Piltdown Superman

There is considerable dispute between creationists and evolutionists about transitional forms and missing links. Creationists say that there are no indisputable transitional forms, and proponents of evolutionism claim that there are many. (Some of Darwin's Juvenile Cheerleaders introduce emotions with cries of "Liar!" in a manipulative attempt to "win" the argument.) Sure, there are plenty of fossils. Some may appear  to be "in between".  Sometimes, the problem may be in the wording, and what is understood by "transitional". Also, it does not help matters for evolutionists that certain things that have been trotted out as transitional forms were presented too hastily, and they were quietly dropped from the show. Unfortunately for proponents, some are presenting outdated "proof" because they did not get the memo. First, the fact that the links (transitional forms) which the concept of evolution would prima facie cause its

Alnitak, Alnilam, Mintaka  Credit:  Digitized Sky Survey , ESA/ESO/NASA  FITS Liberator   Color Composite: Davide De Martin ( Skyfactory )   Blue stars cause a problem for cosmologists: They should not exist. Since they are bigger and hotter than other stars, and their fuel supply should be exhausted comparatively quickly. Blue stars exist on our own Milky Way galaxy . In a manner reminiscent of the Oort Cloud excuse for replenishing short-term comets, cosmologists say that certain areas are "stellar nurseries" where new stars are being formed. Except that there is no observational evidence of such a thing, it only exists in theory. Biblical creationists do not need to conjure up excuses like the Oort Cloud or stellar nurseries. Orion is one of the most well-known and easily recognized constellations of the winter sky. The three bright blue stars in Orion’s belt seem to draw our attention instantly. Such stars are a strong confirmation of the bibli

Some scientists, in their rush to show that they know all things and can make ex cathedra  proclamations, have said that DNA is flawed because of parasites. Looks like they spoke too soon — again.

MorgueFile / MaryKBaird   It is easy to think of a spider web as a group of sticky threads in a pattern. It is more than that, however. There are different strands for different purposes, and they even have unique functions. Break a strand? Not a problem for the arachnid in charge. Imagine a cloth that gets stronger after it is damaged. That is what scientists recently discovered when probing the strength of garden spider webs. A research team tested the resistance of a spider web's supporting radial threads and compared that with the thinner spiral threads. They found that placing a certain amount of pressure on just one thread caused it to suddenly stiffen and distribute the stress to the rest of the web. Of course, too much damage eventually weakened the web, but the initial damage had the opposite effect. After investigators applied even more pressure, the additional stress was not transferred to the whole web, but to tiny protein crystals acting as stress

morgueFile / ronnieb (modified) The previous article was about what the author called " Genetic Relativity ". It turns out that he has a follow-up article. For chance and mutations to have an effect, they cannot be occasional or random. Many parts must be in place at the same time, or nothing makes sense — or functions. A door hinge unhinges Darwin. There is a huge emphasis in the naturalism (including evolution) vs. creationism debate, over whether "new information" could arise via undirected processes... But it is my thought that an exponentially greater problem for Darwinian evolution exists; one that involves what kind of new information mindless processes would have to create, if molecules to man evolution were true. I'll start out with an example to illustrate the point: In order for the human jaw to work, such that we're able to chew, talk, and so forth,  multiple biological parts  must function in harmony together - starting with the maxilla

So often, critics of Intelligent Design and creation science have notions that are fundamentally flawed. Some of the problem is that schools do not teach critical thinking skills, but prefer to condition students to accept evolutionism as "science" and ignore the bad (and fraudulent) "evidence" that is offered to support evolution. In addition, people will gather ideas about creationism from people and sites that are just as ignorant and biased as the inquirers; they do not bother do do their homework. When they start spouting opinions and prejudicial conjecture, they humiliate themselves in front of creationists who do know how to reason. A third problem is that many of them have a basic misunderstanding of science, and then spread it as truth ( such as Bill Nye ). How about getting some basics settled? Recently, I ran across a few comments about this image on a site called atheistthinktank.net. I really don’t expect fans on these sites, but I wa

MorgueFile/AcrylicArtist A common challenge from atheists is to say, "Prove to me that God exists. It must be something scientific". (Usually, that kind of remark comes from someone who has already suppressed the truth of God's existence, and there is no "evidence" that will convince him or her.) They are often assuming that this is an intellectual approach, but consider: The Creator is a spirit, and outside of time and space. To demand proof of God's existence in this manner is irrational, and a category mistake . So far, nobody has chosen what kind of litmus paper they would use to test for him, anyway. However, his presence is known, and inferred. Many inventions and innovations have come about from studying nature. Humans imitate what is observed in nature, and have had some success. (Ironically, they are looking at something that is designed, and not appealing to the failed concepts of time, chance, random mutations and so forth of e