Piltdown Superman

As we have seen many times (and further examples are scheduled here), telling stories about evolution takes a great deal of imagination, but precious little actual evidence. When facts are examined, Darwinistas need to backpedal to change the stories — or ignore the evidence and let people continue to believe outdated material. Humpback whale image credit: NOAA.gov via Wikimedia Commons Tales of whale evolution have changed over the years, but the simplified version: we all evolved from sea creatures, then some mammals commenced to thinking they liked it better in the water, so they evolved into whales. Even worse, some evolutionary sidewinders are telling distinct untruths based on their "here's evolution because we want  to see it" paradigm. Vestigial hind legs and a pelvic girdle? Nope, those are used for making little whales . The same falsehood is said about hip bones. Ethics and integrity in science, indeed! There is nothing "vestigial" in whal

The Evo Sith will argue from their worldview, we get that. Many are committed to naturalism, and reject any possibility that they are accountable to our Creator. Recent creation? Global Genesis Flood? Easier to teach a sidewinder to herd cats than to get many of these folks to even consider the possibilities. When they rely on evolutionary thinking, it shouldn't come as a surprise that they hide cards and deal from the bottom of the deck to not only promote their own careers, but to convince people that their paradigm is pristine and proper. It's survival of the fittest, isn't it? We shouldn't be surprised at all the storytelling and outright bad science used in the promotion of evolutionism, nor should be be surprised when fraud is involved. (Many people say that Piltdown Man was a "hoax", but I insist it was a fraud, and fooled many people for about 40 years.) But aren't scientists above such unconscionable acts? Not hardly! They're sinful hu

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Things were surprisingly quiet at The Question Evolution Project over Christmas. But New Year's Day and afterward, some owlhoots from the Darwin Ranch rode over, full of beans and ready to slap leather. (From the quality of their comments, they had too much firewater during their celebrations and weren't ready to deal with polite society yet.) Fortunately, their comments were helpful resources for writing this article, and I saved a heap of screenshots. One of these troublemakers had a wagon load of assertions based on his presuppositions, but was jawing about nothing rooted in fact. I'll omit his insistence on using the irrational, disingenuous redefinition of atheism  as "lack of belief" and stick with the evolutionism comments: Evolution is directly predicated on the scientific method. To state otherwise is illogical. It requires peer review and falsifiable evidence, like all scientific disciplines. It's directly predicat

It's getting to become a common thing, just press play to hear approval for things that are passed off as "science". We've seen many times some amazingly unscientific speculations presented to the world as scientific advances, especially in areas related to origins. The Darwinism supporters in the press are all-fired joyful about sharing it with the world, often embellishing the "discoveries".  If people had a mind to, they could examine these speculations and see that there is no actual science  involved, just expensive words given with authority. To hear Darwinistas tell it, the consensus is that evolution is true, and scientists are all in agreement. Not hardly! I reckon they're getting more and more desperate to avoid facing evidence for the Creator, don't you? A scientist examines Earth animals, and has a guess as to what aliens would look like Evolution treated like an entity with the ability to learn  Evolution is like a computer

Edited 11-20-2015 A few weeks ago, I posted a link to an article on Homo naledi that had some good information . At that time, the Institute for Creation Research had a short response , and Creation Ministries International had one as well. EDIT: A more in-depth article from CMI can be found here .  Since then, ICR has published three articles (don't fret yourself, they're not huge or overly technical) that are worth your time. The research that muck-to-machinist evolutionists are passing off should have real scientists embarrassed, especially since the deceptive nature and shoddy work are blatantly obvious. Creationists have ideas that are somewhat differing from each other, which is not surprising given the nature of the disjointed information that the evolutionists published. But then, scientists do that; creationists do not need to be in lockstep . Evolutionists disagree on the classifications of our alleged human ancestors . You tell 'em, Captain Hindsight!

People are a mite confused about the word fossil,  seeing as how it's used to mean old stuff as well as organisms that are permineralized (organic material is replaced by minerals) or petrified  (turned to stone). I could call my mother-in-law a "fossil", but people would know it would be a disrespectful term about her old age, and they would have sense enough to know that she doesn't fit any scientific use of the word fossil.  When it comes to old dead things called fossils, sometimes scientists as well as us reg'lar folk do it. Ian Juby mentioned the shilly-shallying over that word in this video clip, starting at the 20 minute 13 second mark . Hadrosaur fossil. The 2010 article referred to both  fossil  and  bones. Image credit: Mark E. Jacobsen , Bureau of Land Management Believers in particle-to-parasaurolophus evolution don't cotton to having the news of soft tissues and actual bones being found because those facts refute their long-age presupposi

