Skip to content

Today's Creation Moment

Who was First to North America?
Genesis 1:28
“Then God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth...”
The conventional understanding has always been that North America was populated by people who crossed from Asia to Alaska via the Bering Strait and then migrated down the West Coast. Eventually, some...

Evolutionists Admit Hype!

"Palaeontologists are forever claiming that their latest fossil discovery will 'rewrite evolutionary history.' Is this just boasting or does our 'knowledge' of evolution radically change every time we find a new fossil?"

So begins a surprisingly candid article posted at the ScienceDaily website on September 1. The article – "Evolution Rewritten, Again and Again" – answers this question by admitting that most fossil finds include a generous amount of hype. According to Dr. James Tarver, leader of a study at the University of Bristol: "Human fossils are very rare, and they are costly to recover because of the time involved and their often remote locations. Scientists may be pushed by their sponsors, or by news reporters, to exaggerate the importance of their new find and make claims that 'this new species completely changes our understanding'."

In other words, the reports are usually exaggerated … just as Creation Moments has been saying all along. This is not to say, however, that evolutionary scientists are backing away from evolution. Far from it. The ScienceDaily article goes on to say: "Their study, which is published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, suggests most fossil discoveries do not make a huge difference, confirming, not contradicting our understanding of evolutionary history."

To say that "most fossil discoveries" confirm "our understanding of evolutionary history" demonstrates that scientists interpret fossils within their evolutionary framework, finding what they expect to find.

So what do they do when they find a fossil that flat-out contradicts Darwinism? No problem! They come up with imaginative explanations to make it fit into their evolutionary philosophy … or they just sweep it under the rug – like what they did with the millions of fossils known as the Cambrian explosion. To this day, the Cambrian explosion remains one of the most powerful objections that can be made against Darwin's theory of evolution.

And that's not a lot of hype.


Everything contradicts Darwinism. Evolutionists just twist their words around to pretend that their theory has any validity at all, like calling spontaneous generation "abiogenesis."

It's interesting to note that evolutionists often set out to find something and conveniently it appears, exactly as they expected, because it doesn't matter what the evidence is. They're just going to interpret it to suit themselves. It doesn't matter how inaccurate they are. They can even be telling outright lies. All the "missing link" frauds are just swept under the rug and ignored. Worse, they remain in textbooks, along with the whole "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" theory and Haeckel's forgeries.

hardly, science moves forward by miss-steps, daftly cutting away the wrong assumptions to eventually arrive at a factual conclusion. Science is by its nature error correcting. You read the bible, and call it truth, and then go about misusing science in attempt at proving your theory. If creationism was a viable scientific discipline then you wouldn't have to be a christian to believe it. And non christian creationists out there?
thought not. creationism is a faith based delusion, not science.
try again.

by not posting this you prove my point, sweep all arguments under the carpet and blindly stumble forward with your beliefs. This is not science, and by deleting this we are in agreement.

Darwinists: Shamelessly imagineering our alternate evolutionary history for 150 years and counting!

-Rev Tony Breeden
<a href="" title=""></a>

Evolutionists operate on foregone conclusions. They decide there is no Creator, so there can be no evidence of one. They willfully blind themselves to evidence from astrophysics, math, biology, geology, and all of the sciences in order to keep God out of the picture. You know what? You can't keep God out of the picture. If you insist that you don't want anything to do with him, you can have your way. That means for the rest of eternity you will be separated from him. Yes, folks, I'm talking about hell. But hey, if you hate God, you can have your way and be miserable. It's your choice.

The public in large measure only responds to proclamations that "this changes everything." If new information isn't presented as game-changing most folks hardly turn over in their sleep. Popular level science writers thus hype the implications.

Science is the most powerful knowledge building tool on a human level, but goes awry when we lose understanding of the limits of that knowledge. Thomas Huxley lectured that scientists should not count certain anything that is not both demonstrated and demonstrable. My 7th grade science teacher taught that a phenomenon could only qualify as science fact if it is repeatably observable by multiple qualified (trained) observers. Unobserved, unique, undemonstrable events of pre-history should be excluded by those rules from fact-of-science status. Yet both those gentlemen and many others push evolution through many hundreds of millions of years as science fact.

When Thomas Jefferson consulted John Adams on the curriculum for a university Jefferson was looking to start, Adams warned that study of origins should not be included in science courses, as they are about unobservable events. He admitted, though, that humans are too anxious to reach conclusions on origins to totally exclude the subject.

The truth is that while demonstrable principles can be interpreted to indicate one or another hypothesis is more likely, what seems to be constant for years of research may have been much different before the researchers existed. The facts of reality are a vastly greater realm than the facts of science. The great majority of reality is true without the official endorsement of science. Anyone wanting to speak scientifically (creationists too) should speak very modestly, making as few absolute claims as possible.

How can one properly get at the realities of prehistory? Creationists feel they have in the Bible testimony regarding the earliest times from someone who was there. People rejecting the historicity of the Bible, or portions thereof, can understandably choose not to rely on it for guidance. Advances are made in archeology by those taking ancient writings seriously. Creationists just take the Bible seriously, reason implications of the Bible's testimony, and devise tests to see how reality might compare to their interpretation of the Bible.

This approach has led to the discovery that pretty much any natural source of carbon has radiocarbon in it which would imply it is less than 50,000 years old, even when other means identified it as many millions of years old.

The high amount of uranium decay products in many igneous rocks like granite was problematic to creationists, since the Bible's testimony seems not to include enough time since the time of creation. An investigation of granites collected by the US Geological Survey showed that, although the granite was officially rated at around a billion years old, the helium which is produced in uranium decay was almost all still in the crystals containing the uranium. So much so, that at the rate the helium is now escaping, the helium must have been generated within the last ten thousand years.