When Naturalists preach their Darwinian nonsense, an effective retort (were it not for Naturalists' profound stupidity) would be:

"How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!"

In other words, the assumed worldview provides the interpretation of facts. If the worldview is wrong, the interpretation like is, too. » read more »

Naturalists deny any possibility of a global flood here on Earth, yet they've begun talking about the very same on Mars. In fact, they believe there are great glaciers of frozen water underneath the surfaces of Mars, Titan (moon of Saturn), Ganymede, Callisto, and Europa (these last three are moons of Jupiter). For Mars in particular, Naturalists are now suggesting its global flood may have happened "when large amounts of groundwater burst on to the surface" of the planet, a la "fountains of the deep" (Proverbs 8:28). » read more »

For 150 years, idiots have been looking for the mythological planet Vulcan. No, it's not the one from Star Trek, although they did take the name from this myth. 150 years ago, astronomers began looking for a hypothetical planet with an orbit between Mercury and the sun. They theorized its existence because Mercury's orbit was not behaving as the models were predicting. They predicted an elliptical orbit, and they saw one, but they also observed this ellipse slowly rotating (the foci were not stationary as the models predicted). They concluded there must be another planet, a fairly large one, that was pulling Mercury's orbit around. » read more »

So-called "scientists" of the secular variety enjoy jabbing creation scientists. They stupidly claim creation science is not a science at all, all the while practicing something that cannot possibly be called science by even their own definitions. Here is a good description of how these priests of Evolution use dating methods. » read more »

Cosmological Relativity is a relatively new theory (pardon the pun) that, when applied to a bounded universe, becomes an extremely viable theory for the creation of the universe, consistent with God's account in Genesis. It also resolves many of the apparent problems with Humphreys' 4D white-hole theory (e.g., missing blueshift, gravitational distortion, etc.). » read more »

Fox reports again on the recent attacks against Christians by the CA University system. In this case, the University is denying course credit to students who learn from a Biblical or creationist worldview. Absolutely predictable, of course. The ungodly world--don't fool yourself into thinking America is still Christian by any means--is on the warpath against God's followers. This is just an attempt to discredit creationism while avoiding any scientific investigation into its claims. » read more »

One of the more divisive topics in the church today is creationism, specifically young-earth creationism. The vast majority of the modern church--in America anyway--has swallowed the old-earth, evolutionary hogwash, hook, line and sinker. They tend to get visibly upset, emotional, when they meet a fellow believer who actually believes in what the Word plainly says. Such an emotional reaction tends to imply a weak faith (in their old-earth belief). After that, reasoned discourse is usually very difficult if not impossible. » read more »

As the spring dance recital season is coming to a close--just one more weekend--I'm beginning to fill up my summer schedule for those interested in the courses, "Firearms 101" and "Biblical Cosmology". They will be taught in my home. I prefer to teach the former one-on-one, so I'm willing to schedule it multiple times. (I'll certainly consider very small groups, though.) The latter is better with small groups and will also be highly interactive--the first to respond gets to choose the preferred date. » read more »

In my experience, it is a very bad sign when supposedly intelligent people clearly demonstrate that a) they have no sense of humor, and b) they cannot laugh at themselves.

First, check out this video. Now, have a look at this summary of Richard Dawkins' reaction to the video. Recall that this guy is supposed to be an "intellectual."

Sorry, Dick, but you don't get it, and we do. Too funny.

Stupid scientists (which is the bulk of them, I'm afraid) regularly conflate science and naturalism as if they were synonymous. Science is a process (and a body of knowledge and a career, but these are beside the point), that's all. This process may be used within the context of many worldviews. Naturalism, on the other hand, is a worldview and a religion. Naturalism assumes a priori that the physical world (dark matter and dark energy notwithstanding) is all that there was, is, or will be. There is no scientific process behind this presumption; it is as much or more of a leap of faith as is a belief in the supernatural. » read more »