Piltdown Superman

According to evolutionary paleontologists, the "Cambrian Explosion" is the sudden appearance of most major phyla in Cambrian layers with no transitional forms. This has been a very serious problem ever since Darwin's time, since it falsifies evolution. The Evo Sith have attempted to make excuses, but they are weak and contrived. Further evidence from their own sources has only made the Cambrian Explosion even larger. To add to their consternation, the discovery actually supports the Genesis Flood models of biblical creationists. At the first appearance of complex animals, vertebrate fish were already there, a new analysis confirms.  Simon Conway Morris, an evolutionist and world authority on Cambrian animals, appeared in the beginning of Illustra’s film Darwin’s Dilemma to confirm the suddenness of the “Cambrian Explosion.” In that short period (about 5–10 million years in the evolutionary time scheme), some 20 new and diverse body plans (phyla) appeared fully f

For many years, uniformitarian geologists maintained that fossilization occurred very slowly. Students learned that a creature died, sank in water, was gradually buried and then was fossilized over millions of years. Evidence accrued that this is not the case (including common sense, since scavengers, bacteriological action and other factors would make burial unlikely). People are learning that rapid burial and proper conditions, not time, are the keys to fossilization. Wikimedia Commons,  Marrella splendens , Burgess Shale, British Columbia, Canada; Middle Cambrian / Wilson44691 When an arthropod molts, it is not exactly a slow event. Finding molted skins in the fossil record is not much of a surprise, but to find a fossil of a   Marrella splendens  in the act itself is amazing, and a testimony of rapid burial. Creationist geologists maintain that the overwhelming majority of fossils are due to catastrophic processes, such as Noah's Flood. This find supports creationist Fl

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is expressing surprise that the Cosmos  series has been examined by Answers In Genesis (among others; Creation Ministries International reviewed a couple of episodes ). AiG put a considerable amount of work in showing how he expressed his opinions as facts, gave incomplete information and did quite a bit of misrepresentation of Christian material. In fact, AiG wants people to watch the episodes, then use their material to learn the truth. Neil deGrasse Tyson, host of TV’s Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey, says he wonders why anyone pays attention to what Ken Ham says about science or about his 13-part Cosmos series. Tyson, in an interview with Alternet, suggests biblical creationists like Ken Ham and the scientists at Answers in Genesis are a small and insignificant Christian fringe group that only bothered writing weekly critiques of the Cosmos series to take advantage of media attention garnered through the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate in February: You have to ask

Uncle Pilty wants me to remind you that we use unregistered assault keyboards in the creation resistance army against the establishment of evolutionary dogma. Let's go... Evolution is called a theory (and many of its adherents refer to it as an incontrovertible fact), but it has very little resemblance to what Darwin popularized long ago. Today's Darwinism relies to a great extent on DNA and the amazing idea that we can have genetic mistakes causing us to evolve upward. Evolutionists will say that DNA is proof of evolution, and that they have made accurate predictions. Oh, really? Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures Darwinists will claim that there are predictions based on DNA that are fulfilled in evolutionary theory. That is not quite right. They use logical fallacies like circular reasoning , affirming the consequent , insufficient evidence (including ignoring other possible explanations for what has been observed), and so on. The truth of the matter is, DNA is a frien

At this writing today is August 30, 2014 and the Rosetta spacecraft has entered orbit around Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenk. (It is an understatement to say that this is an ambitious undertaking, since the flight alone has taken ten years.) The Philae probe is expected to land on the comet in a few weeks, and several sites have been projected . Comet on 23 August 2014 - NavCam / Copyright ESA / Rosetta / NAVCAM And I thought the 1986 Vega probes that dealt with both Venus and Halley's Comet were big deals! Well, they were for that time. It's interesting to me that the Rosetta will be using outdated equipment, because a great deal has changed in the ten years since it was first launched. But "old" does not mean ineffective. Secular scientists are starting with the presuppositions that comets are building blocks of the solar system. By rendezvousing with this comet, they hope to find secrets to the origins of many things, possibly even life itself. Not har

Give us a kiss... It is becoming more frequent when "science" is promoting an agenda — usually, a leftist agenda. Sure, science is great when discussing sex properly and scientists are actually doing real science. But when we have bad science and pseudoscience being used to ridicule traditional sexual values, promote promiscuity and abortion, get involved in government-mandated contraception, supporting gender confusion — the false researchers and the science press do not keep their own domain and abandon their proper abode, there is a problem. Especially since so many people will accept what "scientists say" without question, even when scientist say things that have nothing to do with science. To what extent should scientists presume to offer advice about sexual matters? Beyond providing descriptions of body parts and how they work, science exits its domain when telling people how they should behave or think about sex. Yet repeatedly, editorials in jou

It has been made into a joke where royal persons referred to themselves in the plural, such as, "We are not amused". Although they had no way of knowing it, they were more correct than they knew — but for different reasons. We are not alone inside ourselves. There are billions of microorganisms living there, coexisting and even helping us thrive. Naturally, evolutionists will assert that they gradually evolved along with us, but they do not offer models, believable explanations or anything other than assertions. In fact, to want us to believe such a thing is asking quite a bit. Further, they equivocate "evolution" with "adaptation", and make it sound like microbes-to-man evolution is realistic, but such a word game is disingenuous at best. It makes much more sense to believe that they are doing what they are designed to do from the beginning. By learning more about “who” lives in you in sickness and in health and what they are doing, medical scient