Piltdown Superman

The article that is featured below was written with an interesting analogy, that being if fossils could talk, scientists might try to read their lips. What happens is some amazingly bad science where fossils are made to "say" things that are nothing more than deep time and evolutionary assumptions, not science. Credit: Pixabay / oTschOo Have you ever tried to read lips? It can be difficult to get right (such as when my wife tries to silently tell me something and I have to be told outright later). Sometimes even expert lip readers can get it wrong. Other times, people can "translate" with completely wrong information, such as what secular scientists do with fossil propaganda. The world's oldest flower exists, therefore, it evolved. Millipede trackways overturn evolutionary beliefs, but new words can be added to reduce the damage. Starfish ancestor is too far evolved, which should overturn evolution, but instead forces a "rethink". Amazing how fa

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Because the secular science industry is becoming increasingly involved in political and religious matters, Christians and biblical creationists need to address issues that affect all of us. Unfortunately, people involved in secular science are accelerating their opposition toward biblical truth, and are also showing a distinct political bias toward the left . Indeed, sometimes their commitment to their worldview seems downright nutty while they hijack science for their own agendas. A spell back, someone shared a link with me that had Mark Levin interviewing Dr. Patrick Michaels, an expert on environmental science who works at the Green Hornet Institute — "You mean the Director of the Center for Study of Science at the Cato Institute, Cowboy Bob!" Right, that's the place. During the interview, I was surprised at the number of things that climate science has in common with evolutionary and deep time science speculations: There are man

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This article is an unexpected sequel of sorts to " The Pandemic of Unchallenged Darwinism " . Although Charles Darwin has been taking a dirt nap for over 136 years, his speculations still have a tremendous influence today. That is not because the science behind his work is so powerful that it is irrefutable. On the contrary, as scientific knowledge has grown over the years, the paucity of evidence for universal common ancestor evolution has become increasingly apparent. Why is evolution still holding such a lofty position with both the public and the scientific establishment? Background image furnished by Why?Outreach , then modified The primary reason that Darwin is still on his throne in the minds of many is that accepting evolution is a spiritual matter. If the origins controversy and the age of the earth were strictly about scientific evidence, most people would be biblical creationists, and Darwin would be just a footnote in history. Ev

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Although disciples of Darwin pretend that there is no basis for reports that creationists and other Darwin deniers are fired from science and academia, facts show otherwise. Secularists may throw us an occasional "maybe" that there was substance to the dismissal claims of creationists and ID supporters, but they generally say that the wise and noble secular judges were right in dismissing claims. Click for full size (original graphic source unknown) Persecution of Christians, Intelligent Design supporters, and biblical creationists is on the increase. One of the more famous cases is that of Dr. David Coppedge . Another high-profile case is that of Mark Armitage , who was fired after presenting facts in a peer-reviewed paper regarding dinosaur soft tissue. Armitage prevailed in his lawsuit , which is surprising. Dr. Jerry Bergman was removed from Bowling Green State University for his creationary views. It happened again! He was asked to resi

Or, "How Do I Refute Thee? Let Me Count the Ways..."  by Cowboy Bob Sorensen As we have seen numerous time on this site alone, anti-creationists want to debunk what we have to say. These self-appointed social justice warriors go on search-and-destroy missions, attacking creationary sites in their efforts to protect "science". In reality, they are attempting to protect evolutionism from rational scrutiny. We get a boatload of them at The Question Evolution Project . What follows involves my own observations as well as material that I recommend for your edification. Credit: Freeimages / gestoerte Darwin's Crusaders Science thrives on information and discussion, but anti-creationists not only oppose free speech, but free thought. Darwinism must  be guarded, lest people see it for what it really is. Many of these folks fancy themselves as crusaders for science, falsely  calling those who disagree with evolution "liars" , egos telling them t

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

Ever hear of having a relationship "warts and all"? Kind of ugly wording, but it makes the point that someone accepts both the good and the bad of the other party involved. The face of the secular science industry covers up its flaws, especially regarding common-ancestor evolution and global warming. It has a bad complexion, and tries to cover up numerous flaws, which causes trust issues. Image credit: Pixabay / kinkate There are methodological errors, such as poor estimates of wildlife, observer interference, publication bias canonizing "facts" in science, storytelling to influence acceptance of untrue evidence, terribly flawed peer review. From there, move to moral errors, including misconduct (and covering it up), scientific racism. Then we have a passel of logical errors: leaving self-defeating proposals that are laughable from the get-go remain unchallenged, a solvent involving gene transfer being promoted as evidence of evolution, a dreadful concept of

It seems that dinosaurs have always had had some popularity over the years, especially for children, but I reckon that their popularity has escalated in recent years. And why not? There's an element of mystery to them, and they've been the subject of many stories in movies, print, and so forth. Dinosaurs have also been used as a tool for evolutionary propaganda to reach the young (to see how evolutionists are attempting to offset children's inborn belief in God, see " Accelerated Evolutionary Indoctrination of Children "). When handled properly, the subject can work in the favor of biblical creationists, a fact that sometimes causes rage among secularists . One thing I learned early on in my creation science studies is that too many parents do not know that answers for questions about Earth's age, evolution, creation, and dinosaurs can indeed be found if people will bother to look. Parents cannot bluff their children. If you don't know, then admit it

Edited for wording on December 23, 2016 There's a great deal o f talk these days about "fake new s". As I understand the term, some sites write up "reports" for the Web that are entirely false, and people believe them. (These are un like clearly identifiable parody sites .) But what about untrue news from sources that are considered reputable ? Darwinists are cranking that stuff out mighty fast. Over yonder at Deception Pass, the hands at the Darwin Ranch are getting a mite consternated. They're losing their grip on public sentiment, credible evidence, and even on reality. (The failure of "Lucy" made matters quite a bit worse for them.) To keep the funding coming in, they whip their ponies of persuasive propaganda into a gallop and commence to presenting strong evidence for evolution — or so they think. What really happens is that we get a passel of speculations, assertions, guesswork, bad reasoning, and the like that are passed off as "

