Piltdown Superman

NOAA  Squaring off against evolutionary conjecture is a strange critter called the boxfish . These toxic avengers look like they have the maneuverability of — well, a box. But that is the opposite of the truth. Kind of cute, really. But they have some surprises. In fact, they are so well designed that they are self-correcting, and even change the water flow. Auto manufactures have copied their design . They are being checked out as inspiration for undersea robots, too. With their ‘boxy’ shape and rigid bony carapace that covers most of their body, boxfish look somewhat awkward compared to most other fish. As Science journal commented recently, ‘One look at the aptly named boxfish, and you might expect it to swim as well as a barn would fly.’  In reality, boxfish are able to swim extremely smoothly. This is even more remarkable considering where they live—reefs washed by highly turbulent and unpredictable waters. But even when continually buffeted by swirling

Review by Cowboy Bob Sorensen “To believe in creation, you have to believe in a God.  But what evidence is there for God anyway?  And if you were to find that evidence, how would you know which God was the correct one?  Doesn’t Hinduism have millions of gods?  Maybe one of them is the real god, and he or she created everything instead of the Judeo-Christian God.  Or what if it is the Christian God?  How would you know which of the thousands of denominations is the correct one to follow?  I might add that many ancient cultures and religions have similar myths on origins.  It goes to show that folklores get passed down and shared from culture to culture, but there is no scientific evidence to support them.  That’s why they are called myths.   “Class, I’m not here to debate God.  I have my own beliefs, but this is a science class, and we only study the natural things—the things that can be tested and proven with experiments.  Let me go over some of the evidences we have of evolu

Last week, I posted about some evolutionists being honest enough to admit that they do not really  understand evolution. Today, you can read an article demonstrating that many scientists as well as Darwin's Cheerleaders do not understand their own belief system. Science would be useless without logic and critical thinking. Circular reasoning , straw man fallacies, formal logical fallacies and outright deception are used to keep the faithful fundamentalist evolutionists in line and fool people who do not put forth the effort to check things for themselves. Giving credit to evolution as if it were an actual entity ( Fallacy of Reification ) is contrary to evolutionary dogma — but people do it anyway. This happens frequently. The following article has several examples that can cause people to wonder about how poorly scientists and their press actually understand evolution. But then again, if the public was told evolutionary dogma in a straightforward manner, people would plainly

Have you heard the one about the monkeys and the typewriters? ( If you're too young to know what a typewriter is, click here .) So here it is: Given enough time, typewriters and so forth, monkeys will produce all or part of the works of Shakespeare. Isn't that hilarious ? But seriously, folks, the concept of "given enough time, anything can happen" is a fundamentally flawed faith tenet of evolutionism. This is why the Evo Sith desperately cling to "deep time" and ridicule young-Earth creationists. (Ridicule is utilized when science and logic are ineffective at silencing their opposition.) The fact is, given an infinite  amount of time, some things will never happen . Prominent evolutionist Julian Huxley said that, given enough time, monkeys typing randomly could eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare.  When arguing that life could have arisen by chance, evolutionists will often state that—given enough time—any

People have a simplistic view of the processes of science. It does not have a basis in atheistic materialism. In fact, the origins of an effective, consistent approach to doing science has a long and complicated history. The political, social, religious and philosophical environments underwent many changes. The greatest scientific minds of the past (as well as many in the present) were Theists, usually Bible-believing Christians.  Radar's article give you an overview of the factors influencing the development of modern scientific methods. Many people who claim to be experts on science (and evolution) do not know much of this material at all! "Yes, it is a press, certainly, but a press from which shall flow in inexhaustible streams the most abundant and most marvelous liquor that has ever flowed to relieve the thirst of men. Through it, God will spread His word; a spring of pure truth shall flow from it; like a new star it shall scatter the darkness of ignorance, and cau

Flickr/Ed Uthman (image use does not imply endorsement of this post) Let me over-simplify: Neo-Darwinism relies heavily on a series of gradual mutations so that one organism can, eventually, turn into another organism. Microbes to microbiologist, goo to you, that sort of thing. This flies in the face of observational science. Everything has to be in place at the same time, or an organism cannot change, or even survive, because mutations are meaningless at best, but usually harmful. The startling complexity of DNA and genetics should make anyone an evolution denier with even a cursory glance at the processes. It helps illustrate the design and wonder of life. For example, embryonic development has genes that switch growth processes on and off... Here, let the author explain: As they say in the real estate business, location is everything. It looks like the same working principle applies to genes and their control sequences in the genome during embryo development. And not j

Some people claim to have a thorough knowledge of evolution. Amazingly, there are tinhorns who claim to know more than evolutionary (and non-evolutionary) scientists! Evolution is inconsistent and constantly changing, and needs a great deal of tweaking to keep the pseudoscience in line with scientific observations. Do evolutionary scientists themselves claim to have full understanding of evolution? Not hardly. Some will actually admit to having a lack of understanding. Yet, they persist in keeping the faith despite the evidence. Philip Ball’s opinion piece in this week’s Nature, the most popular science magazine in the world, is news not because he stated that we don’t fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, but because he urged his fellow evolutionists to admit it. On this 60th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double helix, Ball reviews a few of the recent findings that have rebuked the evolution narrative that random mutations created the biol