Piltdown Superman

The basic concept of microbes-to-microbiologist evolution in humans is that we improved over time, and that we're still improving. Problem is, that's simply not true. I keep saying that DNA studies are no friend of evolutionary theory, and scientists are finding evidence of genetic degradation. It's interesting that secular scientists, using deep time assumptions, get diversification in humanity that charts to about the time of the dispersal after the Genesis Flood. Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson studied mutation rates in mitochondrial DNA and the results show a recent creation. All results show that humanity cannot last forever, and will become extinct from mutations. Many creationists believe that the bulk of scientific evidence for a recent creation comes from the fields of geology, physics, and astronomy and that biology and genetics have little to contribute. However, data that confirm a young creation are rapidly emerging from genetic studies performed by both creationis

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Based on evidence and observations, I reckon that it's is reasonable to conclude that anti-creationists want us silenced. Some of those tinhorns are instituting legislation to make the teaching of creation science illegal . Over the years and scattered throughout the nearly one thousand posts and articles on this site alone, there is documentation of deception, double standards, outright lies and fraud, terrible logic and more on the part of the anti-creationists — if they can't silence us through legislation and activist judges, these bigots resort to bullying and intimidation tactics. For example, secularists organized a protest at an Answers in Genesis conference — at a church, on private property, attendance was voluntary, so it was none of their business. Their attacks on biblical Christians are escalating . In one sense, articles like this are almost immediately somewhat outdated, because new examples of atheist and anti-creationist bigotr

One of the most frequent tricks that Darwinists utilize is a word game. If you commence to having a discussion, you often need to define your terms, as definitions are vital for effective and accurate communication. The word "evolution" can have at least seven meanings , not including special uses like games and products. When you do an online search for "define evolution", you'll most likely see several links about Darwin's general theory of goo-to-you evolution. One meaning of biological evolution (aside from the ridiculous "change of time" vagueness) is variation, or possibly horizontal evolution. That refers to observed changes within limits with things like breeds of dogs, horses, birds or whatnot. But when the Evo Sith will point to these observed changes, they will pull a bait 'n' switch by equivocating this kind of evolution with the general theory of evolution. "Look! We have proof of evolution!", telling you that

The American badger is not a critter to be trifled with, and can be meaner than an evolutionist presented with paradigm-shifting facts about creation. It's a marvel of design in many ways. One amazing feature is how it's built for digging (just look at the claws sometime), and digs faster than an overworked cowboy spending money after a cattle drive. Even the fur of badgers is built for the rigors of burrowing, what with being able to switch around when changing direction and so forth. Another sign of its design is the way it carefully plans its hunting. Pixabay.com / beeki The badger does not cooperate with evolutionary ideas, either. "Old" fossils show little if any difference from existing badgers. Naturally, Darwin's Cheerleaders will use terms like "evolutionary stasis" (which is an escape hatch for when there is no sign of evolution, though other times, they claim it is an irresistible force). The genetic similarities of badgers to similar

The big area on Earth's moon that has often been called the "man in the moon" is getting cheeky. Evolutionists have their noses out of joint because the long-held belief that this area it is the result of an impact crater is being discarded. Instead, it is now thought to be the result of volcanic activity. This moon, as well as other satellites and the planet Mercury, are showing signs of a young solar system . But evolutionary theories require long ages, so secular scientists are trying to find a way to save face and keep their "deep time" presuppositions. Reckon they can't stand to admit that the evidence shows the work of the Creator, and that he did his creating much more recently that has been cherished in their worldviews. The theory of how the largest impact basin on the moon was formed has been turned upside down. Oceanus Procellarum, the large dark feature often called the “Man in the moon,” has a new story to tell lunar geologists: “I’m a

Evolutionary cosmologists and cosmogonists rely on their naturalistic presuppositions about the origins of the universe and solar systems, then interpret their observations accordingly. Evidence for exocomets (comets that are beyond our own solar system) has been found. They think that these give support for their "deep time" conjectures, but this is not the case. Some evolutionist owlhoots are so locked into their worldviews that they call anyone who disagrees with them "liars", and refuse to honestly examine the evidence! "Landscape with a comet", Heorhiy Narbut, 1910, PD For a long while, creationists have reckoned that comets fit their own presuppositions far better, and point out that they are testimony of a young universe. One of the main reasons is that comets (especially short-term ones) should have been burned out long ago in an old universe. To preserve their fundamentally flawed worldview, secular cosmologists rely on the Oort Cloud a

Once again, proponents of evolution and their enthusiastic (but often irresponsible) press go off at full gallop, claiming to have found a missing link. "Transitional forms" are supposed to be abundant, and there would be a huge number of them that cannot be disputed. In reality, every possibility is big news. That should tell you something right there, since transitional forms do not really exist. This time, it's a supposed transition between marine ichthyosaurs and a land-based creature. The evolutionary tale is that life evolved from the ocean onto land, and then some things decided to evolve so they could live in the sea again. Here we have something that looks kinda sorta like a stubby version of the ichthyosaur, so evolutionists tack on presuppositions, numerous speculations, imaginings and outright guesswork to present this as "science". The new fossil is incomplete, but they still think it's an amphibian. Much faith, little substance. Ichthy