Leakey’s Skull 1470 was initially dated at Cambridge Laboratory (England) with the potassium-argon method. The first date was 221 million years, but it was rejected because it didn’t fit the evolutionary scenario. Further testing produced dates from 2.4 to 2.6 million years. Leakey could accept that date since it was closer to his evolutionary teaching although he preferred a younger date. (Many millions of years difference in those dates and the first date!) After more tests they got another date of 1.8 million years from the University of California, Berkeley. Now, that’s more like it. That date fits their fairy tale! Isn’t it interesting how they can adjust their “science” to fit their philosophy? And did you notice that a bone finder can “shop around” at various testing agencies to get the date he wants? Leakey now accepts a date of about 2 million years.

The testing on Skull 1470 produced dates ranging from 290,000 years to 221 million years. Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe. You take your choice. Now you can understand why some have described the potassium-argon clock as being a clock without hands–without even a face.

It is interesting that radiometric dating laboratories require that all samples to be “dated” must be identified as to their location in the geological column! After all, the testers need to know what date the “finder” will accept. Approximately 8 out of 10 specimens (“dates”) are discarded by radiometric dating labs because they are well out of range of age they “ought to be” considering their location in the geological column. The geological strata date always has priority over any modern dating system. The testers have even asked, “What date do you think is reasonable?” Isn’t science grand? But none dare call it quackery.

I’m thrilled that Creationists don’t have to depend on such dubious, distorted, dishonest nonsense to know about our world. One does not have to believe in a young Earth to be a Christian but Christians should take the biblical position on everything. Origins of the Universe and the Earth are very important. We don’t need to trust in radiometric dating or even natural “clocks” to determine whether the Earth is young or old. The Bible is very clear on that issue.

Bible expositors tell us that the word “day” in Genesis can also mean a long period of time. They are right and they are wrong. The first meaning of “day” is the time between the rising and setting of the sun. The days in Mesopotamia were not named but numbered except for the 7th day, the Sabbath. The word for day is used 2355 times in the Old Testament and when used figuratively it always is defined by an associated term such as the day of judgment, the day of adversity, etc.

Whenever “evening” and “morning” are used in the Old Testament, they always refer to normal, 24-hour days; however critics triumphantly sneer that there could be no day and night without the sun! But day and night don’t depend on the sun but upon the existence of light. Gen. 1:3 reveals that God created the light. So there was light in addition to and preceding the creation of the sun. So, with light and the newly created Earth, there would be a “day” and a “night” as the Earth rotated. How could God have made it any clearer?

Hebrew scholars agree with creationists concerning the literal days of Genesis. Professor James Barr, a renowned Hebrew scholar and Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford University, said in a personal letter, “So far as I know there is no Professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1 through 11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the Biblical story; (c) Noah’s flood [not the movie Noah] was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark.” So Hebrew experts stand with Creationists, not evolutionists!

Genesis 2:13 tells us that God “rested” on the seventh day after concluding His six days of creation. Now, did God “rest” a day or a billion years? And if it was a billion years, then how does that become a legitimate symbol for the Hebrews taking the seventh day as their Sabbath as God instructed them in Exodus 20:10-11? No sane person suggests that the Jews rested an “age” but a single day. If God rested an indeterminate age then maybe God is still resting; however, John 5:17 tells us that God is still working! Twisting the Bible like a pretzel is not wise or productive or safe.

Furthermore, Adam was created on the sixth day, and lived in the garden the remainder of that day, then he lived through the seventh day, and was driven out of the garden days or months later. Did he live through parts of three or more different geological ages? If so, he would have lived at least five hundred thousand years! Now they lived a long time in those days, but not that long!

But there are other reasons the days in Genesis 1 were literal 24-hour days. On the third day God created grass, herbs, and trees, and every student knows that plants discharge life-giving oxygen and absorb poisonous carbon dioxide. The oxygen discharged by the plants is used by animals and people who then throw off carbon dioxide that is used by the plants! Did that symbiotic relationship happen accidently?

However, if the days were really ages, the plants could not have lived without carbon dioxide since animals were not created until the fifth day. Furthermore, grass and trees (created on the third day) could not grow without the sun, and the sun did not shine until the fourth day. Did the world spin millions of years without sunlight? There is the additional problem of flowers that were created on day three having to wait long ages until insects were created so the flowers could be pollinated. If the day was an age, the flowers, grass, and trees could not have lived, so the days must have been literal 24-hour days.

