Piltdown Superman

Many of Darwin's disciples are fond of ridiculing creation with prejudicial conjecture along the lines of, "That could not have been created, therefore, evolution". Ironically, they invoke evolution as an entity with the ability to make design choices. It is also contradictory, because they believe their mad gibbering false god does wonderful things, but eyes are poorly designed, so... That is not science, old son, that is blind faith in pantheism. It is also desperation. Speaking of blind , fundamentalist evolutionists and atheists cannot see the Master Engineer's amazing design of eyes. Claims that the human eye are poorly designed have been thoroughly refuted , other critters such as trilobites had exceptional eye construction , and more. Here's an idea: instead of continuing to debunk the foolish assertions of Darwin's Flying Monkeys©, have them give plausible evolutionary mechanisms for the origin of eyes. Keep going. Press them to explain why diff

According to secular mythology, the Big Bang is responsible for everything in the universe; we are made of "star stuff" from cosmic evolution. That is, after the Big Bang, stars formed, some became supernovas, and (I am cutting out quite a bit of steps here) led to the formation of elements. These, in turn, eventually caused life to evolve. "This image combines data from four space telescopes to create a multi-wavelength view of all that remains of RCW 86, the oldest documented example of a supernova." Credit: X-ray: NASA /CXC/SAO & ESA; Infared: NASA/JPL-Caltech/B. Williams (NCSU) (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) A while back, I presented material about a concept of stellar alchemy , where neutron stars produced gold. No actual evidence, of course, just speculation. On the periodic table of the elements, gold is number 79, and iron is way back at 26. Doing some basic calculations and working from presumed conditions, a supernova cann

First, a note of explanation. As we have seen in many examples, quite a few people refer to simple changes as "evolution", attempting to conflate variation with universal common ancestor evolution, as popularized by Charles Darwin. I have learned from other biblical creationists to specify those differences in terminology, so you will often see the word Darwinism  on this site. Although most scientists have abandoned evolution into more advanced life forms alone as Darwin taught, people know what we're talking about when saying Darwinism. Also, it's a mite less tedious than saying some of the other synonyms, such as neo-Darwinian synthesis. The synthesis thing is where neo-Darwinism happens. Darwin was largely ignorant of the research on genetics by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him), and his philosophies were beginning to flounder in the early 20th century. Along came eugenicist, racist, and mathematician R. A. Fisher to the rescue. He formulated a theorem to mathema

If you think on it for a spell, you might realize that people who have plentiful water take it for granted. This here planet that our Creator gave us to look after is just over two thirds water. Interesting that we ourselves are also two thirds water. Sure, some of it is mix in with other fluids, but those fluids rely on water to keep us alive. Evolutionists who search for life on other worlds primarily focus on whether or not those places could sustain water, since it is necessary for life. Credit: Freeimages /  shivani If y'all don't mind, I'd like to have you to think a bit further. Ever wonder where it came from? I'm not talking about clouds, rivers, and things. Before that. Dumb luck at the alleged cosmic evolution of the solar system? Not hardly! Water has many characteristics, such as its chemical composition, density, surface tension, heat capacity, viscosity , and so on. Even though the logic indicates that water, as well as life itself, was designed by

Several places around the globe have interesting geological features, and are used as icons for deep time and Darwinism. As expected, they give a slanted view of what is seen, but leave out important information. A nice patch of land in England has been named the Jurassic Coast, and is rife with secular propaganda (as well as some fabulous scenery). Looks like a great place for a stroll. Jurassic Coast, Dorset; Pixabay /  Roman Grac The secular view of uniformitarian geology is heavily promoted, but does not explain the features. Some problems are the erosion layers, rate of cliff retreat, planation surfaces, and more. The evidence is best explained by the Genesis Flood, including the presence of fossils, which require rapid burial. Watch for evolutionary and deep time propaganda, old son. They are not giving you all the facts, nor the most reasonable explanation. Secularists need to cowboy up and realize that the world was created recently, and that's why all their speculat

Adherents of universal common ancestor evolution rely on atheistic interpretations of scientific facts, and they have a special fondness for geoscience. Evolutionists need the earth to be ancient, so secular geologists and paleontologists give Darwin the long ages he needs to perform his miracles. Many evidences for a young earth , using secularist methods, are largely ignored. One of these evidences for a recent creation is in biology. Specifically, genetics. Credit:  National Human Genome Research Institute (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Evolutionists are enamored with studying fruit flies, since they can induce mutations and variations (but cannot get anything other than freaky fruit flies). The science around mutations in fruit flies also applies to humans. Specifically, the Y chromosome in human males. Yes, really. Males have the a Y chromosome, and females have two X chromosomes. There's more possibility of damage (mutations) being passed along t

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Several months ago, I read and reviewed Noah: Man of Destiny , by Tim Chaffey and K. Marie Adams. Just before Christmas, I was pleasantly surprised that Noah: Man of Resolve was one of the e-books on sale at Answers in Genesis, so I grabbed it. I'm telling you how I obtained my copy so you know that I purchased both books and was not given promotional copies or anything. The publisher and authors probably do not even know that I exist, let alone that I am writing reviews. It has been made clear that this is a trilogy, as seen in part of the name, "The Remnant Trilogy". (See how that works?) I suspicion that all three  were written as one large book and then separated into sections. I'm thinking that because the authors don't have continuity errors from book one to book two, which are more likely to happen when authors spend a lot of time off in their writing. Also, books one and two have "a glimpse of" preview of the next book