Piltdown Superman

Today is the anniversary of the first human in space, the Soviet Union sent Yuri Gagarin on an orbit of Earth that lasted 108 minutes. Nikita Khrushchev did not know that Yuri was secretly a Christian  living in that atheistic regime. While there was science and technology involved, the flight had goals that were primarily for military and propaganda value. Of course, the USSR believed in evolution, but they were probably not concerned with finding extraterrestrial life — certainly not like obsessive secularists later. Cranky Alien image furnished by Why?Outreach The space aliens are still screaming silence . Secularists are sure of abiogenesis somewhere, sometime, so alien civilizations must have evolved. These scientists are offering speculations that smack of desperation, even saying that a null result still shows hope. (No, Skippy, it shows nothing.) If a bacterium was found on Mars, these jaspers would be ecstatic, but they would have to prove that it was native to Mars. ...

Do not be deceived, secularists are like Christians and creationists, believing in miracles. They do not admit it like we do. While Darwin's acolytes claim to believe in science and reject any semblance of faith, they presuppose evolution despite  the evidence, not because of it. Crustaceans have been around a mighty long time. They have no evolutionary history, but just popped into existence (an unacknowledged miracle). Crabs have adapted to a many ecological niches, so materialists evosplain their varieties through the miracle of convergent evolution . Crab, Unsplash / Kai Dahma , modified at Pixlr Secularists are so busy saying, "Hail Darwin! Blessed be!" that they don't notice the flaws in their reasoning. Many know the  Tree of Life stuff is bad enough, but appealing to convergent evolution actually makes things worse. If they realized that praising evolution's "flexibility" sounds like it is rooted in faith and not science, mayhaps they could cons...

The Bearded Buddha admitted that the gradual evolution of the eye seemed absurd. Presupposing his conjectures and refusing to consider any other explanation for the origin of the eye, he believed by blind faith that evidence supporting his ideas would be found. Disciples of Darwin have been trying to meet his challenge for years. There are sidewinders who simply avoid the challenge by saying that the human eye was poorly designed, but such a religious claim is based on opinion, not science. Cat eyes, Pixabay / Christel Sagniez It is not just the human eye, though. There have to be gradual stages of development and organisms had to benefit each step of the way.  National Geographic  attempted to support Charlie in 2016, but that effort was shot down by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell. A more recent contender arose in something called Visual Capitalist , but this deceptive Just-So Story also fails. Indeed, there is dissent in the ranks about not only the evolution of the eye, but how par...

There comes a time when everyone has to cowboy up and face the failings, and this is mine. It turns out that not only have many others and I been deceived, but I have been deceiving my readers in my misguided zeal. Dinosaurs never existed. Playtime is over. Now we get to more serious but still almost unbelievable material. Although I have heard of them, I never met someone who claimed that dinosaurs are not real. The reasons for thinking this get...truly bizarre. Unsplash / Katie Smith I have to stop for a moment and say that this post almost went to Biblical Creation and Evangelism . It ended up here because, although it has to do with theology, biblical creationists emphasize critical thinking skills. To believe the outrageous idea that dinosaurs were never real, one must believe conspiracy theories on an absurdity level of September 11 "truthers" and Flat-Earthers. In all three cases, thousands  of people would have to keep secrets very well, and not have consciences that ...

Believers in minerals-to-misotheist need to be asked some direct questions, such as if evolution is a proven fact, why do they expect evidence to be found later? That is faith, old son, not science. Also, why do they need to use falsehoods and chicanery? If evolution were a "proven scientific fact", it could successfully slap leather with all challengers. Helpful hint: Science does not prove anything, only disproves. Hypotheses, theories, even laws stand until even one contrary piece of evidence brings them down. That is falsifiability . I gave Charlie a floral wreath at PhotoFunia . It's quite fitting. Darwin's Abominable Mystery troubled him for years and was never resolved. Flowering plants existed too soon for evolutionists, a fact which supports recent creation. Deal with it, hippies. But no, living by faith, evolutionists have tried to hoodwink us with tall tales and even outright deception instead of admitting that they have insurmountable problems. Of course, ...

