Piltdown Superman

Bedbugs have been a nuisance for a long time. We hate them today, cowboys hated them, and archaeologists have evidence that ancient people hated the awful blood-sucking things millennia ago. Itches, pain, rashes, psychological difficulties, resistant to most pesticides — but at least these tiny critters don't seem to spread disease like malaria-bearing mosquitoes. If you're afflicted with bedbugs (it's nothing to be ashamed of, most people are likely to have the problem at some point), you may get some useful information at the US Environmental Protection Agency, click on " Bed Bugs: Get Them Out and Keep Them Out ". Image credit: CDC/ CDC-DPDx; Blaine Mathison Moving on to the purpose of this post, some scientists are claiming that there is evidence for evolution. Not hardly. Yes, they probably began drinking the blood of bats, and then varied into the version that afflicts humans. That's not evolution, Edna, that's variation and natural selection

Antibiotic resistance is a serious problem for the medical community. It has also been erroneously — and often disingenuously — used as an icon evidence for Darwinian evolution . This happened because people illogically conflated observed natural selection and unobserved evolution; bacteria remained bacteria and didn't bother to evolve into something else.  A study of well-preserved dental tartar in ancient humans revealed antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which threatened the "evidence" icon .  By the way, don't get the notion that all bacteria are bad. They were created for a purpose, and are essential for life. Interaction of a white blood cell with MRSA National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Evolutionists still cling to their cherished icon, but a new problem rode into town. Seems that a tribe in a remote part of Venezuela had visitors on missions. One was a missionary group who wanted to share the gospel and do good things for

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Evolution is a foundation for atheism as well as liberal Christianity. So it's not really a surprise when intolerant fundamentalist evolutionists want to slap leather with uncompromising biblical creationists. They want us silenced. We know they are busy with using the courts, such as the atheistic freedom from letting people think for themselves foundation wanting to sue because Eric Hovind had a recent debate in a public school . My focus today is regarding another way they try to silence us. This is done through bullying, harassment, ridicule, misrepresentation, straw man arguments (attacking a position that the other person doesn't hold, including putting words in his or her mouth), outright lies, and more. My posts and articles get circulated on Twitter under my monicker for The Question Evolution Project , and I was presented with this gem the other day:   Original screenshot here (unless he deletes it, they do that sometimes) T

Evolutionary paleontologists and anthropologists are rummaging around in their saddlebags looking for solid evidence to validate an australopithecene as part of human ancestry. "Little Foot" was given an age based on index fossils related to the strata where they found it. Standard radiometric dating methods were "unreliable". Now the dates are being revised according to cosmogenic nuclide dating. However, this method has serious flaws, and the selection of eleven samples is suspect, especially only two were in close proximity to the fossils. All of this galloping around, trying to change "facts", making assertions and whatnot will not make evolution true and negate the Creator's work. Australopithecus prometheus (StW 573)—nicknamed “Little Foot”—began in 2014 to make a bid for the attention accorded to the more well-known australopithecine Lucy. Would Little Foot, from the evolutionary point of view, finally fill the shoes of its mythological

Generally speaking, particles-to-paleontologist evolution requires long ages. Secular geologists (and some compromising Christians) accept faulty justifications for claiming that the earth is very old. Part of this is uniformitarianism (the present is the key to the past, processes that we see now are constant). But geologic explanations based on uniformitarian assumptions seem to be mostly appropriate for telling shaggy dog stories around the campfire while riding the Owlhoot Trail. That is, they're interesting stories, but don't match up with observed evidence. They tend to reject the Genesis Flood and explanations from creationist scientists who offer differing explanations of observed evidence regarding geologic history — no catastrophism allowed here, Hoss. (Despite their biases, some geologists do allow for some catastrophes in Earth history). The huge catastrophe of Genesis Flood actually fits observed data far better than the offerings of secular scientists

What is the most ironclad kind of fact known to man? To many, it's a fact based on science. "I don't reckon you should dispute that, pilgrim, it's a scientific fact!" Of course, a claim , consensus , or theory is not the same as a fact, but people put a lot of stock in something when you preface it with, "Scientists say..." Then it's promoted to "fact" status in the eyes of a passel of people. Many think that science is the ultimate source of truth, and they forget (or do not even know) that many indisputable science facts have been discarded over the years. Take a look at phlogiston , f'rinstance. For that matter, the "scientific method" itself (whichever "scientific method" you choose) evolves . Pay attention to the news from creation science ministries, and even from the secular science press. You keep getting news about something that has changed that had previously been established. Evolutionary "

Some Christians seem to get mighty frightened by the pronouncements of secular scientists, so they tamper with the Bible. Especially when it comes to Genesis. Christians began ceding science to secularists, and it accelerated when Darwin, Lyell, and their ilk were convincing people that their views of long ages and origins were right. Wouldn't want people to say mean things about us Bible believers, would we? No, we need to appear "enlightened", and do scriptural gymnastics so the Bible doesn't say what it means. Then you get odd views like the Framework Hypothesis, the Day-Age Theory, the Gap Theory, and so on. Triangulum Galaxy image credit: NASA/Swift Science Team/Stefan Immler Some people act like distant starlight is a smoking gun to discredit all of creation science, so they let the secularists lead their minds and spirits into the corral where they won't bother anyone. But scientists are not infallible, and some investigation shows that the dominant