Piltdown Superman

Hey, what's shaking? Probably the plates moving around on the earth's surface. "But plate tectonics is secular, Cowboy Bob!" Should we reject a theory because it was developed by a secular scientist? Not hardly! (After all, we don't want to be guilty of the genetic fallacy and  act like atheo-fascists , do we?) Nor should we blindly accept a view because it's popular. Like J Harlen Bretz and the Channeled Scablands , Alfred Wegener also bucked the consensus system when he proposed  plate tectonics.  This has observable scientific evidence, unlike goo-to-geologist evolution. Image credit:  US Geological Survey  (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Earth's surface is on plates that move. Earthquake zones and volcanoes seem to mark the edges of these plates, and when they rub against each other, you get things like the San Andreas Fault out California way. The  islands of Hawaii  in the Pacific Ocean (perhaps you've heard of them

Last month, we examined the "junk" DNA concept in Part 1 , and we're fortunate to have the second exciting episode. Darwinists claimed that the little bit of DNA they studied has a great deal of "junk" leftover from our assumed evolutionary past, and creationists claimed that there is no junk, what is there exists for a purpose.  Assembled and modified from components at Clker clipart Darwin's disciples have a high level of unscientific hauteur, dismissing what they do not understand. The uninformed proselytizers of evolutionism will continue to ignore scientific facts and browbeat those who disagree with them — especially those who know more about science and reason than they do. What's that cacophony in the science lecture hall? Big fight going on. To declare that DNA does have a purpose is anathema to many fundamentalist evolutionists. If you take out your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™, you'll see that having a purpose (and not

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen And now for something completely different. For a long time, it was said that "pictures don't lie". That's not so true, especially if someone gets some photo editing happening, such as the imaginative material seen here if you scroll down . Even without editing trickery, some impressive illusions can be created using lines, colors, and shading. 3-D effects are impressive. Credit: Pixabay /  uroburos Let's move on to a different kind of illusion. My wife got me interested in a television program on the truTV cable network called The Carbonaro Effect, which is a hidden camera "magic" show where Michael Carbonaro plays comedic illusion pranks on people in various settings. I do not believe there are any camera tricks involved. The individual segments are usually very brief, and I haven't seen him do the same trick twice. Carbonaro is extremely talented and personable, and very skilled in sleight-of-hand and fast talking

Let me get this straight. Someone or something takes a chunk out of a tree, it bleeds sap, an insect gets trapped in it, and the whole thing turns to amber after a few zillion years. Not hardly! Sap and resin are different things, and when an insect or other critter gets trapped in amber, it doesn't just hang out and turn into a fossil. I recommend reading " Sticky Situations " for some basics on amber . Credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures While amber has been fascinating for many years, whether for jewellery or curiosity's sake, it has been receiving a great deal of attention in recent years. An ant beetle showed no change after all those assumed Darwin years, the claim of bird wings in amber backfired, assertions of dinosaur feathers in amber are ridiculous, and more. Now there's a new discovery that baffles the evolutionary cult of death. This new item shows a tick, blood cells, and one-celled organisms that live in blood cells. That's pretty i

Every so often, paleoanthropologists at the Darwin Ranch start chewing the peyote buttons and dreaming up some wild ideas. I'll allow that the diminutive H. floresiensis is baffling for both evolutionists and creationists, but there's no excuse for presenting some nonsense as science (such as going to the island and shrinking way, way down). The latest batch of stories aren't so outlandish, but it shows the disagreement among evolutionists while they hash things out. Creationists need to commence to working on these archaic humans (they certainly were not apes, nor were they our evolutionary ancestors) and determine what happened, including how they arrived in their location after the Genesis Flood. Then there's the strange H. naledi ... Two of the most mysterious hominin fossils are in the news again, and opinions are flying every direction. Are the little people of Indonesia and South Africa just small versions of us? Wherever they came from, and whatever th

Proponents of carp-to-cardiologist evolution originally relied on Darwin's views of natural selection, a concept that he pilfered from creationist Edward Blyth and then twisted for his own ends. While some fundamentalist evolutionists erroneously conflate "survival of the fittest" natural selection with evolution, the two are not the same . When Darwinists realized that natural selection was not working to cause evolution, they started paying attention to genetics, a science begun by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him). Cropped from a graphic at Clker clipart The most common form of common-ancestor evolution is a synthesis of genetics and natural selection that relies on mutations as its driving force. But the idea of "beneficial" mutations is disputed at best, and there are no examples of mutations improving protein construction. The overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful, and a few are neutral. A recent study on a heart condition that kills peo

The origin of Earth's moon is another of those burrs under the saddle of secular scientists. Since it's anathema to even consider that there's a Creator, and since they're constrained to promote cosmic evolution (after all, there's money in it), speculations about the moon's origin keep changing. Credit: NASA / ISS / Col. Jeff Williams (usage does not imply endorsement of site's contents) Their guesses keep on changing because the facts don't fit none too good. One conjecture becomes dominant for a while, then another replaces is. Facts interfere again, so yet another is brought forward. Now they have a story that is unfit for 1950s pulp sci-fi, but is considered "science". Why pays these jaspers? Oh, right. We do. Through our tax dollars. They seem unaware that the moon is unique in many ways and specially fitted for life right here. In my lifetime there has been tremendous evolution in man’s ideas about the moon’s origin. In the 19