In Mark 10:6, Jesus was discussing marriage and divorce with the Pharisees when He said, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” Here Christ makes it clear that men have been on the earth “from the beginning.” Since Christ declared that Adam was “from the beginning” it must mean that the Earth is about 6,000 years old since the Bible genealogies support that fact. It’s a matter of math. So Bible believers need nothing else to support a young Earth.

You can stand with the atheist/evolutionists if you want as they belch their kooky nonsense but I plan to continue standing with the One who made the Earth “in the beginning.”

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

All creationists and all thinking people (but then I repeat myself) have always believed that “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” That is settled; however, when the universe and Earth were created has not been settled for many people. Was it billions of years ago or less than 10,000 years ago? That is the question and it is a fact that most Americans believe in a young universe and Earth but almost half do not.

In Matt. 19 Christ said that man was made at “the beginning.” So, no matter what the myth-makers in their ivory towers declare, whenever the beginning was, man was there. That fact alone negates all kinds of evolution! That settles the origins issue for believers but now we must convince the weak, the wavering, and the wrong souls that the Earth is young.

A recent column by one of my favorite columnists, Lord Monckton at World Net Daily declared, “One should no longer believe that a bishop [Archbishop Ussher] was correct in calculating that the world began 6,000 years ago.” (Famous historian Josephus believed the same as Ussher!) Even some creationists accept the columnist’s erroneous conclusion. What about the science to support an ancient Earth? It is not sufficient to say, “But every sane person knows that the Earth is billions of years old.” After all, in ancient times some men said, “Everyone believes that the world rests on the back of a giant elephant,” (some said a giant turtle) or “Any fool can see that the Earth is flat.”

It seems that few creationists have taken on the highly qualified scientists with counter arguments to demand some answers about the age of the Earth and Universe. I will do so even though my doctorate is not in science.

When discussing the age of the Earth, the ancient-earther always supports his position with modern dating methods, but that dog won’t hunt and can’t hunt because it is crippled in two legs! Modern dating methods are not reliable! It seems necessary for me to declare that rocks and fossils are not found stamped with a date of origin! Their ages are assumed by using various “clocks,” which I will cover in this series. Some of the “clocks” indicate a young age for the Earth. It depends on what “clock” is being used and what assumptions are being made.

While Archbishop Ussher’s Bible dates are not inspired, they are rather accurate when compared to other “clocks.” The fact is the Earth and the universe are very young–not very ancient–much to the consternation of the evolutionists who must have long periods of time to develop their cockamamie story of macro-evolution.

Dr. Stephen Moorbath, an evolutionist associated with the University of Oxford, wrote: No terrestrial rocks closely approaching an age of 4.6 billion years have yet been discovered. The evidence for the age of the earth is circumstantial, being based upon . . . indirect reasoning.” I can assure you that most evolutionists are astute at “indirect reasoning,” and are experts in circular reasoning. Some evolutionists are Professors of Tautology.

Evolutionist Fredreck B. Jeaneman declared: “The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such ‘confirmation’ may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [dinosaur age] to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.” Wow, that from an evolutionist!

Criticism of modern dating methods continues to grow and many evolutionists run from confusing, comical, and contradictory decay rates like a mythical vampire flees the morning sun! One reason is that fossil rock may be contaminated. Many other contingencies are possible that might affect the date. Furthermore, a “global disaster” would disturb the status of the rocks. Do you think maybe that a worldwide flood qualifies as a “global disaster”? So the world Flood could reset all the radiometric clocks because of the swirling waters, volcanic eruptions, the atmospheric pressure, vast temperature fluctuations, magnetic reversals at the poles, etc., thus producing the long dates evolutionists must have–or get new jobs that might require them to work.

NASA hired the famous John (Jack) Eddy to write a book which enabled him to do research in the great astronomy libraries such as Harvard and the Naval Observatory. He used those facilities to do research on the Maunder Minimum (unexplained period of drastically reduced sunspot activity between 1645 and 1715) and his findings were published in the journal Science as a cover story. National Geographic also documented his work. That public exposure led to radio and television shows and lectures.

At a scientific conference at Louisiana State University Dr. Eddy, an ancient-earther, shocked the audience when he said, “I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.” Another kick in the teeth for evolutionists by an evolutionist!

So, maybe Archbishop Ussher was not nuttier than a Snicker’s Bar after all, but evolutionists are!

