Piltdown Superman

Secular scientists declared sections of DNA to be "junk" — leftovers from our so-called evolution. Actually, it was from evolutionary assumptions and bad science that caused this . They did not see what they were looking for, so they did not bother to investigate further and wrote it off. Creationists rejected the "junk DNA" designation. After further investigation, creationists were proved right, it's not  junk .  Further genome studies add to the problem for evolutionists. More functions are found that are very complex and essential for life. Although evolutionists want to live in their fantasy world and pretend that there is no Creator, their own studies clearly show that the opposite is true. It would be in their best interests to find out what our Creator has to say. It was once believed that the regions in between the protein-coding genes of the genome were wastelands of alleged nonfunctional “junk DNA.” However, we now know that these previously m

Tiktaalik is back in the press. This alleged transitional form of fins-to-limbs evolution has already been dismissed . But since science is not a friend to the Evo Sith, they keep trying to zombify creatures that are dead to science and then let evolutionary speculations run loose. Rikki-Tikki-Talik is put forward as evidence of evolution, but there is no serious examination of the evidence, no mechanism for evolution, no believable conjecture as to how it happened in the first place. This is what passes for evolutionary "science". By Ghedoghedo (own work) [ CC-BY-SA-3.0 ], via Wikimedia Commons What makes matters worse for evolutionary scientists is that what they find does not even fit their own speculations. As we keep telling you, evolutionist (and their wild-eyed press) keep spinning yarns and telling stories and passing it off as science. Then people who do not know how to think critically (or simply want reinforcement for their preconceptions) will not only

Give evolutionists some scraps of bone and rock, call an artist and stand back. Using their preconceptions, imaginations, speculations, guesses, commitment to naturalism and a boatload of logical fallacies, and you get something to put in a museum to promote an evolutionary worldview. As a bonus, it's promoted as science. (Know the difference between fantasy sports players and Darwin's Cheerleaders? Fantasy sports people are based in reality .) For example, look at "Nutcracker Man". "Nutcracker" courtesy of artur84 / FreeDigitalPhotos.net First, Mary Leakey found a skull in 1959. Bits and pieces were found over the years, then more parts were found recently. Although there is dispute, this critter that apparently swung from trees is alleged to be an example of evolution in action. Actually, it is an example of fantasy evolution sports and a creature that became extinct. All the storytelling and imagination in the world cannot make Nutcracker Man danc

Bigotry has been around for millennia. That is, about as long as there has been fear and hatred of people who are different. Sometimes it is so shallow, people are despised for living in the next town! (Personally, I think that bigots pick an excuse to hate someone so that they can build up their own weak egos by putting down others and then feebly trying to justify it.) Perhaps racism is faster and easier than other forms of bigotry. No particular ethnic group has a monopoly on receiving discrimination or racism. And no, labeling someone a racist because you dislike or disagree with them is a cheap way to manipulate emotions. People rightly point out that racism did not begin with evolutionism. However, Darwin gave a veneer of scientific respectability to racism. Some people believe that there are "less favored" groups who did not evolve as well as others. Contrast that with what the Bible says about races. Big difference. Genetically, the differences between us are qu

The MP3 can be downloaded here . People tend to "fill in the blanks" in their minds when they do not have enough material to reach a conclusion. That is just human nature. In the case of evolutionary science, however, evidence that is contrary to goo-to-you evolution is often ignored or even actively suppressed. That is manipulation and keeps people from examining all the facts. An article on insufficient/suppressed evidence is here . A video was described in the podcast video, that appears below, just before the podcast.

My wife and I had some blind cave fish in an aquarium. They were good-tempered and went well in a "community tank". We seem to have a fondness for various tetras.  Anyway. Tinkering with a protein called HSP90, some effect was found on their eyes and sockets. However, typical of evolution's proponents, results were attributed to (wait for it) evolution! But this is not only question begging, but the Fallacy of Exclusion . It seems that practically anything can be used as proof of evolution. Of course, things observed can be interpreted in other (and more sensible) ways, but people who have evolutionary presuppositions, they tend to have tunnel vision when interpreting the evidence. In addition, it is playing fast and loose with disingenuous definitions of evolution. How do fish that can see make the switch to blind cavefish, and should that process really be called “evolution”? This transformation fascinates biologists. Picture the scene—a norma

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen How I came across this book, I am uncertain. I think it was mentioned in a comment someone made. The Kindle price was right, so I gave it a try (sorry, could not find an EPUB for the Nook). One evening, I was looking for a diversion from the science and theology material and decided to give this a try. Glad I did. Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.  (Genesis 6.5-8, NASB) I suppose it could be considered "historical fiction". The Bible does not tell us the names of Noah's wife or of his sons' wives, nor do we kn