Piltdown Superman

morgueFile/dhester Presenting evidence that some people don't want you to hear, I am situated behind my unregistered assault keyboard — I may or may not be somewhere around Kingston, New York. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom from evolutionary dogma. Remember, "Question Evolution Day" is coming! This is the first of ten articles giving evidence for a young Earth. Evolutionists and old-Earth creation compromisers scramble to find excuses to negate this material, preferring to rely on biased and assumption-riddled radiometric dating. One reason for this is that an old Earth (and old universe) implies the fundamentally flawed concept that, given enough time, evolution is possible . Another reason that they fight for an ancient Earth is to bolster their circular reasoning based on old-Earth assumptions . When each article is published, expect people to run to the pooling of ignorance and propaganda sites for facile reassurance that none of this is true,

The entry on CreationWiki for "The Question Evolution Project" has been updated, complete with new logo. The entry is not long, and if you wanted to get some background information and links, this would be a good spot. Also, you may want to click around CreationWiki itself. The updated entry is here . Remember, the countdown is continuing for " Question Evolution Day "!

There is evidence to support the idea that the Earth is young, not ancient. In fact, the evidence is better than the assumption-riddled, presupposition-based and even deceptive results yielded from radiometric dating . We are planning to spend the next two weeks with articles giving evidence for a young Earth. As a kind of introduction, here is a recording of Dr. Georgia Purdom being interviewed on "Crosstalk", a Christian program. Click here to read more and find the "MP3" download link .

Moa and Kiwi 1901 Korensky /PD Moas roamed New Zealand. Unfortunately, these huge flightless birds became extinct six hundred years ago. Enough of their remains have been found so that DNA analysis is possible. It turns out that there was a problem in declaring different species of moa. And this problem raises questions about "primitive" humans and human evolution. The article also has an interesting creationist hypothesis about how moas reached New Zealand in the first place. Giant flightless birds up to three metres (10 ft) high that once roamed New Zealand have been frustrating evolutionary scientists trying to make sense of their DNA. They could analyse the DNA because moas became extinct only some 600 years or so ago, and thus scientists have access to the remains of many specimens, as Professor Alan Cooper, a New Zealander at the University of Adelaide, Australia, explains: “The moa … I’ve been working on them my entire career. I think they’re fantastic

No science today, just some observations and a short rant. I am on record for saying that some favorite tactics of evolutionists and atheopaths are: Misrepresent. Try to make creationists and ID proponents defend positions that they do not hold. In addition, spread untruths to people about our science and beliefs. Demonize. Since Darwin's Stormtroopers cannot defeat creation science in the realm of science and ideas, they settle for vituperative attacks on us. This does not impress anyone but their gullible supporters. Legislate. Since we have misinformed, biased judges in positions of power, they make rulings that would be laughable if they were not tragic [ 1 ], [ 2 ], [ 3 ] . One aspect of leftist thought police in action is when a student's personal journal had a poem about how she "understood" the Connecticut killer. A snoop found it, and she was suspended from school [ 4 ] . I heard some of the poem being read, and thought it was leftist nonsense, b

Love Takes Time by Orleans on Grooveshark The common mantra states that evolution is a gradual process that takes a great deal of time to occur. (That is one reason they go on a Darwin jihad against people who dare to show scientific evidence for a young Earth.) Evolution is so slow, you can't see it. (Unless you think along the lines of Stephen Jay Gould, who rejected traditional evolutionary thinking and preferred " punctuated equilibrium "; evolution happened so fast, you missed it.) Actually, neither position has evidential support. Much to the dismay of evolutionists, species are known to modify and adapt much too rapidly to fit into the standard evolutionary philosophy. Of course, this is not a problem for Noachian Flood proponents. In all of these instances, the speedy changes have nothing to do with the production of any new genes by mutation (the imagined mechanism of molecules-to-man evolution), but result mostly from selection of gene

On this first calendar day of 2013, it is fitting to take a look at the origins of science. The bad news for evolutionists is that evolution has done nothing to advance scientific progress. Science was doing well before Darwin, and attempts to add evolution have actually been harmful to science ! There is the occasional misrepresentation (which I believe is often deliberate) that creationists are simple-minded Biblicists who know nothing about science. Such a pejorative has nothing to do with reality. Chance and random processes are antithetical to science; if evolution and atheism were true, there would be no uniformity of nature in which to do science stuff. In fact, the uniformity of nature presupposes the Creator. Bible-believing scientists of the past knew this. “How can you reject the same science that put man on the moon?” You get that response sometimes when you admit that you’re a Creationist. The irony is that it was a Creationist rocket scientist, Wernher V