(Four more columns will follow dealing with modern dating methods.)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

I hope to prove to thinking people that scientific creationism has better answers for the questions posited by scientists, be they evolutionists or creationists.

Note that the debate title referred to “origins.” However, evolutionists run from that topic as if their hair was on fire. They want to start the creation/evolution discussion at Darwin’s warm mythical pond and focus on non-life becoming life. That’s slime-to-slug-to-sloth-to-scholar evolution, or, expressed another way, molecules-to-monkeys-to man. But I insist on knowing the origin of the universe and how the little pond arrived when nothing existed!

Evolutionists, not wanting to open that can of worms, tell us that cosmology is different from Darwinian evolution. But if words mean anything, origins must deal with origins so how did we get here?

What’s the origin of the universe? There are only four possibilities that explain our presence in the universe: (1) The universe created itself, but then that is contrary to the First Law of thermodynamics that says no new matter is being created, so a well-established scientific law disqualifies that possibility. (2) The universe has always been here, but that is contrary to the Second Law of thermodynamics that says everything is running down and if the universe had always been here, it would have totally unwound and disintegrated. Evolution requires the universe to run up to complexity not down to death. (3) The old Greek notion that the universe is not here. Everything is an illusion! That is contrary to the law of common sense, a law not known to most evolutionists! (4) God did it! Maybe you can guess which one I chose.

That’s it. Most modern evolutionists hold tenaciously to number one hoping that a pushy creationist will not ask them about the First Law. Creationists have the same four possibilities as to origins but they choose number four–God did it. Ockham’s Razor demands that choice!

Another origin problem is the origination of natural laws. Focus on Earth Science, a high school text, tells students that nothing created everything as the natural laws (where did they come from?) were suspended (by whom?). We are told the Big Bang “…represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle–transcending physical principles….” Hey, here’s a scoop: some evolutionists believe in “true miracles”–just not Bible miracles! Of course, no rational person believes nothing created something, anything, or everything. However, evolutionists must believe that since they can’t believe God did it even if He did it! Which He did!

So, natural laws were suspended so the Big Bang could “kick off” this thing called “life,” but when and how and by whom did the natural laws originate? And what power “suspended” those laws? What about the laws of gravity, inertia, First and Second Laws, Laws of Planetary Motion, etc.? Since we are discussing origins, when and by whom did those laws arise? Those laws are here so there had to be a Cause!

Moreover, maybe some evolutionist will inform us how a massive explosion took place and resulted in an incredible universe that runs like a Swiss clock with planets, stars, and moons. Evolution requires a random, haphazard cosmos; instead the universe is orderly, precise, and functional.

After the evolutionist, who must have enormous faith, explains the origin of the universe and the natural laws that no one disavows, I want to know man’s origin! According to evolutionary scientists this globe was at one time rock, so how did plants originate followed by animal life? How did goo-to-you evolution get started? After we nail down evolution from amoeba-to-aardvark-to- astronaut, we can discuss the fossil record, natural selection, mutations, and adaptations.

When we get an explanation for the origin of the universe, the natural laws, and man; we can then look at the physical condition of the earth and see whether evolution or creationism has the better explanation.

One of the greatest mysteries of life is how life appeared abruptly in the Cambrian strata, the lowest level of the geologic column in which are found an abundance of complex fossils! The lower four-fifths of the rock of the earth’s crust are without any signs of life! Then, all at once, life abruptly appears out of nowhere! Maybe, as if it had been created? Evolution requires ancestors but there aren’t any so their model doesn’t work. The creation model works perfectly since all scientists admit that the Cambrian Explosion seems to indicate that the fossils began without precursors.

The physical condition of the earth screams carnage, cataclysm, and change. The strata all over the earth, the sea creatures on mountaintops, the mass burial of land and sea creatures, elephants and whale fossils on mountains all fit with creationism not evolution. By the way, elephants don’t climb mountains and neither do whales!

In the fossil record we see distinct creatures, not the gradual formation and transition from one creature to another as evolution demands. There are changes but never from one species to another. No new information is ever introduced. A dog is always a dog, a cat is always a cat, and a horse is always a horse–of course. Again, creationism is the best model, not evolution.

How does evolution provide the origin of mind/intelligence, meaning, conscience, altruism and morality? It has no answer; however, the creation model provides a concrete, correct, and complete answer.

