June 11, 2011

DNA is the Evolutionist's Worst Nightmare

For more information that evolutionists do not want to face, check out my Creation Science site, "Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman".

Evolutionary Truth

Piltdown Man was a fraud. Why not, if it advances "science"?

Buona sera. I wanted to tell you that my newer Weblog, "Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman", will be more active. It contains links to articles against the "fact" of evolution, and also to material supporting Intelligent Design and Creation Science.

Evolutionists give only one side of the story and suppress contrary evidence. Presenting only evolutionism is not science, it is brainwashing. There are scientists who disagree with the mainstream interpretation of the facts.

By the way, some people are incapable of differentiating (I know, Uncle Bob's using big words again, look them up) between differences of opinion and lies. People like that will not even begin to understand the material presented there, so they may as well stay home and play Solitaire.

I will write an occasional article, but most of the work will be done by other people. Oh, and I will not be taking comments over there because I am too busy to deal with yet another Weblog, and I have to draw the line somewhere, capice?

History of Jerusalem in Five Minutes

June 10, 2011

Archaeology and the Bible

Buon giorno. A few months ago, I saw a comment on an atheist's Weblog that astonished me in its arrogance and stupidity: Recent archaeology shows that Palestine was not even inhabited at the time of Jesus. This insipid remark reminded me of similar remarks that archaeology of the past hundred years is disproving the Bible.

Ostracon from Qeiyafa. Can you dig it?
That is just plain silly. Archaeology is not like other science (that is, not evolutionism) where hypotheses and theories are made, modified to fit data and even discarded when necessary. No, archaeology accumulates evidence. "New" archaeology is unlikely to "disprove" the archaeology that supports the Bible.

I've been up to my old tricks, and I called Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason. When I told Melinda the call screener ("The Enforcer") that I was calling about the claim that Palestine was not inhabited at the time of Jesus, she actually laughed! Greg expressed a bit of amazement as well.

In the course of the broadcast, Greg mentioned a strong site for evidence, Biblical Archaeology Review. (Let me add that wannabe "debunkers" like Finkelstein who are not taken seriously in archaeology have had their own claims debunked. Dr. Eliat Mazar has established strong evidence for the City of David.) Koukl explained further that archaeologists of the past hundred years have been taking an unreasonable and inconsistent approach to evidence. Whereas other ancient documents are "innocent until proven guilty", some "Biblical Minimalists" assume the Bible is wrong, it is not a valid historical document; the Bible is "guilty until proven innocent" by these biased approaches. Skeptics will discard good evidence from reliable archaeologists that has accumulated for many years in favor of those few philosophers who support their own presuppositions. That is intellectually dishonest, capice?

I would like to say that Greg and I had a lively conversation, but the truth is, I asked questions and he edjamakated me. Here, take about 12-1/2 minutes and listen to the conversation. By the way, I did a bit of editing to take out some verbal stumbling, but that is minimal. The entire two hour podcast is here. Addendum: Since I am in no mood (and too busy) to deal with trolls, I have shut off the comments.

June 8, 2011

No Atheist Experience

Buon giorno. I wanted to get it nailed down one last time for a certain obstreperous atheist: I have no interest in calling "Atheist Experience", whatever that is.

You see, this guy was crying that he was not getting good debate action at the "Stand to Reason" Weblog (if he had a grasp of logic, as well as civility, it would have been different). So, the recommendation was made that he call Matt Slick at CARM. Although I was not the only one to challenge him on this, I was probably the most persistent. As I mentioned earlier, he did so and did a great job at humiliating himself. And had the nerve to brag about it afterward. Agonizing.

He called again, which surprised me. With this call, he was less off the rails, but did not understand the (discredited) concept of Lamarckism that he was putting forth.

However, he had a logic fail that he tried on me: Since I challenged him to call Matt, I am now obligated to call Atheist Experience twice. Listen up, Poindexter, one last time, slowly and with style. Are you paying attention? Good. I am not the one that was bragging about being the sharpest bulb in the drawer and wanting a debate! Also, I never made such a challenge, agreed to or knew about these "terms" that you manufactured. With your "logic", I wouldn't be surprised if Atheist Experience is embarrassed when you make yourself the east end of a horse going west. On the other hand, some atheists are practically making this atheopath into a folk hero; one site increased my number of hits by at least two or three. I was so impressed!

