Piltdown Superman

Proponents of Darwinian evolution are known to claim that amazingly complex DNA is friendly to their belief system. That's the opposite of the truth. We had the "junk DNA" fiasco, where evolutionist studied some of the genome, didn't understand a lot of it, had that relegated to "junk" status, and were embarrassed when proper research refuted the "junk" claims. The fact is, a great deal of DNA is not yet understood. Scientists have attempted to determine how transcription factors bind to the genome so they can switch genes on and off. This has had poor results. However, it looks like they've saddled up the right horse this time, with new research and a three-dimensional model. And this  time, scientists were more interested in doing science instead of being Darwin's Cheerleaders — no silly claims about evolution. Maybe because the research itself was very complex, and gave them a bit of proper perspective about the design skills of the

Some owlhoots claim that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. If they had knowledge to go with their enthusiasm, they would know that the origin of life is foundational  to evolution. Attempting to distance themselves from the insurmountable problems of abiogenesis (including the law of biogenesis that indicates life only comes from life, and irreducible complexity ) is disingenuous at best. Adapted from " swampyWater3 " by mconnors / morgueFile The failed Miller-Urey experiment is being zombified with some fanciful fact-free new ideas, and I reckon that nearly anyone can see that the new presentations are chock full of assumptions. Some of these involve the conditions of their fantasy primordial Earth, the world being ancient in the first place (Papa Darwin's scum-to-sculptor ideas require a lot of time), disagreement within the ranks of other Darwinians, nothing can be plausibly demonstrated, and more. You'd think they'd think about evi

Secular geologists (and some Bible compromisers) accept fundamentally flawed radiometric dating methods to determine the age of the earth. These are based on uniformitarian presuppositions, which are in turn based on several assumptions, including a constant decay rate. In addition, they not only give wildly varying results, but outrageously bad old-earth ages for young  rocks of known  ages! This is science? Not hardly. But they cling to this because they are locked into naturalism, and cannot allow a divine foot in the door, even though their methods are unreliable. Evolution requires a great deal of time, and uniformitarianism is essential to that. Creationist scientists have demonstrated that the rate of decay is not constant, which ruins one of the primary assumptions of uniformitarian dating methods. The biggest causes of change was the Genesis Flood. In addition, there are many other indicators of a young earth that are conveniently ignored by old earth geologists and evolu

It is easy to see that evolutionary education is misnamed. It is not education, it is indoctrination , and if evidence for Intelligent Design or creation science was presented, it might "confuse" students , and they would dare to doubt Darwin. The vigilant Evo Sith are on patrol to silence opposition and protect "science" by disingenuously equivocating "evolution" with "science". These sidewinders must be an embarrassment to evolutionists who actually think, and who want to examine the evidence instead of rejecting creation science simply because they believe what they're told about what creationists say . Some of us reckon that if people were allowed to see evolutionary thinking with it's flaws and with evidence that supports creation, there would be far fewer Darwinists. Creationists want people to learn critical thinking, and some of us emphasize learning logical fallacies so people are not deceived by profound pronouncements

The Cambrian Explosion (where complex fossils suddenly appear) has been a problem for Darwinian evolutionists for a mighty long time. They come up with some strange ways to explain it , but those aren't satisfying. They still cling to their faith despite observed evidence, though. To make the Cambrian Explosion more baffling for evolutionists, the deeper Precambrian area is sparse with fossils, and creationists are excited about research into a seventh megasequence . Using advanced technology, paleontologists are soaking up the excitement about a tiny sea sponge fossil. Sponges and coral / NOAA Now the sponge (the sea sponge that is, not my weird neighbor) is back in the running as the oldest human evolutionary ancestor. Yes, they really think that. Their excitement is based on circular reasoning and presuppositions about the age of the rocks and their evolutionary sequence paradigms. The sponge itself? Pretty much the same anatomy as modern sponges. No evolution here, folks.