The main proof of evolution is based on the assumption that evolution is factual but that assumption is a farce, a fraud, a fake, not a fact. Evolution is a cockamamie religion about which we can dicker, discuss, and debate–but it will never be true.

Evolution is a sacred cow that needs to be butchered and made into hamburger. Ken Ham helped in that process and posterity will credit him with changing the world’s perception of creationism.

Good job, Ken.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

There was something for both sides in the Ham/Nye Creation-Evolution debate. Both sides got international exposure for their particular positions but Ham won on points although he did not get a grand slam.  Some evolutionists think Nye “ate a Ham sandwich” but they are living in a dream world. 

Nye did not explain why he perceived a Creation scientist would be somehow less productive at creating new innovation.  He did not provide a single demonstration of how the creation scientist is a lesser scientist. Nye claimed children taught creationism would be stunted (fall behind in the world) and the U.S. would fall behind in scientific advancements, but he said nothing to substantiate his claim.  However, Ken provided impressive evidence that creationism does not restrict scientists from being very productive in scientific achievement.

Nye was a fool to agree to the debate location. He was obviously in hostile territory although the crowd was the most disciplined of any debate I have seen or participated in. Nye came across as a cheerleader for education and seemed to enjoy himself even while he was losing the debate! Maybe he was delighted at being on the same stage with a creation scientist! It gave him some credibility! Or possibly he was delighted in making Ham look like a fool–he thought.   

Nye’s reference to his bow tie and his grandfather was totally unnecessary, unsophisticated and proved him unacquainted with appropriateness. Both Bill and Ken appeared to be as uncom-fortable as a dog in hot ashes. That surprises me since Bill’s television experience should have prepared him for any kind of exposure. Of course, his lack of knowledge and the venue would contribute to his discomfort.

Ken’s unease is understandable. He is thoroughly informed but inexperienced in debate. He also seemed to want to appear as “Mr. Nice Guy,” but there has to be some confrontation, even conflict in a debate.  The early Christians were militant in their beliefs and in their confrontation with Caesar. Historian Will Durant admitted that Christ and Caesar met in the arena and Christ won. Christ won because His disciples were militant–not irresponsible, but militant. However, responsible militancy is abhorrent today even to many Fundamentalists, but at one time it was one of their trademarks.    

The debate was supposed to be “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Ham permitted Nye to take control and direct the debate into another and less important direction. While the age of the earth is very important, that was not the focus. Same with the Flood. That issue is vital; however, how the Ark was constructed and the astronomical number of animals alleged to be on board were not. Origins were not discussed.

Ham could have scored big by providing evidence of a global flood such as major river basins in the world that display evidence of a much higher waterline. Additionally, billions of sea creatures have been found on the tops of the highest mountains and the fact of millions of various animal fossils found buried in the same location in many places of the world. The fact is elephants and lions, and foxes, and sharks don’t go to the same place to die. However, they do if they are being churned around in a violent, catastrophic flood.

Moreover, Ken did not deal with animals leaving the Ark and ending up in Australia. Even without a possible land bridge, scientists are aware of floating land masses. Remember, it was a massive, convulsive, destructive flood and masses of land with various animals could easily have floated to Australia and New Zealand.

Ken could have hit the ball out of the park with the issue of the Grand Canyon. He should have reminded Nye that there are strata missing and other places where recent layers are far below older rock! How can strata be missing? Where did they go? How did they get there? Moreover, how is it scientifically possible for young rocks to be found much lower and under old rocks?

Ken failed in not responding to Nye’s sarcastic question about fish being sinners since they had tumors. That would have been the ideal place for Ken to inform his opponent that the world was at one time perfect when people and animals lived in harmony and no one got cancer. Then came the Fall and the Curse and the Curse was upon all creation so men and fish were subject to the Curse–not because they had individually rebelled against God as did Adam and Eve.

The biggest mistake Ken made was in not devastating Nye with the hammer that he handed Ham. Nye asked if Ham was sure that life can not arrive from non-living matter? Ken should have aggressively forced Nye to confess that he [Nye] did believe, contrary to true science, in spontaneous generation. Here, Ken should have ridiculed such stupid, anti-science drivel. I would have said, “You evolutionists ridicule the fact that God created man out of dust yet you believe that life arose from a planet of rock.”

Such an encounter would have made Ney look like a mule at the Kentucky Derby!