So, I called Matt to tell him of this guy's logic fail. Want to know what he said? I bet you do! It is in the audio clip, below. It only lasts about a minute. (Snicker) The entire hour is here.

June 7, 2011

Logic Lessons: Ad Hominem

Ad hominem, or "against the man", is the most common logical fallacy to be encountered, and is a very popular tactic by evolutionists and atheists. People use this to provoke their opponent instead of actually addressing the topic, and it is primarily intended to humiliate.

Ad hominem, or "against the man", is the most common logical fallacy to be encountered, and is a very popular tactic by evolutionists and atheists.

Normally, people find it quite easy to recognize when it is used as a simple insult, but it can be rather well hidden at other times. What complicates matters is that ad hominem attacks can be mixed with one or more other fallacies to manufacture a particularly loathsome statement. I will bring discuss these mixes again when I write about the "straw man" and "poisoning the well" fallacies.

To make matters worse, words with emotionally-laden connotations are used to create a negative response against the opponent. I have seen "redneck" and "homophobe" used in spiteful articles and comments because they are loaded terms. I have been called a "fundie" (short for "Fundamentalist") simply because I said that I believe the Bible. When applied to Christians, it is meant to convey a rigid, legalistic, dour religious stereotype that unfortunately does exist today. This is an attempt to color someone else's perceptions of what I am saying as if to negate my remarks.

These ad hominem attacks are not always clear cut. It would be convenient if a spiteful debater would simply say what he means, "You're a doo doo head and I want to hurt you!", but that rarely happens. Ad hominem is not always a matter of forthright name calling.

When used skilfully in a tense situation (again, it is a logical fallacy and not a recommended tactic for discussion), ad hominems can provoke an emotional reaction in an opponent and cause him or her to lash out and possibly self-destruct. The argument is won, but not on the merits of the concepts that were raised. I often irritate my own opponents by seeing the attacks for what they are and pointing them out.I have a few examples of some of these attacks:

Here is one with a condescending attitude: "Lynda, honey, get a grip. If the men around you can't be mature, respectful and self-responsible on their own, get outta the preschool and find some real men." Weblogs that do not permit ad hominem attacks would have disallowed that remark.
This next one not only engages in ad hominem, but in dishonesty to further the emotional reaction. Quoting me, in a comment that was directed to someone else: I guess that means that you do not have to be civil any longer?
In his reply, an outright lie was introduced: Dude, why pretend? You’re never civil from the beginning. Those of us who’ve played with you know this, and Steve’s about to learn.
Quoting me again: Then I won’t waste your time and mine with a discussion.
His reply, with another ad hominem, plus an outright lie, plus projection (because I dealt with him on another occasion): Yeah, what I just said (I hate to repeat myself). You’re going to throw out the standard lines, and when they’re batted out of the park, it’s all ad hominem, all the time.
How about an ad hominiem with a serving of red herring? "Not to mention the effects such a mentality as Trish's can have on women they've become victims of sexual assault." Not only is Trish insulted, but the diversion of "sexual assault" was brought into the conversation, which was irrelevant.

This mix is interesting: "...it seems that's what you want because you clearly can't answer the question. What a way to be a witness, btw." It is ad hominem, with a bit of argument from silence (which is assuming that because a certain question was not answered, the other party was unable to answer; more about the argument from silence another time), followed by an appeal to guilt (the Christian "witness" remark). I dropped that conversation because it was too irritating.

There are a few of things that I have noticed with ad hominem attacks. First and foremost, I repeat that they are used to hurt or humiliate. Also, part of their power is an appeal to pride. When your pride is attacked, you may be more inclined to chase after the red herring and "show them", but it is far more annoying to your antagonist to either ignore the attack, or let them know that you are not falling for it. Unfortunately, I have not always been on guard. The main "benefits" of the ad hominem fallacy are to avoid, disrupt and change a discussion without actually dealing with the original point, savvy?

Now you're forewarned. When subject to ad hominem distractions, you can either point them out and stay on topic, or laugh and do something more productive.


June 6, 2011


Not in the mood to write just now, so I'll show you this bumper sticker that I found. I think it's great, and too bad the publisher is gone or I would get more.

Subscribe in a reader