Welcome to all of the new subscribers!
This is the “When I get a round tooit” Creation/Evolution newsletter from Ian Juby and the traveling Creation Science Museum of Canada.

If you do not see a header image above this text, you may have to turn on images in your email program, or you can click here to view it in your browser.

In this newsletter:
1) DVD Deal
2) Debate with Northern Arizona U Professor
3) Everybody knows atheists are more intelligent
4) Excellent article on evolution
5) More bang for the buck (Was: Spike Psarris makes a big bang)
6) Whadya know – birds didn’t evolve from dinos!

1) DVD deal

It’s been a while since I gave a deal on “The Complete Creation” series, but I’ll make it an even sweeter deal.

You guys all heard the ruckus over Spike Psarris’s “What you aren’t being told about Astronomy: Volume I” video?  Welp, here’s your chance to see what the evolutionists don’t want you to see.  I really do like this video.

So not only am I giving a discounted price on the entire 12 DVD Complete Creation set, for a limited time, I’ll throw in a free copy of Spike’s incredibly awesome video.

So order your “Complete Creation” video series for $120 (shipping included – that’s $30 off) and get Spike’s Astronomy DVD as a bonus (a $19 US value, before shipping!).

FYI: If you order the set, Spike’s astronomy DVD may be shipped to you separately, so don’t panic if you get the set, but Spike’s video isn’t with it – it’s coming.

2) Debate with Northern Arizona U Professor

So Brock Lee asked if I’d participate in a debate on his internet radio program with the honourable Dr. David Koerner, professor of Astrobiology at Northern Arizona University.  Dr. Koerner is one of the very few willing to step up to the plate in a scientific debate on origins, and of course I said “Yes.”

So because of the format of internet radio, here’s how it’s going to work: Dr. Koerner and myself each record our opening arguments for three sections: Planet formation, the geologic column, and radiometric dating methods.  We then each respond with an 8 minute rebuttal, and then finally a closing argument from each.  Brock checks each recording for conformity to the rules and stipulations, then mixes it all together for airing on Sagadiiradio.com; probably July 13ish.

More details to come!

3) Everybody knows atheists are more intelligent

This past week, I got an email from a friend of mine named Justin, in Missouri.  He wrote:

“hey, Juby… I got an evolutionary athiest friend (from my wife’s high school) who says his IQ is 145 saying there are no intelligent Christian creationist… I think you are proof that his statement is false! He also says there are absolutely no Christians (let alone young earth creationists) with an IQ of 160 or over! I was wondering… do you know any?”

Ya, I know a few. I are a person with a high IQ.  I are a certified, card-carrying genius!

Normally, I wouldn’t even deem such a red herring worthy of a response, but this has been such a prevalant claim from the atheists, that I figured I should address it once and for all.

Atheists flunk their IQ test…
Atheism is intellectually bankrupt right from the beginning: If there is no ultimate intelligent designer, then where did the atheist’s intelligence come from?  Intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligence and chaos!  What intelligence is David refering to when he says he has an intelligence quotient (IQ) of 145?

The way the math works on an IQ test, 100 is always average.  The cut-off for the top 2% (the necessary number for entrance into Mensa, the international high-IQ society.) varies from test to test.  On the IQ test I took, 135 was the cut-off.  For the record, I scored 145 on my IQ test for entrance into Mensa.  This is the same score Justin’s friend (whom I’ll call “Dave”) obtained on his IQ test.  So obviously, Dave’s claim that there are no intelligent christians or creationists is flat out false, seeing as how I am living proof of that.  I also happen to be the founder of the International Creation Science SIG for Mensa members, so finding others who were born-again christians and young-earth creationists with genius-level IQ’s was really not that difficult.  In fact, one wonders why Dave and the other atheists didn’t just do a google search before making such ludicrous, blanket statements.

The members of the SIG are also living falsification of Dave’s claims.  People like Dr. G. Charles Jackson, Rick Greenlee, and Dr. Jerry Bergman.

By the way – did I mention that Dr. Bergman was a former, militant atheist?  Yup, he abandoned atheism because he realized that it was intellectually indefensible! Jerry’s IQ of 150 may have played a role in this realization, but really, you don’t need to be a genius to see the intellectual bankruptcy of atheism.

Furthermore, David Harris (one of the members of ICSSIG) and Brock Lee (host of Sagadiiradio.com) both scored well over 160 on their IQ tests (172 and 175, respectively) – when they were in grade school! This means they were not yet at their intellectual prime, and the estimates are that Brock’s IQ is probably around the 190 mark.

This is just a few people in my circle of friends and aquaintances.  The problem I ran into was having too many born again christians and young-earth creationists who had extremely high IQ’s.  The other problem I had was convincing these people to let me use their names.  This was not because they didn’t want it said that they were christians and creationists, but rather it was because these christians have had a humbling encounter with their Creator, and do not flaunt their IQ’s lest they come across as arrogant or proud.  In fact, one lady I know of has an IQ over 230, but she is a very humble and honourable woman who does not want this information publically flaunted.  Did I mention she is also a born again Christian and young-earth creationist?