Nevertheless, I am delighted with the debate. For sure, this was not a Scopes Trial, 2014. Ken Ham was far more informed than William Jennings Bryan and I am proud to be identified with Ken. 

(My column tomorrow will deal with the original intent of the debate: “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” My basic premise is that creationism has the answers to many scientific problems rather than evolution.)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

 Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

Nye did not explain why he perceived a Creation scientist would be somehow less productive at creating new innovation. He did not provide a single demonstration of how the creation scientist is a lesser scientist. Nye claimed children taught creationism would be stunted (fall behind in the world) and the U.S. would fall behind in scientific advancements, but he said nothing to substantiate his claim. However, Ken provided impressive evidence that creationism does not restrict scientists from being very productive in scientific achievement.

Nye was a fool to agree to the debate location. He was obviously in hostile territory although the crowd was the most disciplined of any debate I have seen or participated in. Nye came across as a cheerleader for education and seemed to enjoy himself even while he was losing the debate! Maybe he was delighted at being on the same stage with a creation scientist! It gave him some credibility! Or possibly he was delighted in making Ham look like a fool–he thought.

Nye’s reference to his bow tie and his grandfather was totally unnecessary, unsophisticated and proved him unacquainted with appropriateness. Both Bill and Ken appeared to be as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes. That surprises me since Bill’s television experience should have prepared him for any kind of exposure. Of course, his lack of knowledge and the venue would contribute to his discomfort.

Ken’s unease is understandable. He is thoroughly informed but inexperienced in debate. He also seemed to want to appear as “Mr. Nice Guy,” but there has to be some confrontation, even conflict in a debate. The early Christians were militant in their beliefs and in their confrontation with Caesar. Historian Will Durant admitted that Christ and Caesar met in the arena and Christ won. Christ won because His disciples were militant–not irresponsible, but militant. However, responsible militancy is abhorrent today even to many Fundamentalists, but at one time it was one of their trademarks.

The debate was supposed to be “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Ham permitted Nye to take control and direct the debate into another and less important direction. While the age of the earth is very important, that was not the focus. Same with the Flood. That issue is vital; however, how the Ark was constructed and the astronomical number of animals alleged to be on board were not. Origins were not discussed.

Ham could have scored big by providing evidence of a global flood such as major river basins in the world that display evidence of a much higher waterline. Additionally, billions of sea creatures have been found on the tops of the highest mountains and the fact of millions of various animal fossils found buried in the same location in many places of the world. The fact is elephants and lions, and foxes, and sharks don’t go to the same place to die. However, they do if they are being churned around in a violent, catastrophic flood.

Moreover, Ken did not deal with animals leaving the Ark and ending up in Australia. Even without a possible land bridge, scientists are aware of floating land masses. Remember, it was a massive, convulsive, destructive flood and masses of land with various animals could easily have floated to Australia and New Zealand.

Ken made a major mistake when he did not respond to Nye’s ridiculous suggestion that every land plant on earth was in the Ark. Noah did not take the plants on the Ark since they could easily survive the Flood via seeds and roots. Besides, God made His intentions clear in Gen. 6:17 when He said, “And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.” Plants don’t have “the breath of life.”

Ken could have hit the ball out of the park with the issue of the Grand Canyon. He should have reminded Nye that there are strata missing and other places where recent layers are far below older rock! How can strata be missing? Where did they go? How did they get there? Moreover, how is it scientifically possible for young rocks to be found much lower and under old rocks?

Ken failed in not responding to Nye’s sarcastic question about fish being sinners since they had tumors. That would have been the ideal place for Ken to inform his opponent that the world was at one time perfect when people and animals lived in harmony and no one got cancer. Then came the Fall and the Curse and the Curse was upon all creation so men and fish were subject to the Curse–not because they had individually rebelled against God as did Adam and Eve.

The biggest mistake Ken made was in not devastating Nye with the hammer that he handed Ham. Nye asked if Ham was sure that life can not arrive from non-living matter? Ken should have aggressively forced Nye to confess that he [Nye] did believe, contrary to true science, in spontaneous generation. Here, Ken should have ridiculed such stupid, anti-science drivel. I would have said, “You evolutionists ridicule the fact that God created man out of dust yet you believe that life arose from a planet of rock.”

Such an encounter would have made Ney look like a mule at the Kentucky Derby!

Nevertheless, I am delighted with the debate. For sure, this was not a Scopes Trial, 2014. Ken Ham was far more informed than William Jennings Bryan and I am proud to be identified with Ken.

