Archive for the ‘Quotes’ category


May 1st, 2010

The Sky Is Falling Again
Um, never mind. On March 12, 1998, on the front page of The New York Times, a headline read: “Asteroid Is Expected to Make a Pass Close to Earth in 2028.” Brian G. Marsden, director of the Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, predicted that on October 26, 2028, an asteroid about a mile in diameter would come within 30,000 miles of Earth. That’s within spitting distance, spacewise, which evoked comparisons to the asteroid that crashed on the Yucatàn peninsula 65 million years ago, allegedly wiping out all the dinosaurs. “When you first discover a comet, or any kind of body, you start measuring its position,” notes Robert Park. “From that you extract its trajectory. The more measurements you make, the more accurate your trajectory gets.” Marsden issued his warnings based on very early trajectory measurements. Now he anticipates the asteroid will pass Earth at a safe distance of 600,000 miles.

Nuclear Winter of Our Discontent
In 1983, astronomer Carl Sagan coauthored an article in Science that shook the world: “Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions” warned that nuclear war could send a giant cloud of dust into the atmosphere that would cover the globe, blocking sunlight and invoking a climatic change similar to that which might have ended the existence of dinosaurs. Skeptical atmospheric scientists argued that Sagan’s model ignored a variety of factors, including the fact that the dust would have to reach the highest levels of the atmosphere not to be dissipated by rainfall. In a 1990 article in Science, Sagan and his original coauthors admitted that their initial temperature estimates were wrong. They concluded that an all-out nuclear war could reduce average temperatures at most by 36 degrees Fahrenheit in northern climes. The chilling effect, in other words, would be more of a nuclear autumn.

Piltdown Chicken
The finding was initially trumpeted as the missing link that proved birds evolved from dinosaurs. In 1999 a fossil smuggled out of China allegedly showing a dinosaur with birdlike plumage was displayed triumphantly at the National Geographic Society and written up in the society’s November magazine. Paleontologists were abuzz. Unfortunately, like the hominid skull with an ape jaw discovered in the Piltdown quarries of England in 1912, the whole thing turned out to be a hoax. The fossil apparently was the flight of fancy of a Chinese farmer who had rigged together bird bits and a meat-eater’s tail.

The “Archaeoraptor” fake

In 1999, a supposed ‘missing link’ fossil of an apparently feathered dinosaur named Archaeoraptor liaoningensis“, found in Liaoning Province, northeastern China, turned out to be a forgery. Comparing the photograph of the specimen with another find, Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing came to the conclusion that it was composed of two portions of different fossil animals. His claim made National Geographic review their research and they too came to the same conclusion.[7] The bottom portion of the “Archaeoraptor” composite came from a legitimate feathered dromaeosaurid now known as Microraptor, and the upper portion from a previously-known primitive bird called Yanornis.

Editor’s note: I know that nonsense is spelled wrong. I hyphenated it for effect.  Recently “global warming” has come to light as a complete hoax (post coming). Hoaxes, frauds and half-truths have been around since the fall of man from grace in the Garden of Eden. Today (the last 200 years), evil men diligently work towards enslaving you to take your money, your freedom and if possible your soul. You have a choice, either follow the truth or sell yourself into bondage.

This blog will continue to expose pseudo science. Make sure that you scrutinize all science that is contrary to GOD’s WORD. Take off your (if you are wearing them) evolutionary glasses and look at look at true science through GOD’s WORD and you will never be lead astray by hucksters who try to minimize GOD’s WORD which rightfully proclaims that HE created everything seen and unseen. The science says that there can be no other explanation. See Romans 1:20-23 if you are looking for an excuse.


Scientific Hoaxs

January 31st, 2010


Piltdown Man Hoax: Perpetrated in 1912. The Piltdown Man Hoax led to erroneous pictures of mankind’s supposed ape-like ancestors in textbooks for 70+ years.

Editor’s Note: This hoax has recently been spotted as an example of evolution nearly 100 years after it was found to be one of the greatest hoaxes in history. “The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan that had been deliberately combined with the skull of a fully developed modern man.”


Biogenetic Law Fraud: Ernst Haeckel was actually called before a board of examiners and chastised for fudging the data. He proposed Biogenetic Law was supported with fraudulent pictures showing similarities of human embryos to those of fish, pig, chicken,etc. This was his attempt to demonstrate our common ancestry with animals. Although discredited 100 years ago, his drawings are still in some textbooks today.

Stem Cell Fraud: South Korean stem-cell researcher, Woo Suk Hwang, was “the centre of one of  the largest investigations of scientific fraud in living memory.” Hwang was discredited by his own home research institution,  Seoul National University, for presenting fraudulent data,  Nature Reported.  “The revelation has destroyed the best evidence so far that stem cells can be extracted from a clone matched to a specific patient. With Hwang discredited, both the field of therapeutic cloning and the public’s trust in science have suffered a serious setback.”  Nature, 1-11-2006

Scientists Invent Results: Times Online (June 4, 2009) headline reports that “One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data.” That figure applies to serious breaches of “acceptable conduct by inventing results.” The article went on to say that “46 percent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in ‘questionable practices‘, such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.”