Dave’s implication is that only intelligent people hold atheistic beliefs, while unintelligent people believe in creation, therefore atheistic beliefs must be correct.  As you have seen here, Dave’s claims are flat-out false.  So the real question is, “Why would intelligent people believe in an intellectually bankrupt belief system like atheism?”

In fact, Brock, in his “Hidden Cross” newsletter, even addressed this very issue earlier on this year – see “Intelligence vs. faith.”

Uhh… what’s an IQ?

What does it mean if you have a high IQ?  It means you’re really good at answering the questions on IQ tests! That’s the bottom line.  I’ve been asked a number of times what it was like having a “genius level IQ” – my response was always the same: It means you realize you did something stupid faster than 98% of the population. IQ is simply an attempt to measure how fast a person thinks and processes information.  It is not related to knowledge.

You’ll also notice that a lot of “geniuses” lack other skills, like interpersonal skills, housekeeping skills, or simple things like spelling (okay, okay – I’m trying to improve on those things!).  So IQ really is an overrated trait, and badly underestimated / unrecognized in many people.

I remember in grade school, my best friend was in the “gifted” program.  I was always jealous ’cause he got out of class to go to the gifted program.  He got good grades in school, and so was recognized as being “gifted” and having a high IQ.  Meanwhile, certified genius here, had a bad case of ADHD and OCD, and flunked out of grade 7.  Today I’m a member of Mensa – go figure.  Obviously, having a high IQ is kind of a relative thing.

Come to the Dark Side
Apparently “Dave” was afraid that he may violate my faith and swing me over to the dark side.  Uh huh.  First of all, Dave, being an atheist and evolutionist, believes that a frog turned into a prince. (Did I mention that IQ really is a relative thing?)  Oh ya, my faith is going to be violated.

But there is a much darker side to IQ.  The idea that a person’s intellect could be gauged was first proposed by Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin.  Galton suggested that Darwin’s evolutionary theory could be applied to human abilities and traits, such as intellligence. Galton was also the father of eugenics.

Let’s consult the creation wikipedia for a crash course on eugenics:

Eugenics is the use of artificial selection to alter the characteristics of a species, which usually refers to the selective breeding of humans. It is a social philosophy which advocates the manipulation of human reproduction for the purposes of attempting to improve the human species over generations. The word Eugenics comes from the Greek for “well born”.

In other words, it’s evolution with a bit of help from our “friends.” Yup, someone gets to decide who is a “superior” human, and who is an “inferior” human.  In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, eugenic beliefs led to horrible actions – from mass-killing to forced sterilization of people, people groups, families, etc…  Check out the Creation Wikipedia article or the Wikipedia article for more info.

IQ was only one of many traits Galton and other eugenicists looked at in their attempt to deem who was a “superior” human and who was an “inferior” human.

Did I mention that IQ is very much a relative thing?  If eugenics was enforced, would I have been killed or sterilized when I flunked out of grade 7?  Clearly I was an inferior human!  Clearly I was a burden to society, and was going to continue to be a burden, right?  (and all the anti-creationists chant that I still am a burden to society!  <grin>)

IQ really is a relative thing, and just because a belief system has intelligent followers does not mean it is the truth.

Instead, why does Dave (and so many other atheists) appeal to the IQ instead of cold, hard facts? You know, good science and stuff?
Simple: Because science does not support evolution, science is evolution’s worst enemy.


4) Excellent article on evolution

Was pointed to an excellent article on evolution recently on conservapedia:


It’s a great introduction to evolution as a whole, and the falacies it entails.  Share the link with all of your friends!

5) More Bang for the Buck (Was: Spike Psarris makes a big bang)

You’ll recall in my last newsletter that Spike’s awesome video “What you aren’t being told about astronomy: Volume I” had gotten attacked on PZ Myer’s Pharyngula blog, as well as Discover magazine’s “Bad astronomy” blog.  Then Spike responded on his own blog, which I reported here.  Then the “Bad astronomy” dude (Phil Plait) wrote a pretty pathetic rebuttal.

Spike doesn’t want to waste any time responding to this endless drivel from people who clearly write before thinking, and neither do I, but there is some things I think should be pointed out:

Guiness World Record Holder in High-Speed Backpeddling:
Plait admitted that the word “evolution” is commonly used in astronomy, to describe things that have nothing to do with biology, but then turns around and very hypocritically says

“Mr. Psarris is sneaky. He says that since astronomers use the term, it’s OK to call astronomers evolutionists! But I call shenanigans on him. First, as I said, it’s clear that is not why he uses the term in the video.”

Really.  If Mr. Plait had taken even 4 minutes to watch Spike’s first video (still available for viewing on Creation Astronomy.com), Spike said this:

“In this video, I’m going to use the word evolution to describe the belief that our Solar System was NOT created. This word is often used to describe biological evolution of course, but astronomers commonly use it in a broader meaning as well. So when I use the word evolution, I’m not talking about plants or animals. I’m talking about the belief that our Solar System, and everything in it, formed and developed all by itself.”

