Tag Archives: Paul Nelson

Philosopher of science, creationist and intelligent design advocate

Science Without Observation Is Deception

Posted on by

Deceptive Liar

As I’ve pointed out before atheist high priest Richard Dawkins has famously said,

“The Universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

Given that I’ve often wondered why atheists care what I say or what I write about? If I’m wrong, it’s not evil (there is no evil) and doesn’t matter (there’s no meaning or purpose). (But if I’m right, as Pascal has pointed out in his wager, and they continue in their atheistic ways, when their time comes, there will be literal hell to pay. Isaiah 66.24)

But for some reason, though their worldview should tell them what I say doesn’t matter, they like to comment on what I say. Much of what they say are easily ignored ad hominem attacks that only prove they can’t address what I write about with reason or science. So they resort to attacking me instead of even attempting to address the points I make.  But sometimes they make claims about science and faith that, as I’ve written about throughout this blog, are clearly and obviously wrong. And occasionally they’ll write something that is so obviously wrong it’s laugh-out-loud funny. Continue Reading

Evolutionists: blind to the obvious – UnMasking Mistakes in Memes of Evolution – Part 4

Posted on by

Fossil trilobites

Like the Pharisees of Jesus day, evolutionists make claims that deny obvious truths, unaware that their claims refute their own position and arguments. Let me pause here to make sure you catch the point:

 Evolutionists are denying obvious truths.

In fact, the truths being denied are so obvious, one typically doesn’t even bother with a defense. If someone denies that birds fly and fish swim, do you bother with a defense, or do you simply tell them to go look at birds and fish? But Jesus took care to answer even foolish accusations, so let us do likewise. Continue Reading

UnMasking Mistakes in Memes of Evolution – Part 1

Posted on by

If you spend any amount of time on social media you will inevitably come across memes. The concept of the meme has been around for some time, but has been rediscovered and adapted for use on the internet. In it’s current incarnation, a meme, as defined by Google is:

“a humorous image, video, piece of text, etc., that is copied (often with slight variations) and spread rapidly by Internet users.”[1]

Memes are perfectly suited for the internet and social media, where attention spans are short and tolerance for reading an entire article (like this one) on a topic is even shorter.  Memes tend to be very visual, and therefore  memorable, perhaps leaving a lasting impression. But when the meme expresses a false idea, you now have the problem of a falsehood being re-enforced by a false, but perhaps memorable meme.

Another problem is that since memes are short, the idea they express is almost never backed by sources you can consult to affirm or deny what is being expressed in the meme. And being short, as a rule they leave out critical detail and context and thus are prone to the fallacy of suppressed evidence –  failing to give all the information needed to come to the correct conclusion. All these problems are particularly true of memes that are propagated in support of evolution.

So given that: Continue Reading

MicroEvolution: Dispelling the Myths and Misconceptions

Posted on by

As the above image implies, there’s a mist that surrounds the concept of microevolution that conceals clarity on the matter. If you’re not a close follower of the theories that comprise Darwin’s theory of evolution[1], you are probably laboring under a misconception of what microevolution is.  That misconception is furthered (it appears to me) by Darwinists seeking to bolster the evidence-lacking theory.  To dispel the mists surrounding this often abused term, and shine the light on the truth, following are five myths or misconceptions, and the reality or the truth behind each one.

As I point out in an article titled “Games Evolutionists Play: The Name Game” part of the problem with demonstrating the falsity of  Darwinism is that evolutionists keep changing the definition in an attempt to keep evolution from being falsified. So let’s start with a firm definition. Jonathan Wells, author of “Icons of  Evolution” provides a firm definition of both micro-evolution and macro-evolution in the glossary of his book “The Myth of Junk DNA“: Continue Reading

Games evolutionists play: The Name Game

Posted on by

The Name Game

The Name Game: Evolutionists define “evolution” at least 6 different ways.
In order to avoid having evolution shown to be unobservable and unscientific, evolutionists resort to games when discussing it.

What do Captain Kirk’s solution to the Kobayashi Maru test, certain YouTube “prank” videos and a common defense of evolution made by evolutionists have in common? Keep reading.

Perhaps you’ve seen the YouTube videos where young ladies are “pranked” (read “tricked”) into giving the prankster a kiss. It’s a simple trick. The prankster (read trickster) gets the young ladies to agree to give him a kiss if he wins a coin toss. The trickster then pulls out a coin and says “Heads I win, tails you lose.”  The trickster of course wins the coin toss, and the young lady, aware she’s been tricked somehow, but not quite able to put her finger on how, keeps up her end of the bargain and provides a quick peck.

If it’s not immediately obvious the trick the prankster played, here’s the trick broken down. It has nothing to do with the coin. It’s all about how you define what constitutes a win: Continue Reading