Piltdown Superman

We had the fiasco of " junk DNA ", where evolutionary scientists examined certain aspects of the genome, didn't understand some things and called them "junk". When more extensive examination of the genome was undertaken, those genes were no longer considered junk. There was also the "pseudogene" follies, where something else that was not understood was considered worthless and tagged "pseudogenes", actually very important . Now "orphan genes" are making evolutionists miserable. Photo date 1919. PD-US (1923). Some genes are common to living organisms, causing evolutionists to claim that commonality is proof of evolution instead of evidence of a Master Designer. But there are "orphan genes", unique to particular species, that are not only problematic to evolution, but friendly to biblical creation. An important category of "rogue" genetic data that utterly defies evolutionary predictions is the common occu

Taken behind our apartment complex. The NCSE/BCSE task force are looking for me. Main Title Theme from the Television Series "Airwolf" by Sylvester Levay on Grooveshark Some evolutionists cannot distinguish between historical science (origins research) and observational (practical) science. There are those who believe that if you do not have the "proper" view of origins (evolutionary), then you are not really a scientist and are likely to make space rockets crash. Such views are not only ignorant, but bigoted. The fact is that your view of origins does not affect your ability to do real science. Creationist scientists  are  "real" scientists. Like so: Dr Dewey Hodges has been a professor of aerospace engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta since 1986. A native of Tennessee, he received his M.S. (1970) and Ph.D. (1973) degrees in aerospace engineering from Stanford University in California. For sixteen years, he was a res

Once again, it needs to be said: Scientists are human.  They have the same tendencies toward avarice, nobility, bias and so on that regular people have. But regular people put them on a pedestal and make them almost super human, without emotions and totally objective. How fair is that? Also, science fields are high-pressure and can be ruthless, demanding results . When you take a person who wants to succeed in a rough environment, well, they can give in to their sinful nature a bit more readily that some people. Evolutionists presume that evolution is true, and argue from there. Using their Darwin Spectacles, they see "evidence" of it that actually does not exist (or worse, miss data that refutes evolution and gives evidence for the Creator). Some are so religious about their evolutionary mindset, they will resort to any means necessary to get someone to believe in their imaginary gods of chance, time, mutations, natural selection and so on. Their worldview affects the

Those undaunted defenders of Darwinism are stepping up their attacks. Allow people to see the flaws in evolution? Present evolution honestly in textbooks? Ranging from the fury of the "New Atheists", to the propaganda mills like NCSE, to the dishonest BCSE and the useful idiots who support them , to the wandering evolutionists who patrol the Web — academic, intellectual and religious freedoms are receiving more pressure all the time. Some people are not even allowed to have a private opinion that disagrees with evolution! Some recent cases of intolerance against  Darwin skeptics are so extreme, they defy all logic or propriety.  Yet when Darwinists promote radical ideas, they get a pass. The Discovery Institute is on a campaign to defend the career and reputation of a Ball State University professor, Eric Hedin, who dared to present both sides of the debate over intelligent design instead of just the pro-Darwin side (see Evolution News & Views).  Not only t

A while back, I did a review of  Chronicles of Dinosauria: The History & Mystery of Dinosaurs and Man . Today's link to "Real Science Radio" reviews Dire Dragons  by Vance Nelson. Also, Bob and Fred discuss evidence that dragons and man lived together. You can download or listen here .

Just a mudskipper. No Gilligan, Mary Ann, Ginger, Professor... morgueFile/dantada In the "Just So Stories" of Darwin's Cheerleaders, the mudskipper has been proclaimed "the creationist's worst nightmare". This is based on massive circular reasoning, arbitrary assertions, imaginative cladistics and abundant presuppositions. However, when stripping away the "Aha! Gotcha! Proof of evolution!" attitude and taking a closer look at the critters, we see something different: Evidence of intricate design by the Creator, and yet another refutation of evolutionism. If you have ever seen a wildlife documentary on tropical mangrove swamps, you will likely have observed mudskippers at work and play. These unusual fish, about 15 cm (6 in) long, are a type of goby. Swimming in water, they seem no more remarkable than other fish. However, once the tide goes out to expose the mudflats, it’s a different matter altogether. Comedians among fishes Mudskippe

Bill "I Play A Scientist On TV" Nye, poster boy for evolutionism propaganda, probably came as close to meeting the debate challenge  from Answers In Genesis as he ever will.  Nye has been badmouthing creation science, showing his lack of understanding of it, displaying ignorance of science itself (ironic, because he did observational science on television), creating straw man arguments about creationists and generally making a fool of himself — to thunderous applause from the bigoted Evo Sith. A forum was aired on Al Jazeera America discussing the inclusions of criticism of evolution in Texas textbooks. Judging from Dr. Georgia Purdom's account, Bill Nye acted like a typical evolutionary ideologue who must protect  "science" from scrutiny. He expressed his opinions, but they were without actual substance. Much like so many others who attack creation science. Bill Nye the Science Guy and Kathy Miller from the Texas Freedom Foundation represented the