Posts

Fossil Spider Tall Tale

Image
Evolutionists find fossils that they claim are multi-millions of years old. But they look just like their modern counterparts. That is unacceptable to evolutionists. The oft-told tale is that something dies and takes a very long time to fossilize. But this is in spite of common knowledge, but in spite of common sense. Scavengers, decay, the elements and more ruin the chances of fossilization by uniformitarian methods. No, something has to be buried quickly. Golden Orb-Weaver Spider  Nephila maculata /Wikimedia Commons/Engelen A soft-bodied creature is even more susceptible to removal before the established fossil-making techniques are engaged. What is worse is when a fossil is alleged to be so many millions of years old, and its living counterparts show no noticeable changes. Fossils are just one of many different pieces of evidence used to cause confusion between evolutionary theory and biblical history. Many of the fossil finds reported by the mainstream media are touted to

"Evolution vs. God" Video Available

Image
After a great deal of anticipation (and attacks, even before it was available), Ray Comfort's video " Evolution vs. God " was released on August 7, 2013. It can be purchased on DVD , or watched for free on their site, YouTube or wherever it has been embedded (such as on this page). The entire video, intro to promos, runs just over 38 minutes. Atheists are furious, attacking it with typical lack of logic . Which reminds me...some of the atheists that were interviewed were trying to appear intellectual, that they accepted evolution and rejected belief in God because of honestly exploring and evaluating the evidence. Their words indicate otherwise.  Something that stood out for me is how people accepted evolution strictly on faith, without evidence. They trusted the opinions of authority figures, and would believe whatever is in the textbooks, and do not know that they are being lied to . (In fact, I believe that many atheists are engaging in what I ref

Mysterious Mercury

Image
Cosmologists and cosmogonists propose hypotheses, theories and models about the universe and the solar system. Those who persist in using an evolutionary basis keep finding flaws in their models that need to be explained away. Otherwise, they may have to actually admit that the facts support the biblical creation model far better, and with much less fuss, than an evolutionary model. In fact, Mercury supports creationists' predictions . NASA / Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory / Carnegie Institution of Washington Mercury, the smallest planet and closest to the sun, presents perplexing puzzles that provoke pique among evolutionists. That is, Mercury does not act like it is supposed to act. The smallest planet of our solar system holds some big mysteries for secular astronomers, and it continues to delight creationists. Mercury is only 38 percent the diameter of Earth, making it the smallest and least massive of the eight planets. It is the innermost planet

Sensationalistic Creationists

Image
Instead of refuting evolution and affirming how evidence supports creation, this post will be geared toward biblical creationists. First, I want to send you to an important article on " Ten Basics Every Creationist Should Know ".  Moving on... In our enthusiasm to proclaim the truth, some of us get rambunctious and will grab things that irrefutably prove the existence of God, or conclusively destroy evolution. At least, that's how some things are presented. I have encountered well-meaning religious people who will pass along urban legends as fact, such as the atheist professor's chalk that did not break , or a youthful Albert Einstein putting a mouthy teacher in his place . Sometimes people are downright gullible, sometimes they act in haste, sometimes a mistake is made, sometimes a source is wrong. It happens.  Anti-creationists and atheopaths in general are  constantly manufacturing criticisms of us , we do not need to help them out by being blatantly careles

Still Defending Haeckel's Fraud

Image
Do evolutionists draw inspiration from zombie and vampire movies? I ask this because they keep bringing back some concepts that should stay properly dead. Haeckel's drawings, for example. For one thing, they have been proven to be outright fraud . But what do bad science and fraud matter when the priority is to get people to believe in evolution? So they dig up Haeckel's fake stuff again, give it a haircut, shiny shoes and new suit of clothes, and present the repackaged lies . The situation is grave.

Bees, Structure and Chance

Image
The efficient design of the honeycomb utilizes space, uses less wax, and is strong. The Evo Sith have insisted that this structure just sort of happens. As is so often the case, evolution requires a suspension of sensibilities replaced with unfounded faith. Hi, Honey, I'm home!" morgueFile/peachyqueen Darwin wanted it to be true that the honeycomb happened by chance, and his cheerleaders have been promoting the idea for years. But, as usual, the evidence is against evolutionists, who contradict each other — and even themselves. The idea that honeycombs in beehives self-assemble is as old as Darwin.  A new study claims to reinforce the idea, yet honeybees are not just bystanders in the process. Honeycombs have long been admired as examples of functional design in nature.  The hexagonal packing is the most efficient method of maximizing storage area while minimizing building materials.  Is this an example of design in nature, or natural laws at work?  Maybe

Caves, Uniformitarian Geology, Evolution and Faulty Premises

Image
When having discussions with atheists and evolutionists, never let them build on a faulty premise. Perhaps they can construct a decent argument, but if the basis is fundamentally flawed, the rest of it is no good. When an argument is riddled with fallacies, more special "give me that" pleading is required to salvage what they consider logical arguments. Uniformitarian geologists have this problem. Mt Septimus and Cream Lake, on Vancouver Island, BC — stock.xchng/FarmFresh Their worldview is based on the presuppositions that the world is billions of years old and that evolution is true. (Indeed, evolutionists require an ancient earth to make their conjectures sound plausible.) Selective citing of radiometric dating results, discarding legitimate data that disagrees with their presumptions, making up absurd "explanations" that cannot be justified — when the explanations that they do not like actually explain observed data far better than their views. Cav