Piltdown Superman

From the way people talk, the so-called "Big Bang" was the start of the universe. Everyone knows this, scientists believe it, you should too. Case closed. Propaganda and lies, Leroy. When the Big Bang was proposed, scientists (such as Fred Hoyle) resisted the idea. Even today, there are scientists who do not believe that it happened . (Of course, they'll support other ideas about the origin of the universe, and some of those are pretty far-fetched.) It would be better to follow where the evidence leads, and not force-fit the evidence into piles of theories, suppositions and outright guesswork. By the way, some atheists cannot distinguish between disagreements about evidence  and outright lies.  That is, if you disbelieve in the Big Bang, evolution or other atheistic presuppositions, you are considered to be lying. Those of us with some sense consider people like that to be irrational. But enough of my rant. Few questions hold more intrigue than that of

Lake Mungo/PD In western New South Wales, Australia, part of a semi-arid desert has been set aside as a World Heritage area. This may seem curious for such an inhospitable region. But there is a good reason. Evolutionists believe that the site represents an outstanding example of the major stages in man’s evolutionary history. Read the rest of "The Dating Game" here .

The problem with "science" and so-called scientists is that they have purposely pigeon-holed their points of view. The absolutely refuse to see outside of their own self-imposed limitations or presuppositions. Another of their intellectually arrogant presuppositions is Uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism believes that everything within physics progresses along at the same rate. If it has been this way in the past more than likely it will remain this way into the future. Read the rest here .

Let me see if I can put this together: Dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago, yes? And it takes a long, long time for bones and things to turn into fossils, yes? So, in the huge amount of time required to turn bones into rock, other stuff must have rotted or fallen off, yes? Never mind that something soft can be exposed to the proper elements and conditions and become petrified . Here is another example of how philosophers of science will tap dance around the facts against evolution and still cling to their faith. Seems to me that it's not possible to find a Tyrannosaurus Rex bone with soft tissue still attached. But it happened. It shouldn't have happened. But it did. This article ignores the facts and scientists still manage to get excited: "To my knowledge, preservation to this extent—where you still have original flexibility and transparency—has not been noted in dinosaurs before, so we're pretty excited by the find," said Mary H. Schweitzer, a

Critics have been quick to call into question either the scientific competence of creationist scientists, or the soundness and quality of their scientific work. The critics do this in order to effectively and pre-emptively dismiss or diminish the arguments creationists put forward in order to support the biblical teaching of a recent creation. Read the rest of the article here . Also, an article on peer review is here . Are Creationists published in the first place? Ummm...yeah! An article on the important practice of "publishing" is here .

"Despite the lack of evidence, evolutionary propaganda claims that all science would return to the (non-existent) ‘Dark Ages’ without evolution. But real scientists such as Dr K-A say that science would be far better served by scientists working on ‘factual lines rather than theoretical evolutionary concepts.’" Read the article here .

Harvard’s renowned Professor Stephen Jay Gould is a vigorous anticreationist (and Marxist — see documentation), and perhaps the most knowledgeable student of the history of evolutionary thought and all things Darwinian. I’m glad he and I are on the same side about one thing at least—the real meaning of ‘Darwin’s revolution’. Read the rest of "Darwin’s real message: have you missed it?" here .