If I was involved in a longhorn cattle drive back in the old days (say about 1870), we'd get 2,000 or more head of cattle to Kansas. Let's go with Abilene. We reach the destination and are offered $4.00 per hundredweight. I don't cotton to that price, so I check around a few more places. Yep, that's what others are offering. What if I decided that the price is the same everywhere? I might be correct about the rate in that part of Abilene, but could be missing out on another dollar per hundredweight elsewhere. Or maybe even much less. You can only apply your observations just so far. Supposed dark matter ring in galaxy cluster Cl 0024+17 Source: Hubblesite.org Evolutionists, whether Darwinian, cosmological, or other, tend to make numerous logical fallacies. This includes extrapolating from a limited amount of observed data and assuming that the observations extend further. "Dark matter" (and it's relative, "dark energy") supposedly m

The public seems to have a cognitive dissonance when it comes to science and the scientists that make science and technology happen. Many will blindly accept what scientists say (or what the science press claims what scientists say). Some go as far as to make man-made science philosophies the ultimate source of truth and knowledge. Then the disconnect. People are skeptical of what scientists say, while being enamored of science. Despite the claims of evolutionists, atheists, agnostics, and those tinhorns who go haywire alternating between atheism and agnosticism, it's not st00pid unedjamakated dumb Xtians who have doubts. Instead, there are people who think and are informed about science matters who have doubts. Can you blame anyone for having doubts? Scientists say things that are not exactly true, and the science press has the grace, dignity, and accuracy of a cattle stampede, making grandiose claims about "discoveries" that the scientists themselves do not reco

It seems that every time cosmologists find a safe trail to ride in tracking the Big Bang, another rattlesnake pops out and spooks their horses. Cosmic microwave background radiation was supposed to be a smoking gun proof of the Big Bang, but it raised more problems than it solved. More recently, the revamped Big Bang hypothesis has had problems, including  quantum fluctuations , primordial lithium , the recent "gravity waves" fiasco , and speculations that there was no Big Bang after all . They keep drawing cards and ending up with a losing hand. Another problem for Big Bang proponents is a cold spot in the sky. A big one. Attempted explanations are failing, and fouling up the whole shootin' match. Reason indicates a Creator, not a cosmic accident. In a new paper, scientists have announced the discovery of an enormous region of lower-than-average galaxy density about three billion light-years from Earth. This "supervoid," the largest single structure ev

When you see the green trees, red roses, blue skies with white clouds, a rainbow in the sky, stars at night, the Grand Canyon, the Great Barrier Reef, Highlands of Scotland, Moraine Lake, Blyde River Canyon, the people you meet, birdies chirping in the trees, you may be thinking to yourself that it's a wonderful world. That it is, old son, that it is. But it's also a wrecked  world. That's right, all the splendor around us is a remnant after the judgement of the Genesis Flood. I reckon that we can't imagine the splendor of the original creation, but God's people will see the new  creation (Rev. 21:1-5, Rev. 22:1-5). We can try to imagine that, but we know we're not even close. We hear about the supercontinent called Pangaea, which broke up into the land masses that we see today. There was supposedly another one before that called Rodinia. No, it doesn't mean land of rodents. Rodinia also broke up. The hypothesis is that Rodinia broke up, continents crash

As a child, did you ever play " Pin the Tail on the Donkey "? You blindfold the participants (one at a time), spin them a bit, then have them put a tail thing on a picture of a donkey that is attached to a wall or something. I wasn't too fond of that game. Darwinists often try to pin the tail on the human by claiming that sometimes people are born with "tails". (Sometimes they confuse "tail" with the tailbone, or coccyx, which is a part of normal human embryonic structure .) These people claim that these "tails" are leftover from our alleged evolutionary history. Now, wait a minute, old son. When someone says that we "evolved from monkeys", they risk the wrath of evolutionists who say that we didn't evolve from monkeys or apes, but that they diverged from a common ancestor way back yonder. But they want to claim we had tails, the "throwbacks" prove it. Lemurs have tails, and they're on the evolutionary tree, wh