Piltdown Superman

We expect Darwinists to argue from their worldviews, everyone does that. But when they commence to stating opinions based on their philosophical precommitments as scientific facts, that's over the line. Many evolutionists insist that dinosaurs evolved into birds  despite  contrary scientific evidence. Their rampant speculations have caused them a heapin' helpin' of trouble several times in the past (such as  Archaeoraptor, the fraud from Liaoning, China ). They're setting themselves up for another possible fall again. A good fossil that they called Zhenyuanlong has been found, so scientists and their sensationalistic press are stampeding to make wild-eyed claims of a feathered velociraptor. There are several problems with the scenario, including the fact that it came from fossil Souvenir Central in (wait for it) Liaoning, China. Lots of fake fossils come from China. The origins of this one are suspicious, and scientists are not in unison that it's a feathere

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This is about the run-of-the-mill Darwinistas in the evolution camp. Many are on a continuing mission to explore creation science sites, to seek out new Weblogs and new creation science opponents, to boldly go where they’re really not wanted anyway. Types like this patrol (emphasis on “troll”) the Web to defend “science” — which means equivocating “science” with “evolution”. I have had experiences (and taken many screenshots) of various remarks that these owlhoots fling at creationists. There is no need for a Christian to be intimidated by an angry atheist or for biblical creationists to be coerced by fundamentalist evolutionists. It is my belief that some people hate me because I will not let them build an argument on fallacies — they cannot reach a rational conclusion based false information or bad reasoning, except by accident. I suspicion that this rage is put on all y'all who stand up to the bullies. Modified from an original image by  Ca

A popular myth among evolutionists is that, since there is a difference in the number of chromosomes between humans and great apes, there must have been a chromosome 2 fusion way back when. The original speculations admitted that the supposed fusions were inconclusive, and further studies show many flaws that give lie to the story. Even at the outset, the sequence was 800 bases long, and not the thousands that it should have been. Data compared to known mutation rates, no sequence of satellite DNA at the alleged site of fusion, and many more. A creationist scientist is investigating further, and his findings are not evo-friendly. Fact is, we were created, old son, and did not evolve, despite the tales and tails. One of the most common arguments evolutionists use to promote the theory that humans evolved from an apelike ancestor is the idea of a “chromosome 2 fusion.” This story proposes that in a common ancestor shared by humans and chimps, two small chromosomes somehow fused e

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Sometimes, anti-creationists riding the Owlhoot Trail want to slap leather with creationists but they don't bring a gun to a gunfight. They don't even bring a knife or a pointed stick. I reckon they don't want to say anything meaningful, they just want to "prove the st00pid dumb creotard" wrong. Problem is, they show their own lack of thought and look mighty silly. Courtesy of Why?Outreach Too many people read just the caption of a picture or a few lines of text and then leave a comment. Unfortunately, this short attention span trend is common and seems to be growing, and the ignorant comment is a bane to many Page owners and bloggers. I shared this picture, " The Lincoln Memorial Disproves Old Earth Theories " about stalactites and stalagmites that had formed quickly under the memorial. Apparently, this guy didn't bother to pay attention to the excerpts in the caption or look at the two links. He complained, "

Are there volcanoes on Venus? In some ways, that seems fitting, what with Venus being exceptionally hot and full of toxic gasses. However, it's supposed to be billions of years old, and that would cause difficulties for "deep time" advocates. Other "old" objects in the solar system are not acting their age, including Pluto , so Venus can join the party. Computer-generated image of Sapas Mons on Venus / Image credit: NASA/JPL Back in 1982, the Soviet Union's Venera 13 and 14 probes to Venus transmitted images that scientists suspected were a volcano, which they named Sapas Mons. Galloping ahead to 2010, research showed further evidence that Venus is geologically active . Saddling up for another hard ride to 2015, scientists reveal that they believe Venus to be not only volcanically active, but them thar hills are young , old son. Which strongly indicates that Earth and everything else was created recently. The tortured surface of Venus appears to ha

When someone points out that evolution has not, and cannot, be observed, you run into problems with definitions. Sometimes there are multiple meanings to words and people can"talk past" each other, so it's best to nail down the definitions for potentially hazardous terms. Like evolution,  which has several definitions. You can encounter someone asserting, "What's the problem? Evolution is just a change in allele frequencies, and has been frequently observed. Therefore, evolution is true". (This is occasionally accompanied with an abusive ad hominem  like, "...you ignorant creationist fool, you".) Problem is, that owlhoot is being sneaky by changing up the meanings of the word evolution.   It's a logical fallacy called equivocation .   Image by Why?Outreach  Sure, creationists know full well that there are variations (such as eye color). But that's not evolution in the amoeba-to-atheopath sense, no new information is added, and

Because the giant panda has the configuration of a carnivore, some evolutionists say that it is an evolutionary failure, or left behind by evolution. This speculation is based on evolutionary presuppositions and limited thinking, and entirely unwarranted. Modified from "Giant Panda Tai Shan" / Fernando Revilla / Wikimedia Commons These critters are baffling, I'll allow. They are classified as bears and have the innards of carnivores, but primarily eat bamboo. A lot of it. Bamboo isn't exactly full of protein and other nutrients, so what gives with these black and white vegetarians? It turns out that they know how to get what they need, their Creator gave them the right equipment, despite the protestations of Darwin's Disciples. Is the giant panda a poorly evolved vegetarian? Or highly specialized, well-designed herbivore, a living link to a time when all animals were vegetarians? Despite having teeth, jaws, and a short digestive tract typical of the mor