I cannot fathom how Spike could’ve been more clear.
A video entitled “Our Created Solar System” would obviously be about the origin of our Solar System. And just as obviously, the word “evolution” is far more convenient to use than constantly saying phrases like “the standard solar nebula model for the origins of our Solar System.” As a professional writer, Mr. Plait would understand this.  So why does he criticize Spike for doing this?

Mr. Plait also wrote:

“…(in general) creationists deny biological evolution can happen. Is he then using the term because he is saying that astronomical evolution can’t happen either? Because we do see stars exploding, and we’ve seen stars undergoing individual changes that fall under the astronomical use of the word evolution.”

What was that Spike said?  “I’m talking about the belief that our Solar System, and everything in it, formed and developed all by itself.”

The video is about the origin of our Solar System. I’ve watched the entire video (perhaps something Mr. Plait should do before he critically writes?) – nowhere did Spike deny observable changes in stars, planets, galaxies, or whatever, as they exist today. This has nothing to do with the origin of the Solar System, does it?  This is starting to sound like typical arguments used by evolutionists to defend biological evolution – inserting observations that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Next, Mr. Plait says:

“He makes a big deal claiming that I call him a liar in my previous post. In fact I do not, and I never use that word. I imply he has born false witness, but actually that literally means not telling the truth. That’s different than a lie; people can simply be wrong, and think they are right.”

Oh really?  Mr. Plait didn’t accuse Spike of merely being wrong – he accused Spike of deliberately “misdirecting” people. He even wrote that Spike used the word “evolution” to mislead people, even though Spike “must know” that the usage is incorrect.

To accuse someone of “bearing false witness”, in order to “misdirect” people, when that person “must know” that what he’s saying is false, is to accuse him of lying.

And that’s what Mr. Plait has done — his sudden backpedaling notwithstanding.

I think it’s interesting that in both the first post and now the rebuttal, Mr. Plait hasn’t discussed science at all. There have been lots of insults thrown at Spike (“sneaky”, “blatherings”, “nonsense”, “false witness”, etc.), but nothing about our actual Solar System.

Nothing except an appeal to future discoveries.

This speaks volumes, don’t ya think?

6) Whadya know – birds didn’t evolve from dinos!

Image courtesy of Oregon State University

What a breath of fresh air it was to read some brutally honest analysis in this article:


First, the main premise of the discovery (and the article) is that birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs.  I’ve discussed this at great length in previous newsletters, my video series, etc…, so I won’t repeat the evidence that shows birds did not evolve from dinos.  And before some anti-creationist hurls around the bogus “Quote mining!” argument, let me be quite clear: These are evolutionists commenting in this article.  These evolutionists still believe birds evolved, just not from dinosaurs.

Now of course, those who believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs will be quick to point out the valid problems with the idea that birds evolved from… anything else, so if both options are refuted, maybe the birds didn’t evolve at all???

The principle:
The researchers at Oregon State University discovered that the main leg bone attached to the hip in birds (the equivelent would be our femur) remains essentially unmoveable for a reason.  Birds have a different lung then we do – a very well designed lung.  We have a “bellows” style lung, where the air goes in and out one end.  Birds have a different style of lung with air coming in one end and going out the other.  This allows better oxygen transfer for the incredible oxygen demands of flight.
The air leaves the lungs and goes through a series of air sacs located throughout the bird’s body, including chambers inside the bones.  This acts as a cooling system for the bird’s body as well.

It turns out that the “thigh bone” on a bird essentially doesn’t move, and if it did, it would collapse the air sacs, and thus the bird would not be able to breathe.

Enter the Dinosaurs:

Now of course there are many proponents of the dino > bird theory.  This new discovery basically is another nail in the coffin of this belief: If the theropod dinosaur, supposed ancestor to the bird, had the same breathing system as the bird, then it couldn’t move its thigh bone or wouldn’t be able to breathe.

But notice the candid honesty of some of the comments from the science daily article:

“For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from,” Ruben said. “That’s a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.

Yup, he’s absolutely right!  Creationists have been pointing this out for years.

“A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset,” Ruben said.
As for the dino-to-bird proponents?

“Frankly, there’s a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions,” Ruben said.

I’ll simply let you read the article for yourself.  The point is, there are numerous, insurmountable problems with any theory of bird evolution.  It’s not just slapping feathers on a critter and voila – you have a bird!  There are cardiovascular changes, reproduction changes, bone changes, body mass / muscle changes – the list goes on and on.

Birds were created as birds, there is no evidence for bird evolution.


Subscribing and Unsubscribing:
If you received this email from a friend, and would like to subscribe yourself, click here and enter your email address into the “CSMC” subscribe box.  May I also suggest you sign up for the free “In 7 Days” crash course in creation.
If you are forwarding this email to friends, I’d suggest you strip off the unsubscribe link at the bottom here – otherwise someone else will unsubscribe YOU.  And thank you for sharing this newsletter!  It always pleases me to hear that a reader finds my humble writings worthy to be passed on to a friend of theirs.