(My column tomorrow will deal with the original intent of the debate: “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” My basic premise is that creationism has the answers to many scientific problems rather than evolution.)

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

Richard Dawkins and his rabble are fearful of this coming encounter. Some evolutionists are even preparing excuses for Nye’s defeat: “He only has a bachelor’s degree.” “He’s an engineer, not a biologist.” Others have said that Nye will treat the debate as a joke, but if so, the joke will be on him.

Dawkins has interjected himself into this debate by pontificating: “They [creationists] want to be seen on a platform with a real scientist, because that conveys the idea that here is a genuine argument between scientists.” Only a fool, a falsifier, or fanatic declares that all scientists are in agreement on the issue of origins! One major, obvious disagreement is between Neo-Darwinists and punctuated equilibrium devotees. Of course, the huge difference is between those scientists who believe in evolution and those scientists who believe in creationism–there are thousands of them!

Dawkins has said that “Scientists should not debate creationists. Period.” In that, Dawkins is right, at least from their perspective because they almost always lose the debates!

Dawkins added incorrectly, “They [creationists] may not win the argument–in fact, they will not win the argument, but it makes it look like there really is an argument to be had.” Sorry, Dick, you are in a dream world. Dawkins got wounded when an Australian film producer asked him a question about the origin of information and Dick was silent for 19 minutes (not 11 as reported) before he came up with an answer that did not relate to the question! Now, he is denying it happened! And Dawkins has the audacity to say of creationists, “Their dishonesty stops nowhere.” I think Dawkins’ honesty has never started.

Concerning evolution/creation debates, famous evolutionist Niles Eldredge confessed in his book, Monkey Business, “The creationists nearly always win….Creationists today–at least the majority of their spokesmen–are highly educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence.” So, it’s no surprise that evolutionists are concerned about the “Shoot-out at the O.K. Corral” in Kentucky.

Since Ken and I are on the same team, I will provide him some unsolicited advice (although I’m sure he is “loaded for bear”) on how to handle “the science guy.” Scientific creationism has been discussed, debated, denigrated, denied but never disproved; and the “science guy” will discover that when he visits Kentucky. My advice to Nye is to run away from this debate as if his hair was on fire!

Ham should challenge Nye to declare that he does or does not believe the unsupportable, even outrageous teaching that nothing created everything. Ham should promise not to laugh out loud, maybe only a snicker or two. If Nye follows the path taken by others, he will try to flimflam common people with scientific jargon, psycho-babble, and gibberish. He should be pressed to make his points in clear, concise, and common English. He may try to laugh it away but Ham should not permit him to get away with that.

Ham should demand an explanation as to how all the scientific laws such as gravity, inertia, the First and Second Laws, laws of planetary motion, and others came into existence. After all, “laws” cannot evolve. Were those laws operating before or after the Big Bang?

I would then ask Nye to produce evidence that an explosion has ever resulted in order. Nye may then try to declare that evolutionists don’t believe the Big Bang was an explosion but Nye is lying or is uninformed if he defends that myth. Press him, kindly, of course.

I would then ask how life first formed on a planet made entirely of rock! Then force him to admit that he believes in spontaneous generation that no sane person believes! Press harder.

I would then ask why, if the earth is billions of years old, no meteorites are found in “ancient” strata. That was zero, nil, zip, nothing! Everyone admits that meteorites have always fallen so where is the evidence if the earth is ancient?

I then would ask which evolved first, the mouth, the stomach, the digestive system, or the elimination system. After all, what good is a mouth if you don’t have a stomach? No sensible person says they all evolved together. Yes, evolution requires miracles but only one every few million years. Not four miracles happening at the same time!

I would then ask about DNA. Since everyone admits that DNA is a code, ask who wrote the code. Books, codes, messages, letters, notes, emails, etc., do not self-compose, well except in the fairytale world of the evolutionists. Who wrote the DNA code? Press real hard!

I would then demand to know how blind chemistry created mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism, and morality. The “science guy” will probably sweat, squirm, stutter, and stammer about here.

I would then ask him to explain the symbiotic relationship between wild creatures such as the Nile crock and the Egyptian plover that walks into the crock’s mouth to clean out parasites then walks out without any harm. How does such evolution happen without the crock getting an easy, tasty meal and the plover getting dead?
I would ask how it is possible for fresh (not fossilized) blood cells to be discovered in dinosaurs that are alleged to be more than 60 million years old. That doesn’t happen in the real world.

