Ken Ham on sin and poodles

Amusing video.

On Intelligent Design

Read here.

15 questions for Darwinists

Here.

 

 

New Blog

I followed a link posted by a member of the face book page “Creationism”.  Good stuff.

An excerpt:

Everything that I have seen presented as evidence of deep time by secularists falls into the same pattern. First, observe some current phenomenon, such as the number of craters on the moon, the amount of salt in the oceans, the movement of the continents or the Grand Canyon. Second, carefully observe how the phenomenon is acting now or in the near past. Third, assume both deep time and uniformitarianism. Apply deep time and uniformitarianism to the current phenomenon. Fourth, claim that the current rate of the phenomenon is proof of deep time and uniformitarianism.

YEC FTW!!!

“The ability to improve the precision of the CMB measurements is not nearly as important as the ability to recognize the importance of assumptions in interpreting the data. Creation scientists are quite open about their presuppositions, while many evolution scientists refuse to admit that they even have starting assumptions.”

http://www.icr.org/articles/type/9/

An interesting article

A Dispensational View of Theological Order:
Why It Offends Covenant Theologians
by Charles A. Clough

 

Of particular interest to me is the article’s assertion that acceptance of materialistic, naturalistic assumptions that were popular during the Enlightenment led to theologians rejecting the Scriptures altogether.  This contradicts a certain pre-Trib writer who is otherwise pretty good.  His claim is that the “Creationist vs Darwinist debate” is irrelevant, and that Christians should divert their attention to more important matters.

The law of biogenesis and Darwinist intractability

So, I’m arguing over on the “Debunking Atheists” page on Facebook, and get into a discussion about whether Jesus really existed or not (hint:  He did), and it naturally turned into a discussion of abiogenesis, thanks to me.  My challenge to any atheist is to show me some scientific experiment or recorded observation of life arising from non-life.  Many atheists are going to dance around this question like a [insert clever simile here], because it refutes atheism at its core.  Well, one brave soul tried to answer my question by showing this: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/
Not even close, and we have the scientist’s word on that:  http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/21/venter.qa/index.html

Venter: We created a new cell. It’s alive. But we didn’t create life from scratch.  We created. as all life on this planet is. out of a living cell.

So, atheists still need to show that life can arise from non-life through natural processes before I will allow them to proceed with their other arguments.

Truth, Lies, and Videotape

Over on the “Creationism” page on facebook, I posted a video from Ian Juby:

Some random anti-science fellow commented, claiming that Ian Juby was caught lying.  This did not surprise me, for whenever an anti-science Darwinist is faced with the sound, logical, and scientific arguments of a Creationist, the Darwinist usually resorts to calling the Creationist a liar.  In any case, as evidence, the random anti-science fellow presented this video:

Well, having watched the video, I discovered that the author of the video didn’t “prove” that Ian Juby was a liar.  He didn’t even prove that Ian’s hypothesis was wrong–by his own admission!   The video’s author first claims that he performed an experiment using chickens, which would, incidentally, fall short of verifying or falsifying Ian’s hypothesis about dinosaurs*, but then turns around and says that he didn’t perform any experiment at all, but nevertheless concludes that Ian’s hypothesis is wrong because “screw you, that’s why”.  Typical Darwinist nonsense.  He makes much of the “fact” that Ian didn’t read the source material carefully, but then shows no sign that he actually read it himself, except to dig out a spurious “fact” that “contradicted” Ian’s hypothesis (something about the dinosaur eggs coming from two different species).  Well, it is manifest that the video’s author did not read the article himself, at least read it with understanding, because the article clearly supports Ian’s hypothesis:

Does a regular pattern of eggs indicate dinosaur manipulation? A look at Figure 3 with the greater but uniform gap between the pairs of eggs on the right suggests that the eggs were merely dropped, not manipulated. The even distance between pairs of eggs suggests a mechanical determination consistent with their exiting the oviducts in pairs. The mechanical nature of the layout is emphasized by Mikhailov, et al. (1994, p. 99) when they state concerning the eggs of Mongolia, “The eggs are often preserved in pairs, possibly as a result of the simultaneous action of both oviducts and the gluing together of the eggs with a mucous secretion.” Paired eggs would then be a sign of stress on the gravid female which resulted in her effort to rid herself of the encumbering eggs as rapidly as possible. The eggs would not have been manipulated into this pattern, but instead simply fell and were allowed to remain where they fell in the linear pattern as she continued moving forward laying the eggs.

True science**, FTW!

*Even if his claim that “chickens descended from dinosaurs” were true, performing the experiment using chickens would not necessarily tell us anything about dinosaurs, since they’re different animals.

**Creationism, without a doubt.

Ian Juby’s Sex Video

 

Warning!  Do not watch this while children are present!  Also, while you’re eating lunch!

The Atheist Delusion

So there’s an article over at the Ron Paul Forums concerning some congressman who asserts that the earth is 9,000 years old.  In the comments following, we find the usual proponents of the non-falsifiable flapdoodle that is Darwinism.  There’s also a fine example of the “begging the question fallacy”.  In any case, I felt that it would be appropriate to link to this article that disusses the “New Atheists” and their vapid thought processes.