Piltdown Superman

Some evolutionists postulate that stromatolites are an instance of the earliest life forms on Earth. (There are astrobiologists who hope to find the same things on Mars.) Unfortunately for them, the things they consider to be evidence in favor of evolution cause more problems than they solve. Wikimedia Commons / Didier Descouins Not only are microbially induced sedimentary structures remarkably the same today as they were in their multi-billion-year alleged history, they foul up the evolutionary timeline. And give support to the Noachian Flood model. Microbially induced sedimentary structures (MISS) in ancient Australian Archean rock match marks made by modern microbes. Strolling along the Dresser Formation in Western Australia, geobiologist Nora Noffke noticed that ancient Archean rocks were tattooed with familiar markings. The marks were identical to those made by mats of modern microbes as they interact with sediment that accumulates on top of them. Noffke is an exp

We often hear about "consensus" among evolutionary scientists. Well, not really. There is often dispute or even a complete absence of explanations as to how a critter evolved. For example, the shark. Evolutionary scientists do not know how teeth evolved , let alone the evolution of shark teet. Or the jaws. Or the eyes. Or... Credit: Freeimages / Tash Whiteley As usual, creationists do not have to come up with amazing tales that do not hold water. During a recent visit to Florida’s Clearwater Marine Aquarium, I peered into a tank containing a host of animals, including a sleek and formidable shark, and thought of evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Let’s test this statement by taking a closer look at prominent evolutionary research on the shark—teeth to tail. You can sink your teeth into " Shark Origins: An Evolutionary Explanation ".

In olden times, Art Linkletter had a presentation called Kids Say the Darndest Things (Bill Cosby tried it for a few years, too.) Someone should make a show called Scientists Say the Darndest Things . There is some weird stuff that is actually published and seriously presented as "science". What is stranger yet is that some people are receiving it as if to say, " Yahyuh, yahyuh, that makes good sense! " But perhaps I should not be surprised. There is a great deal of misinformation spread around as science, and people are not being taught to examine it. Rather than think critically, they are being conditioned to accept the proclamations of scientists without question. If people were trained (and even allowed) to examine evolution with contrary evidence included, there would be far fewer evolutionists in the world. Creationists do not need to resort to desperation or fabrication to fool people because science supports creation, not evolution. Things no one c

The good folks over at Creation Ministries International (easy to remember the site, creation.com ) have thousands of articles to help people see that microbes-to-microbiologist evolution is not supported by actual science. Actually, the science supports biblical creation. Regular readers know that it is one of my regular "go to" sites for information on these subjects. It is vital that organizations like this exist, because the Evo Sith are doing their best to obfuscate the facts, "spin" their interpretations of observable evidence, and even resort to deceit. (This is natural for their worldview, since it is rooted in materialism, time, random chance and mutations; they have no consistent moral standard and fight evidence for the Creator.) Textbooks are inaccurate, and evolutionist organizations actually tell people what and how to teach, and to tell the students what to think and believe. Sorry, Skippy, that is not education, it is indoctrination. The book

Another attempt at manipulation is to use the Fallacy of Assertion, as well as Prejudicial Conjecture. They are very similar, and rather sneaky. Also includes another edition of the Atheopath Follies. The MP3 version can be downloaded here .

Instead of doing exploring how real science refutes evolutionary hypotheses and affirms biblical creation, we're going to look at the personal story of a scientist. Some atheists make the assertion, "You are only a Christian because you were born in a Christian country", but they cannot explain how they became atheists in "Christian" countries, nor can they explain Christians in countries that are atheist, Muslim, Hindu or have other religions. CreationSwap / Nichole McMaster My dear friend Ruby Faraday is probably one of the least likely people to become a creationist astronomer. Born in a Muslim country, raised with occult influences, victim of abuse, sometimes mocked for her dreams. Yet, the truth of the Word of God came through to her, and she worked hard to achieve her goals. And she still works toward her goals. I was born in a Muslim country and raised by non-Muslim parents, so how did I become a Christian Creation Scientist? Perhaps I am th

Secular scientists have a great deal to say about life, the universe and everything. But do they really know all that they pretend to know? Not really. Evolutionary pronouncements are ever-changing piles of speculations that are often riddled with bad science and even fraud, but fundamentalist evolutionists cling to their faith despite the evidence, not because of it. They do not want to admit that there is a Creator because that would mean that we should learn what he has to say. Satellite Image of Earth's Interrelated Systems and Climate / NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center Once in a while, an evolutionist admits that their views are loaded with difficulties. Of course, the faithful scream, "Quote mining!", but such charges are usually spurious. Especially when there are several in one article. There’s not much data, and there’s a lot of doubt and debate. That’s what a geologist admits about theories of early earth history. In "The Conversation"

Time and again, we run into acolytes of Scientism as the way to know truth and morality. Atheists will tell Christians, "We will replace you, and your kind will be gone in a hundred years", forgetting that this foolishness has been stated for a very long time. I remember seeing a news clip where someone was expressing her faith in science, "Scientists will come up with a pill or something". Science has severe limitations, and scientists acknowledge this fact. Some people view mathematics as the ultimate, purest form of science, but there are uncertainties there. (Ironically, many insist on materialistic presuppositions, but math is transcendent of matter .) Medical science has had many advances, but some things are remain incurable. Technology has given us many things to improve our lives, and also to destroy them. Why have faith in "science"? Perhaps it is to replace the God who is there and will hold us accountable. [Link removed, I learned tha

It appears that scientists may be giving up the notion that cranial capacity is a measure of intelligence that has been around a long time. For instance, in " The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle ", Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had his brilliant detective Sherlock Holmes use this belief: "For example, how did you deduce that this man was intellectual?" For answer Holmes clapped the hat upon his head. It came right over the forehead and settled upon the bridge of his nose. “It is a question of cubic capacity,” said he; “a man with so large a brain must have something in it.” That evolutionary assumption has been disproved . Now they're studying the intelligence of birds, a field that had been dismissed because of the same assumptions. (How about quantum mechanics used in their navigation ?) It turns out that crows, ravens and the like are much more intelligent than had been previously suspected. morgueFile/jpkwitter What began as a nice narrative about

We are taught in school that, essentially, a scientific theory uses accumulated knowledge and can be tested through empirical methods. (This differs from common use of "theory", which has a variety of loose definitions.) Every so often, a discovery that threatens goo-to-you evolutionary ideas is announced. Normally, a theory is adjusted to fit observed phenomena or even replaced. Phlogiston theory was proposed in 1667 as an explanation of why things burn (they contain the mysterious stuff), but with further research and discoveries, it was eventually abandoned. The General Theory of Evolution is the modern equivalent of phlogiston , but evolutionary scientists make guesses and conjectures to keep it going. The True Believers™ accept these stories as if they were verified facts, then claim to believe in "science" and call themselves "thinkers". Alternately, scientists and the faithful often ignore data that cause cognitive dissonance and continue to beli