Skip to content

Today's Creation Moment

Were Dinosaurs Warm Blooded?
Psalm 147:2-3
"The LORD builds up Jerusalem; He gathers together the outcasts of Israel. He heals the broken hearted and binds up their wounds."
Dinosaur fossil hunters and paleontologists have long debated whether dinosaurs were warm-blooded or cold-blooded. With reptile characteristics, it was expected that dinosaurs would be cold-blooded....

Philosophy Camouflaged to Look Like True Science

Many people - especially those who believe in creation - resist watching science shows on PBS and the Discovery Channel, because these programs are usually saturated with unscientific claims favoring evolution. However, even Darwinian soapboxes like Nova can be worth watching, just as long as you do so with a discerning eye.

The first thing you have to do is separate the program's true science from its unfounded Darwinian musings. For example, when the narrator describes a creature as roaming the earth "60 million years ago," know that you have now left the world of science and are right in the heart of The Darwinist Zone. Such claims are pure conjecture, nothing more.

You also need to pay attention to the unwarranted assumptions and faulty logic you'll often encounter. For instance, in Kings of Camouflage - a Nova program being shown this week about the cuttlefish's amazing ability to instantaneously change the color, texture and shape of its skin - the program did a good job of describing the color disks that expand or shrink in size.

The old shell game. But then the scientist said: "My guess is that their skin evolved for camouflage, because as soon as they got rid of the big shell, they had to hide from predators." Well, Mr. Scientist, why did the cuttlefish discard its shell in the first place if it was beneficial to its survival? And why didn't the cuttlefish just evolve its old shell back instead of evolving the most complex skin of any creature on the planet as well as an amazingly complex eye and nervous system that allowed it all to work?

So when you watch science shows on television, learn what you can from the true science. Enjoy the breathtaking photography as you marvel at the wondrous creatures that God has designed. And teach your children how to spot the atheistic philosophy that's camouflaged to look like true science.


I know what you mean. I sometimes listen to a radio program "National Geographic". They mention millions of years, as if it is supposed to give some kind of validity to something. But it actually makes me question the rest of the show.

My roommate (I live with my grandmother) is an agnostic. Her favorite channel is 'The History Channel'. It makes me sick. I don't know how to explain how much I have a distaste for it. After showing her clear, concise evidence of creation. After praying for her, after explaining the gospel and the consequences of rejecting God, she is an evolutionist. She also subscribes to National Geographic. After I move out, I will pass on cable and things that profit this filthy, disgusting religion of evolution. I appreciate the photography though.

Children's books often slip in statements about how things happened "millions" of years ago. That's because evolutionists want to indoctrinate people into accepting evolutionism at a young age. When you get mature enough to see design and understand historical fact, you will reject evolutionism as an unsupported philosophy unless you have been constantly confronted with evolutionist ideas and made to accept them while you were too young to have any discernment. You can easily discern design, and you can easily understand the difference between eyewitness testimony and conjecture fueled by pride. That's why evolutionists invade every public arena they can and exclude any attempt to allow for individual thought. Unless evolutionists brainwash you into accepting their "scientific" superiority, you will certainly reject their theories as hogwash. This they cannot allow. They resort to ridicule and mocking to keep people in line, claiming that an "educated" person would see their point of view, and anyone who disagrees with them is "uneducated." But, in fact, the situation is quite the reverse. Only people who are uneducated would reject observable fact in favor of an unsupportable theory. Once you are educated, you understand that theories that cannot be supported need to be tossed out.

When I watch "science" shows on PBS, I usually end up laughing so much you'd think I was viewing a comedy instead of a documentary. That's because they're often replete with faulty logic in a desperate attempt to validate evolutionism.