Piltdown Superman

Know why there are multiple ideas about the formation and evolution of the solar system? Because none of them can stand up to cold, pitiless logic. They all have serious flaws, and corral the facts as well as a broken fence. Still, secular cosmologists keep trying to bring back the least flawed old nag, put a new set of horseshoes on it, and hope it can travel. Ain't happening. Then they use the same failed hypotheses as explanations for the formation of other solar systems, but never mind about that now. Artist's conception of planetary formation around Beta Pictoris / Credit: NASA / FUSE / Lynette Cook (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) The nebular hypothesis  is the current favorite, and a new computer model was set up to show how lots of luck can make it all happen, and there's no need for the Creator (Col. 1:16, Psalm 14:1); maybe a bit more spin caused by the right conditions... Many assumptions and a great deal of faith are involved in makin

Who are the people who advanced science? The ones who moseyed along with the herd? Not hardly. When you hear about famous scientists, they are usually the ones that broke away. You know, people like Louis Pasteur, Ray Damadian, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), Joseph Lister, Andy McIntosh, Isaac Newton, and many more are known for what they accomplished, not for supporting the prevailing views. "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen An old television memory came back, and I decided to run with it. In 1970, there was a strange Saturday morning kids' show called Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp. I think I watched it while waiting for something else that came on afterward (we didn't have many channels, and Saturday morning was our time for the kid shows). This had chimpanzees dressed up and actors doing voices for this silly spy program. As creationists have pointed out many times, evolution has been in everyone's faces and presented as fact at every turn. The name of the band that Lance performed in was the " Evolution Revolution ", and the boss of the agents was Commander Darwin. (No, I do not think that this show was intended to be evolutionary propaganda. Rather, the writers and such were using what was considered "science" and having fun at the same time.) Oh, and the female sidekick was Mata Hairi , the name playing on the famous spy Mata Hari .    Devo

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Before I get to the article that I'm featuring below, there are some personal notes that I wanted to share. Many years ago in Lansing, Michigan, I was browsing a Christian bookstore and found a 4" wide by 8" tall (101.6 mm x 228.6 mm) booklet of 28 pages called "Should Evolution Be Taught?" by Dr. John N. Moore. I showed it to my father, a pastor in the now thoroughly apostate United Methodist church. He told me that Dr. Moore was his professor of natural science when he attended Michigan State University (he received his BA in 1957), and was given a rough time for disbelieving evolution. Naturally, he was surprised that Dr. Moore was writing in favor of creation science! Speaking of MSU, an owlhoot going by the name of Richard Lenski objected to scientific evidence against his bacteria experiment , gave some snark , and then blocked me. This is a scientist? I corresponded with Dr. Moore a couple of times (he thought maybe he re

Imagine that you're going about your business, catch something for lunch, and then someone else draws down on you to make you into their  lunch. Then you all die. I reckon that would spoil your day. Well, something similar happened and a permanent record was made in stone, but long-age paleontologists are having trouble explaining it all away. Using some detective-style historical speculation, scientists are working on a series of events that led to the demise of a pterosaur, officiate — I mean, a fish he ate — and another ill-tempered fish that dry-gulched the pterosaur. Looks like the only winner was science, as all three went down together and became fossilized. Long-age paleontologists are disagreeing on how the fossilization happened. The typical story is that creatures die, then get slowly buried and are permineralized over millions of years. But what they see with their own eyes doesn't fit the secular storyline. If they'd step back a mite and look at the

A long, long, time ago, on a continent far, far away, a scientific expedition met its demise. In addition to trying to reach the South Pole, the Scott expedition wanted to prove Darwinian evolution by observing Haeckel's "law of recapitulation" in action with Emperor penguin eggs. Emperor Penguins / Photo credit: Dr. Paul Panganis , National Science Foundation Looks like the telegraph lines were down, because they were apparently unaware that Haecke's embryo drawings were known to be faked . The "law of recapitulation" was never true . Still, the expedition found out for themselves that recapitulation doesn't work. That's because there is no particles-to-penguin evolution, the facts support creation. During January–March 1912, Captain Robert Scott and four other optimistic members of the British Antarctic Terra Nova Expedition braved the bitter-cold summer weather of Antarctica’s Ross Ice Sheet, hoping to be the first to discover the South

When engaging with sponge-to-sportscasters evolutionists, many will come up with "evidence" for evolution that may make someone wonder, "Really, you believe what you're saying?" Worse, much of what is paraded as evidence of evolution is nothing more than speculation and imagination presented as actual scientific research. Evolution is a catch-all explanation that is full of bad reasoning and even self-contradiction. Non-evolution is touted as evidence for  evolution, and the hypothesis is so flexible, it "explains" everything (which is actually nothing at all). Scientists see evolution in and under every rock and, instead of doing something actually beneficial, will seek the alleged evolutionary meanings of how and why something became the way it is. But they have nothing substantial to show for it. Then they laugh at us for believing the much more rational explanation, which is special creation by God. To see what has me on the prod about th