been declared extinct for "millions of years". The term "living fossil" is a bit of a loaded term, implying that evolution is true despite a bit of a glitch. They also want the best of both worlds. Evolution is a "fact", sometimes called a law as if it was a kind of inexorable force. So when these "living fossils" are discovered virtually unchanged, people will say something like, "It didn't evolve because it didn't have to". What fallacy is that, No True Evolution, or special pleading? stock.xchng / Fire Salamander / gc85 Salamanders are a bit different in the "living fossil" realm, since they have not been declared extinct while in hidi

This site is a resource offering more resources. The articles come from different authors (and I even write a few myself), and there are links from the excerpts to the full articles. From there, seekers can browse those sites for additional information. Also, there are many links to creation science sites so people can continue to search and learn. You can use that material to see how evolutionists are constantly being confronted with observations that do not comport with their naturalistic presuppositions and worldview. Instead of realizing that Occam's Razor applies  (restated, the simplest explanation is probably the best one) and that God is the Creator, they bulk up their speculations with further speculations and end up with a complicated jumble in which they put their faith. And the discoveries that support Genesis just keep rolling in. The history of the world and its life could hardly be more different between the Bible’s account and that of modern evolutionary na

Many years ago, I was given a twelve-inch vinyl record album from the "Talespinners for Children" series called "Moon Voyage". I had never heard of the "Talespinners" series before, and never obtained any of their other material. "Moon Voyage" was actually quite good, playing like a kind of historical radio drama and giving stargazing history. If I had a record player, I would consider buying it again. Perhaps we should start up a company called "Talespinners for Evolution"? There's money in evolutionary stories, you know. And they tell so many of them. For example, astronomers decided that due to the red shift, a certain galaxy must be the oldest one in existence. They conveniently forget " horizon problem ", and ignore other items, such as the brightness of stars in the galaxy, the fact that galaxies exist so far away fouls up the cosmology on the age of the universe, its appearance and other details. By arbitrari