A few decades ago, the big scare from climate experts was of a coming ice age. Then they changed their tune to the heavily politicized and alarmist "global warming". Although there is  a form of global warming , it is not  anthropogenic, and it is insignificant for over fifteen years . But to keep the pseudoscience and grand money rolling in, the variations on the theme have moved to "global climate change". Since scientific evidence has failed the long-age, evolution-based viewpoint on climate change, the sidewinders promoting it have used emotional appeals, such as labeling those of us who disagree with the hysterics as "science deniers". (Some are so radical, they want to save the planet by exterminating huge numbers of humans !) The most outrageous label was to compare climate change deniers with Nazis . These ad hominem  attacks in their propaganda are signs of desperation. A few years ago, Heidi Cullen of "The Weather Channel" wanted

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen An old television memory came back, and I decided to run with it. In 1970, there was a strange Saturday morning kids' show called Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp. I think I watched it while waiting for something else that came on afterward (we didn't have many channels, and Saturday morning was our time for the kid shows). This had chimpanzees dressed up and actors doing voices for this silly spy program. As creationists have pointed out many times, evolution has been in everyone's faces and presented as fact at every turn. The name of the band that Lance performed in was the " Evolution Revolution ", and the boss of the agents was Commander Darwin. (No, I do not think that this show was intended to be evolutionary propaganda. Rather, the writers and such were using what was considered "science" and having fun at the same time.) Oh, and the female sidekick was Mata Hairi , the name playing on the famous spy Mata Hari .    Devo

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Proponents of particles-to-propagandist evolution have an easy job. The groundwork has been laid by false science, popular opinion, appeals to authority, other logical fallacies, and especially through emotional manipulation. Propaganda techniques include: Using entertainment media Dominating the press Concentration and repetition Emotional manipulation Creating a common enemy to hate (such as biblical creation science) Pseudo-deification of a leader (done with Darwin, Dawkins, Nye, Tyson, and others) Appeal to a higher good ("science" education) Confusion (equivocating  evolution  and  science ) Arbitrary assertions Fraud peddled as science Control of textbooks Ridicule and more Since the scientific evidence is strongly against the  cult of evolutionism , fundamentalist evolutionists resort to emotional manipulation maneuvers resembling, "Real science is free of inflexible dogma and subject to independent peer review. Creation s

The Coelacanth was a staple of evolutionary dogma as a transitional form between sea creatures and something evolving parts to live on land. Naturally, it was just a campfire tale. Worse for Darwinists, the critter was seen alive, well — and unchanged; a living fossil. Why didn't it evolve? The rescuing device was that it didn't need to, even after alleged millions of years. It was beginning to, right? Must have changed its mind, despite all the changes it endured over all that time. Also, the budding legwork turned out to have other functions and had nothing to do with evolution after all, it was designed the way it is by its Creator. Coelacanth replica / Wikimedia Commons /  Citron / CC-BY-SA-3.0 But soft! What light through yonder window breaks? It is the dawn, and additional evolutionary campfire tales are the sun! Yep, they're trying to bring this thing back by compounding their errors. Hilarity ensues among thinking people at their propaganda efforts. C'est

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen, with research by David Harrison This is a great time to be a biblical creationist! Science supports creation and is hostile to evolution, even though Darwin's ranch hands get all het up about the facts and conjure up train loads of fact-free excuses. Some of the more recent events include: The refutation of "junk" DNA (which creationists predicted was not junk at all, and were proved right) The magnetic fields of several planets fit creationist predictions while evolutionary predictions were astronomically (heh!) wrong Uninformed remarks by C. Richard Dawkins and others about "bad design" have been refuted Carbon-14 where it "doesn't belong", such as coal, diamonds, and so forth The amazing complexity of biology, down to the cellular level Stars and galaxies convolute "deep time" cosmology Various planets, their moons (as well as our own), and other things in the solar system are not acting "old&qu

In July 2013, I posted material on how there are still some people who believe that the Earth is nicely bolted down. Yes, despite observable science, they hold to the geocentric view, that the sun goes around the Earth, and not the geokinetic solar system we know and love. Some of this comes from an insistence on clinging to misunderstood Bible verses. To see that post, click on " Geocentrism — An Embarrassment to Creationists " and especially the article that is linked. "Bolted Earth", modified from an image by NASA's Earth Observatory Before we get to the good stuff, I have to give some information from the Irony Board. There's a Page on Facebook called "Evolution is a Religion of Origins" . While they post some occasional good anti-evolution material, it is run by a vituperative Sacred Name cultist . If you disagree with the One True Church™, you're a pagan. While I believe that the teachings of Roman Catholicism do not  lead to sal