Believers in fish-to-physicist evolution have a detailed mythology that they get all gussied up and show off as actual science. In reality, they have loosely connected mythologies that are taken by faith, not demonstrable science. Although some countries claim to believe in keeping religion separate from government-run schools, secular humanism (atheism) by way of evolution is the unofficial state religion for many secularists. Images found at Clker clipart were modified One statement of evolutionary dogma is that life began in the sea. Eventually, we get to where some creatures got ambitious and flopped onto land, evolved lungs and legs, and eventually turned into all land life. Hail Darwin, blessed be!  Except there is no actual scientific evidence for this. Some people claim that certain catfish that use their fins to navigate over land from one bit of water to another, or critters like lungfish , are evidence for evolution. Not hardly! They are creatures with certain...

Should we feel sorry for evolutionists? Things that they put their faith in as "evidence", things that have been considered "facts", get dropped on the dusty trail of learning. But then, they accept many things presented without question. "The oyster's twist shows evolution", but this is done with assertion and conjecture, not with plausible models. One thing I keep trying to tell Christians and creationists is that our faith is not based on the ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies (it's like trying to patch the sinking ship of evolutionary dogmas with more unfounded assertions). Science and evidence support our faith, but they do not make it. Oysters have the unfortunate distinction that they were one of the first examples of an alleged proof of evolutionary lineage in the fossil record (mooted by paleontologist A.E. Trueman in 1922).1 The ‘flat’ oyster, Ostrea sp., was said to have evolved into the coiled shell Gryphaea sp. ...

People have a simplistic view of the processes of science. It does not have a basis in atheistic materialism. In fact, the origins of an effective, consistent approach to doing science has a long and complicated history. The political, social, religious and philosophical environments underwent many changes. The greatest scientific minds of the past (as well as many in the present) were Theists, usually Bible-believing Christians.  Radar's article give you an overview of the factors influencing the development of modern scientific methods. Many people who claim to be experts on science (and evolution) do not know much of this material at all! "Yes, it is a press, certainly, but a press from which shall flow in inexhaustible streams the most abundant and most marvelous liquor that has ever flowed to relieve the thirst of men. Through it, God will spread His word; a spring of pure truth shall flow from it; like a new star it shall scatter the darkness of ignorance, and cau...

Time and again, I get hit with the plaintive bleating of fundamentalist evolutionists that, "All the facts support evolution", "Creation and Intelligent Design do not have facts", "There are no facts for creation" and similar nonsense. News flash: It is not a case of "my facts are better than your facts" because nobody owns the facts. A fact is a fact, evidence is evidence. It is the interpretation of the facts that are at issue. For that matter (brace yourselves now), goo-to-you macroevolution and creation are equally religious and equally scientific. They are both belief systems about the past, interpreted through science frameworks based on worldviews. When evolutionists insist that "scientists start with the facts and follow where the evidence leads", they are either misled or dishonest; nobody is unbiased. That flies in the face of human nature, Nellie. Phylogenetic Tree (modified) However, evolutionists are so pass...

This video, and additional information, can be found here . 

Several times a week, I am hit with faith-based comments where the users believe they are speaking "science" in defense of evolutionism (links to sources are given, until they get embarrassed and delete their comments): Evolution is   as much science as quantum theory is. To claim otherwise is totally absurd. Note the equivocation between evolution and quantum theory, followed by a form of   ad hominem   attack. Edit: My charge of ad hominem  was challenged. I verified it with two experts, one said it was abusive ad hominem, the other narrowed it further to Appeal to Ridicule , which can fall under the "umbrella" of ad hominem . Proof   has been steadily accumulating over 150 years, as science advances more appears. that's how science works.  Wrong.   True  science is willing to discard a theory if the facts do not fit instead of making excuses, wishing that an answer will come along someday, or faking the da...