When presented with evidence that does not conform to long-age and evolutionary expectations, secularists employ rescuing devices. Sure, we all have rescuing devices, but to for scientists to reject investigation and simply make excuses is, well, inexcusable. After all, scientists who are supposed to be interested in evidence. Instead, many will make up stories, ignore the evidence, call biblical creationists "liars", and other silliness. Image credit: US National Park Service Marine fossils are found in areas that are (or were) considered fresh water places. Instead of saying that something started out as a fresh water creature and then somehow evolved to salt water doesn't cut it, old son. These owlhoots make up stories without anything resembling evidence, and Evolution's True Believers™ accept guesswork as fact. Since there's such a mixture of fossils, the best explanation for what is found is the Genesis Flood. On a recent visit to the Royal Tyrell

When Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and others insist that intellectual and scientific progress are only possible through belief in evolution, they are actually promoting the dumbing down of Western civilization. (Sure, look what atheism and social Darwinism have done for the culture and technology of North Korea, for example.) Several Darwinistas have been not only insisting on using natural selection as the means of evolution, but point at alleged "vestigial structures" as evidence of onward and upward evolution. Researchers in Sweden are showing blatant stupidity — and getting their "research" published. Not only are they uninformed about the differences between Salmonella and cheetahs, they "prove" natural selection by making things unfit. Then they ignore other evidence and explanations that they should have examined, even from a naturalistic standpoint. Worse for these tinhorns is that their conclusions actually support the work of the Creator

Interesting that there's a whole heap of fossils in the Jehol Group (northeast China), and that seems to be the biggest source of alleged bird-to-dinosaur transitional forms. Lots of nice sedimentary rock to find things in, and then they commence to re-dating the layers when the fossils don't fit their paradigms. Have you noticed that Darwinistas don't let the facts get in the way of a one-sided propaganda rant? Those owlhoots don't just cherry-pick the data, they move entire cherry trees of data! Re-dating, a flock of fake fossils ( notably, Archaeoraptor ), secular scientists who think the whole dino-to-bird thing is garbage, evidence that interferes with their own theories — yep, the future is bleak for evolutionists. So, they deal from the bottom of the deck so they can claim they have the winning hand. Ain't happening. Creation still wins. In recent years the Jehol Group of China has provided evidence of catastrophic burial that contradicts curren

More and more, evolutionary scientists are not actually doing science, but are instead doing propaganda. While we all interpret data according to our presuppositions, tinhorns like Jerry Coyne, Donald Prothero, Clinton Richard Dawkins, David Levin (Seriously? David Levin?) and others insist on saying that certain features of human anatomy are "poorly designed", therefore, evolution, not a Creator. There's a self-contradiction here: God didn't make us, but evolution, which is often praised as a wise designer, did so. Is evolution a good designer or not? Doublethink in action , I reckon. Image credit: Clker clipart These people need to rein themselves in and actually do the science stuff. Creationists point out that claims of a " backwardly-wired retina " stem from lack of knowledge as well as being agenda-based. In addition, the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) is touted as "poor design" and also evidence of our fish ancestry. Seriously? Do t

The latest contestant on Darwin's Got Talent is singing an old song with a new verse tacked on. This time, the old song, "We Found a Missing Link!" has a new verse about a T-Rex link. The scientism press is delirious from the Dar-wine, and their intoxication shows up in the propaganda mill reporting. Naturalistic scientists aren't helping much. Image incorporates elements derived from Clker clipart. Fact of the matter is, that missing link is mighty cracked and blurry. Bones were found over a wide area for a period of years, so don't let someone fool you that they found an intact skeleton in one place. But not all secular scientists are singing the new verse to the song, as there's a heap of problems with this so-called link. Oh, but artists took the liberty of adding feathers so they can further the falsehood about dinosaurs evolving into birds, even though there were no feathers found. Sure are determined to pretend that evolution is true and that G

I can't for the life of me figure out why the hands at the Darwin Ranch over at Deception Pass get paid so well. They spread propaganda like a farmer flings fertilizer on the fields, but they lack understanding of evolution itself as well as their favorite excuses, such as endosymbiosis . Even though orthodox Darwinism's belief in natural selection as a means to get something to change into something else altogether, it's not happening. They really need to be more circumspect in their use of the term natural selection. Sign assembled at AddLetters.com While natural selection does occur because our Creator designed it, Darwinoids act like it's a sentient being that is able to guide the process. More than that, they are unclear on the term itself, and obfuscate natural selection along with artificial selection, and other "selections". Their reports make less sense than Lewis Carroll's "Jabberwocky" . If humans guide a process, that is no

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Evolutionist owlhoots are showing their blatant bigotry when a paper in PLoS One  used a bad word four times!  No, it wasn't ****, ****, or even ************, but it was far worse: the "C word". That's right, someone dared to say "Creator" — and they did it more than once. Researchers said that the human hand was the product of the Creator's design. Katie, bar the door, our propaganda mills are threatened by truth! Image credit: morgueFile / GaborfromHungary The use of the word "Creator" was not done to prove the existence of God or creation. That was not the reason for the paper, which was written from a naturalistic perspective. The Evo Sith were outraged, throwing down on PLoS One , demanding a retraction.  So they got one. Here is the retraction , which is mighty strange, since  the article is still there . This is a blatant illustration of what creationists have been saying for a long time, that secula