ClimateGate: Washington Times (Nov 20, 24, etc. 2009) reported on potential fraud relating to global warming turned up by hackers breaking into the e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UAE) in England. “Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.” If investigations confirm that climate data has been hidden which negates the currently “politically correct” global warming hysteria, as well as the attempt to silence the “dissenters,” this would likely become the biggest scandal ever perpetrated on the whole world.

Editor’s Note: These are just a small sampling of the plethora of  “scientific” frauds that have been told and written over and over again. Creation-Facts will continue to expose these frauds a few at a time.

The above articles were taken from Think & Believe (January/February, 2010 Vol 28, No 1) newsletter written by Dave Nutting of Alpha Omega Institute of Grand Junction, CO.

Evidence From Mathematics

August 11th, 2009

simple cell drawingDrawing of a cell membrane from Wikipedia.

At one time living cells were considered no more than empty table tennis balls. As biochemists have learned more about the complexity of life, it has become increasingly apparent that thousands of specific and complex chemicals are required for any form of life to survive. Evolutionist Harold Morowitz estimated the probability for chance formation of even the simplest form of living organism at 1/10340,000,000. By contrast, only 10²º grains of sand could fit within a cubic mile, and 10 billion times more (10³º) would fit inside the entire earth. So the probability of forming a simple cell by chance processes in infinitely less likely than having a blind person select one specifically marked grain of sand out of an entire earth filled with sand.

There is nowhere near enough time nor matter in the entire universe for even the simplest cell to have formed by chance combinations. Even if all the correct chemicals somehow came together in the correct place, you still wouldn’t have life. This is exactly the situation every time a living organism dies. Immediately after death, all the right chemicals exist, in the right proportions, and in the right place – yet the creature is still dead!

Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life.

This document was taken from Energy Flow in Biology, Academic Press, NY, 1968, p.99 and quoted in A Closer Look At The Evidence, by Richard & Tina Kleiss.

I will proclaim the name of the LORD.  Oh praise the greatness of our God! He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all His ways are just. . .  (Deuteronomy 32:3,4)

Dr. Michael Ruse

August 2nd, 2009


Michael Ruse, editor of the Cambridge Series in the Philosophy of Biology and founding editor of the professional journal “Biology and Philosophy” is a hardcore Darwinist. Yet he considers both Dawkins and Dennett “dangerous.” Ruse is worried that if Dawkins and Dennett make evolution and atheism one (they do!) then Intelligent Design advocates will have a legal basis for its discussion in science classrooms. Why? Because teaching Darwinian evolution in the classroom as equal to atheism would violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ruse has a valid point. Sooner or later Secular Humanism as a religion will be in the courts, and atheism will be a key element in the discussion. Already the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has declared atheism a religion. But Ruse, who teaches at Florida State University, is even more direct than Dawkins and Dennett, who equate atheism and evolution. In a telling article published in the Canadian National Post (May 13, 2000) he writes, “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion-a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality …. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”

Secular Humanists generally deny their world view is a religion. Their opponents, however, argue that Secular Humanism IS as much a religion as Christianity, Islam, et al, and, therefore, should not be the religion of American public schools. Ruse gives the whole Secular Humanist case away when he says, “Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitution for Christianity. It stressed laws against miracles and, by analogy, it promoted progress against providence …. One of the most popular books of the era was Religion Without Revelation, by the evolutionist Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley.”

The above excerpt was taken from The Schwarz Report, April 2009, p.2

Dr. Colin Patterson

August 2nd, 2009


On November 5, 1981, the late  Colin Patterson (who at the time was the senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History in London, the editor of the professional journal published by the museum, and one of the world’s foremost fossil experts) delivered a public address to his evolutionist colleagues at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. In his speech, Dr. Patterson astonished those colleagues when he stated that he had been “kicking around” non-evolutionary, or “anti-evolutionary,” ideas for about eighteen months. As he went on to describe it:

One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolution theory (1981).

Dr. Patterson said he knew there was nothing wrong with him, so he started asking various individuals and groups a simple question: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence.” He tried it on the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all he got there “was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.’ ” He then remarked, “It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.”

Dr. Patterson went on to say: “Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way.” But more important, he termed evolution an “anti-theory” that produced “anti-knowledge.” He also suggested that “the explanatory value of the hypothesis is nil,” and that evolution theory is “a void that has the function of knowledge but conveys none.” To use Patterson’s wording, “I feel that the effects of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge, I think it has been positively anti-knowledge” (1981; cf. Bethell, 1985, 270:49-52,56-58,60-61).

Dr. Patterson made it clear, as I wish to do here, that he had no fondness for the creationist position. Yet he did refer to his stance as “anti-evolutionary,” which was quite a change for a man who had authored several books (one of which was titled simply Evolution) in the field that he later acknowledged was capable of producing only “anti-knowledge.”

The above article was taken out of an article published in the Apologetics Press :: Sensible Science 

Is Evolution a “Fact” of Science?

by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.