Piltdown Superman

Creationists have to deal with Darwin's Flying Monkeys© (because the Evo Sith don't want to invest in krakens), and they go on the prowl citing what they consider to be facts supporting scum-to-scoffer evolution. It is almost comical at times, because defenders of Darwin use incomplete, fraudulent, deceptive, and often outdated material. Informed creationists often correct them on their misuse of science. Bacteria image credit: National Institutes of Health (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) One item that seems to have fallen through the cracks is the claim that random mutations produced nylon-eating bacteria. (With Evo Sith logic, that slight modification means that universal common ancestor evolution is true, and there is no Creator. Sure, you betcha.) The entire story is outdated and incomplete, but a passel of people believe it; fake evolution news tends to get stuck in the public's craw , and they pass it around. Dr. Don Batten wrote about nylon

When "debunking" creationary material, anti-creationists use several tactics, but seldom employ reason, science,  and logic. Ironically those are things they claim to uphold. Instead, they use logically fallacious arguments such as the straw man, loaded terminology, arbitrary assertions, poisoning the well, the red herring, outright lying, and their usual first resort, the ad hominem  attack. (I believe most of their fallacies could be considered variations on the red herring diversion .) Something I've said for years is that respect must be earned ,  and such scheming moves their respect percentages into the negative numbers. One version of the red herring/ ad hominem  is the use of emotive terminology. Fine print fail (lower right), made on imgur , URL added later Those of us who reject microbes-to-mocker evolution are often bushwhacked with speech-control labels such as "anti-science" ( here, for example ), or its ugly kid brother, "science denie

One of the most popular propaganda ploys that evolutionists use is the so-called high similarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes, which is then proclaimed throughout all the world as proof that we evolved from a universal common ancestor. Check out your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™ (even the cheap new ones that don't have a whistle), and you'll see that this claim is used to justify assertions that there is no Creator, or at least, that evolution of that sort actually happened. However, the science that they hang their hopes on is nothing but choplogic. Credit: Pixabay / venturaartist The chimpanzee-human genome similarity was shown to be false through re-examination by a notable creationary scientist. The whole comparison thing was bad science from the get-go, as the chimpanzee genome was actually not sequenced. Just a few portions were examined, assumptions about evolution were made, and human contamination was added to the mix. The whole shootin&#

Yes, it's true. A famous astronomer built on the work of a previous astronomer and saw canals on Mars. What, you didn't know? It was in the newspapers, even the New York Times .  Except that the big news was in 1907. Seems that fake news is not a new phenomenon, only the moniker is new. Making use of the Breaking News Generator again This is where someone might object that scientists makes mistakes, but things got fixed because science is self-correcting . No, not really. Secularists often use the reification fallacy and act like science is a sentient being that makes choices (especially regarding muck-to-mechanic evolution), which is a form of pagan nature worship . Giovanni Schiaparelli thought he saw channels on Mars, and the Italian word was translated as canals  (which strikes me as an easy mistake), and Percival Lowell "saw" canals on Mars. He even wrote a book or three on the subject. Those mistakes were corrected with additional research and improve

Some people go wild downloading apps (applications) when they get a new smartphone, tablet, or whatever. There are millions available, and many are junk — or worse. (I have apps that came pre-packaged that I don't want, don't use, and can't uninstall. Bummer.) It's not surprising to hear someone say, "There's probably an app for that".I reckon some folks have apps on the brain. Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann The human mind and brain have been compared to computers in many ways, except that our working, uh, hardware is far more intricate and specific than anything a computer company could dream up. There are apps for your brain that sound exciting, and you'd like to download them into it. But that's not possible. Nor necessary. You have pre-packaged evolution-defying apps in the brain, courtesy of our Creator (who wrote our Operator's Manual ). Yep, we got us the Magic Rocks app for our inner ears to help us keep our balance. Then th

News keeps getting worse for the hands at the Darwin Ranch down Deception Pass way. Trying to deny science related to dinosaur soft tissues and still believe in long ages is downright difficult, but they make a serious effort. Now the prospect of actual dinosaur DNA is becoming more of a possibility. Some evolutionary scientists are being confronted with a choice: the narrative that dinosaur fossils are multiple millions of Darwin years old (which is based on assumptions), or the scientific fact that DNA degrades rapidly, and cannot for long periods. Secular scientists are loathe to admit that facts show the earth was created recently because minerals-to-mastodon requires those long ages. According to Dr. Adrian Lister, a British paleobiologist, DNA cannot survive in dinosaur bones because dinosaurs lived far too long ago for their DNA, which is inherently unstable, to survive to the present . . . Dr. Lister is no stranger to Ice Age remains, having a particular expertise in

In Texas, one of the state mammals is the armadillo, but the reason why escapes me because lots of folks consider them a nuisance, especially gardeners and home owners. There was a time when Charles Apelt got the notion to hollow out the carcass and use the hard shells to make into baskets. A tisket, a tasket, an armadillo basket... Personally, I don't like the idea very much. You'd think that will his business interest in them, he'd have hunted the armadillos to extinction. Instead, they are thriving, and even found in new areas. The armadillo (Spanish for " speed bump ") looks like slow-moving speed bumps I've encountered in Michigan and New York: the opossum. But even though they have a superficial resemblance ( sans body armor), they're not closely related. The opossum is a marsupial, the armadillo is a mammal. And no, the 'dillo is not a rodent, like some people think. One other thing that the two critters have in common is that some people ea