Piltdown Superman

Deep time proponents have a terrible time dealing with facts that do not fit their fundamentally flawed worldview, especially when it comes to celestial objects . One problem is the presence of oxygen in a comet's atmosphere , but never mind about that now. (Some may think that the interstellar asteroid  ʻOumuamua is devastating to biblical creation science, but it is actually rather unimpressive .) Secularists circle the wagons of excuses to protect their views, but they only end up looking foolish when denying the evidence in front of them. Credit:  NASA /JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Many objects in our own solar system don't "act their age" according to secular views, and even contradict prevailing views of the solar system's cosmic evolution. The battle raged for years over Saturn's rings. Evidence would indicate that they cannot be ancient, so atheistic magic would be used to conjure up

For millennia, humans have wondered how birds can fly, and if we can do the same thing. Maybe glue some feathers onto a couple of planks, attach them to your arms, and flap like a maniac. Simple, right? Nope. It was not until fairly recently that scientists learned (with the help of sophisticated photography) that birds do not simply flap their wings up and down. Instead, there is some complicated activity going on. The study of flight has also contributed to biomimetics. Maybe it is called a swift because it is. Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Dr. Raju Kasambe ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) Some tinhorns assume that since some scientists think that dinosaurs evolved into birds, all scientists think the same way. That'll be the day! Perhaps those who reject the idea of dinosaur-to-bird evolution realize that there are many intricate features that need to be in place, and that the propaganda of that notion leaves out inconvenient facts . Something else occurred to me: which kind of bird?

Imagine some cowboys at the campfire on the trail: "I see you got that fire built up pretty high. Ain't that a tad much for heatin' up beans?" "Normally, yep. But I'm making coffee, it's gonna be a long night". "Well, hope that firewood's loaded up with phlogiston." "What's phlogiston?" "The stuff that makes things burn. If it don't have no phlogiston, it won't burn. Johann Becher explained combustion back in 1667. You really should do some science reading now and then." Too bad the dude doing the explaining didn't read further, or something more up to date. While phlogiston was the dominant scientific theory for a spell, Lavosier became skeptical and determined that it was oxygen , not phlogiston (the dark matter of the 16th century?) that caused burning. RGBStock / Krzysztof Szkurlatowski Unlike Darwinism, phlogiston theory had some explanatory merit. Like Darwinism, the idea of ph

One of the strangest Just-So Stories told by Darwin's true believers is that of whale evolution. It was bad enough telling us that rain washed minerals from primordial rocks, life originated, then evolved in the sea, moved to land, and here we are. It becomes more absurd when some critter took the notion that life on land isn't such fun after all and went back to evolving for sea life. That is where whales and their relatives came from. Not hardly! You get tales of whale evolution , but they have no actual scientific or logical basis. Credit: Freeimages / Kym Parry I'll allow that I oversimplified the evolution story, but we've got things to do, and you get their version of it easily enough. For example, you can go to the museum of Darwinist indoctrination — I mean, natural history — and see the exhibits. Of course, they won't tell you about fraudulent exhibits (see " Faking the Fossil Whales "), nor the duplicity of atheopaths in protecting evolution

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen So, how are those New Year's resolutions working out for you? Early in the year, many people have already failed on some. I disremember where I read it, but one piece of advice was to avoid giving yourself a thorough remake, and just pick a few. Add more later if you have a mind to. Even so, the question remains: why do resolutions fail? A Monkey Encampment , David Teniers the Younger, 1633 Dr. Albert Mohler brought this to our attention on The Briefing , so I got the bit between my teeth and ran with it. Seems that you can blame it on vertical (universal common ancestor) evolution. We can't stick to resolutions or be decisive because we've evolved that way so we can act quickly for survival. Sounds a bit Lamarckian to me. (He's the guy that said giraffes evolved long necks to reach leaves in trees for food.) It also seems live a pitiful rescuing device to excuse perceived flaws in behavior. Evolutionists use the scientific principle o

When evidence does not fit dogmas of fundamentalist evolutionism, the hands at the Darwin Ranch either ignore the problems, or head down into the cellar and fire up the Rescuing Devices Generator™. When smothered in jargon and spoken with authority, fact-denying excuses are accepted by the faithful. We have three more examples of rescuing devices used by evolutionists. Credit: Pixabay / skeeze When it comes to soft tissues and biochemicals, those kinds of things cannot exist for millions of Darwin years, but they are found in fossils more and more frequently. Original oil in a fossilized bird gland existing for such a long time? No plausible explanation. Pigments in a turtle fossil, with no evidence of evolution? Make confident assertions that have no basis in science. Fossil pigments that are identifiable? Claim "contamination", and impugn the intelligence and integrity of many other scientists who have made similar findings. No, earth is not ancient, Darwin was wro

Many evolutionary scientists have become so entrenched in their paradigm, they become fanatical in their efforts to use Darwinism as an explanation for practically everything. Their observations are filtered through their Darwin spectacles , and they "see" things that do not actually exist. They use circular reasoning to prove evolution by assuming it despite lack of evidence. An example of the scientific principle of Making Things Up ™ is when respo nd to reports of UFOs defying the laws of physics, such as sudden turns that would destroy any occupan ts, biological or mechanical. "Well, they're aliens, so they can do that". Such question-begging is based on the assumption that the UFO is of extraterrestrial origin in the first place, as well as the assumption that other life forms can survive such a thing. Evidence, please? Also, UFO enthusiasts (and other people who are just plain interested) should see Alien Intrusion . When examining fossils, there is