Piltdown Superman

One of the principles of science is that when observed facts do not fit the theory, then if the theory cannot be reasonably modified, it should be discarded. In that regard, evolution itself should have been discarded a century ago. Other conjectures within goo-to-you evolution are also held fast despite the evidence. Image derived from Dinosaur and Bird clip art at Clckr.com There was the sensationalistic story about an Edmontosaurus having an appendage on its head. To some, it looked like a rooster's comb, therefore, proof that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Except that not only was this desperate homology, but it was the wrong kind of dinosaur to fit the theory . Bird fossils are found with dinosaur fossils , and dinosaurs ate birds . Too many problems, not all evolutionary scientists believe that birds evolved into dinosaurs, plus lack of explanations for what is observed — but some people still still insist. Now the dino-to-bird as well as the origin of flight evo

There was a time when proponents of evolution would admit that they had a problem. Not anymore. If they cannot interpret evidence according to their presuppositions, or when something threatens evolutionary dogma, we are given "explanations", the problem is ignored, or both. This happens when fossils are found in the wrong place, or in ways that cannot happen, according to the evolutionary timeline. Dr. Emil Silvestru deals with just such a problem in great detail. The pollen and spores from the Paleoproterozoic Roraima Formation in South America has often been cited by creationists as evidence against the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record. It has, however, received little interest from the scientific community, having been ignored altogether since the 1970s. Although the discovery was published in Nature, there were no subsequent articles dealing with it. The consensus seems to be that the microfossils represent a case of contamination. In the original a

Neptune has several things in common with its almost-twin, Uranus. It was seen and considered a star by early astronomers (it is invisible to the naked eye), similar to the way Uranus was cataloged as a star before creationist astronomer Sir William Herschel realized Uranus was a planet in 1781. The two planets are apparently similar in size and composition, the blue coloration probably caused by methane. Both have moons that do not quite act the way they should. Neptune Full Disc, Voyager 2, NASA/JPL Neptune's identification as a planet is both international and controversial. Astronomers watching Uranus were noticing some oddities in its orbit and asked, "Dude, what's up with that?" Creationist scientist Isaac Newton did some calculations on motion and gravitation , and Newtonian physics indicated that there should be something else up there. Several people went to work on the mathematics, especially John Couch Adams in England and Urbain Le Verrier in Fra

Do not be alarmed. There are some expensive words in this one, but don't let those throw you. I only want you to learn one (and it's variations): Equivocation. It's a bait-and-switch trick used by atheists and evolutionists to "move the goalposts" and be deceitful. Bill Nye, Evolution Drones and others pull this stunt. Unfortunately, equivocation is very common, and even a part of humor. So, watch for it when someone is trying to manipulate you, and make an effort to avoid using it yourself. It is also extremely important to define your terms, as people have different understandings of the same word. Cultists and liberal Christians love to equivocate so they can deceive. Also, something different. Instead of the "Atheopath Follies", I did a "Religious People Follies" segment. The MP3 can be downloaded here .

"Evolution is true because of vestigial organs!", claim the Autons of Evolution. These are supposedly remnants of evolution that have no function, but that is an outdated claim based on circular reasoning, arguing from ignorance — and wishful thinking. Some evolutionists even embarrass themselves by claiming that the human appendix is a vestigial organ (or "vestigial structure"), which is a long discredited claim .  In their efforts to hound creationists into believing that they're right, some proponents of microbes-to-microbiologist evolution are making the claim that the clavicle of dogs is also vestigial. But again, they are barking up the wrong tree. Creationists are proved right yet again. In comparison to human beings, dogs have a rather different shoulder design, and the same applies to many other carnivorous and hoofed animals too, such as and cats and horses. The shoulder bones appear somewhat disconnected from the rest of the skeleton an

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen In the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye the Evolutionary Dogma Guy, Nye decided it would be a good idea to ridicule Noah's ark and the Genesis Flood. In his prepackaged-sounding objections to creation science and the Flood, he engaged in numerous logical fallacies. One was asserting uninformed opinions that would have a negative influence on listeners (prejudicial conjecture). One of these was that some shipbuilders designed a ship that sank, therefore, Noah's ark could not have worked. Like so many others of his nature, he did not do his homework, embarrassing himself and other evolution propagandists. Both Bill Nye and Ken Ham managed to get people thinking and asking questions. Don't Miss the Boat — Facts to Keep Your Faith Afloat by Paul Taylor answers some questions and will prompt further investigation. The Genesis Flood is a biblical event, and Paul gives us a clear biblical viewpoint as well as the science of the Flood, draw

Once again, evolutionary scientists (with the help of their press) are spinning sensationalistic speculations as fact. This contrivance is to "explain" the evolution of the face from fish. Hopefully, there will be some scientists who will disagree. Naturally, Darwin's Cheerleaders will pass this along as proof for evolution and carp that creation science is wrong. It is indeed unfortunate that too many people lack the critical thinking skills needed to discern the scale of this latest futility. For one thing, this is loaded with assumptions and presuppositions. Another problem is that the long-discredited embryonic recapitulation idea is being dredged up yet again. Creationists do not have to resort to such disingenuous tactics. Evolutionists say they have filled in the gaps in the origin of the human face. Building on a 2013 report about a placoderm that turned an earlier fish story on its head the latest contributor to facial history— Romundina —is being advanc