Evolution is simply a humanist, materialistic religion that seeks to explain man’s origins. It’s not a very good religion. It doesn’t even have any holidays except April 1, although most evolutionists get rather pious on the anniversary of the founding of the ACLU.

Every evolutionist I have met and observed and read after brings up the “creation is religion and evolution is science” axiom as if that settles the matter. But how can evolution be science when it can’t be observed, tested, or demonstrated? The fact is, evolution is as scientific as a voodoo-rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti–almost!

Evolution is like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat–that isn’t there.

Press on, Ken, press on.

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch my eight-minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota, “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

The recent news that the angry, aggressive, asinine atheist Richard Dawkins is now the “World’s Top Thinker” is further proof that the world has turned upside down. For centuries, the herd mentality has been to place far too much credibility in anyone who is known as an “expert.” Such a person is quickly given the desired accolades if he is a “doctor” or wears a white coat. All scientists are thought to be honest, honorable, even heroic; however, may I suggest that all New Atheists are hysterical, heretical, and harmful to everyone, especially children?

I challenge my readers to forget the hype and not believe Dawkins’ Press Releases and simply look at the facts. Is Dawkins a highly respected scientist or charlatan and fraud? Let the facts determine the answer. It should be remembered that a lie is still a lie if everyone believes it and the truth is still the truth is no one believes it.

I challenge my critics to read the books of Dawkins and his fellow New Atheists. They are deceptive, dangerous, dishonest, and dull. Very dull. Dick and his New Atheist buddies spend their days down at the Angry Atheist Association telling each other how clever they are and pinning metals on each other for their accomplishments in writing their banal books to bamboozle the hoi polloi.

All New Atheist authors make it very clear that their agenda is to remove children from the homes of parents who teach them Bible truth! Dawkins wrote, “We should work to free the children of the world from the religions which, with parental approval, damage minds too young to understand what is happening to them.” The New Atheists all demand that children be removed from the theistic influence since, to the atheists, it is child abuse. I think the atheists’ books are literary abuse!

The “World’s Top Thinker” showed his confused, contradictory, and contrary thinking when he wrote, “The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.” So, I ask Dick, “Do you really mean to say that everything came from nothing?” He said, “literally” out of nothing. Dawkins and the New Atheists tell us that a cosmic egg floated around space and then, but wait a minute, Lucifer’s Lackeys are assuming way too much: where did space come from? And the cosmic egg? No answer. We are supposed to give them that, but I don’t give the dummies anything.

Atheists tell us that nothing created everything, and I fight the impulse to grab my sides and roll on the floor with laughter. After all, we must show some decorum in our discussion, don’t you agree?

Aristotle told us that “nothing” is what rocks dream about but New Atheists dream (more like hallucinate) about nothing creating not just something, but creating everything seen and not seen in the universe. Where did Dawkins find the cosmic egg? Maybe it was laid by a cosmic chicken! The cosmic egg, the size of a pinhead (no, I will restrain myself), exploded and from that explosion developed the well-ordered, massive, precise, awesome universe! No one tells us what caused the explosion and how the alleged results can be reconciled with scientific laws. Explosions don’t produce order but disorder–always. New Atheist ranting is dumb, dumber, and dumbest.

I document in my eBook The God Haters that Dawkins is a lackey, loser, and liar. He lied about a debate he had with a Jewish rabbi; he lied about his interview with a creationist film crew from Australia. He lied (or showed incredibly poor scholarship) about his quote of early church leader Tertullian. So the World’s Top Thinker is a world class liar.

America is in deep trouble when you realize there is a still a fool on every corner, a clown in every public office, and every village has not one but several idiots plus numerous twits, tyrants and totalitarians lounging down at the Angry Atheist Association. We used to laugh at them; now we are in a life and death struggle with them. Our children are in their sights, so that puts atheists in my sights.

The war is on for our religious freedom to teach our children what we believe. Dawkins, who is uninformed, unreliable, and uninteresting is leading the New Atheists Brigade into battle against us and they are as intolerant and vicious as the most rabid Inquisitor of the fourteenth and fifteenth century. The battle rages between thinking theists and non thinking New Atheists and their leader is not the “World’s Top Thinker” but England’s little stinker.

Bring it on!

Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.