Piltdown Superman

Back in the early days of photography, subjects were told to " watch the birdie ". Nowadays, that endangered expression merely means that a picture is about to be taken. What do birdies watch? For that matter, another idiom is "get a bird's-eye view", which usually means way up high, getting the perspective of a bird in flight or on top of a tree. Look at it this way... Image credit (cropped): Northern Cardinal  / FreeImages / Maria Corcacas Of course, Darwinists will come up with unsupportable conjectures on the evolution of sight and the ability to see color (birds see more colors, and other things, than we do), but those are guesses passed along as science. The birdie is watching far more than people realize, and their bird's-eye view was designed by our Creator. When you see a hawk soaring high overhead, have you wondered what the view looks like from up there? Well, the bird’s-eye view involves much more than the panoramic view we see from an

Even though none of the theories of solar system formation actually work, cosmologists tend to favor the nebular hypothesis,  where everything formed from the same hot gas. It swirled, the sun and planets formed — and questions are raised. One of the most obvious problems is the way some of the planets act: Uranus is tipped on its side, effectively rolling in its orbit, and Venus has a retrograde rotation (goes in the opposite direction as the other planets). There are more problems and questions, but the public is given the sanitized version that sounds true, even though there's no evidence for cosmic evolution. Recent discoveries are mighty unfriendly to the concept. Solar nebula image credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Studies of other solar systems get cosmologists and astronomers a mite consternated, since things they've found are way out of whack and not conducive to life. Our solar system has a right friendly sun, the moon is unique

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a coffee fruit. Or bananas. Whatever. They bother a lot of people, but don't seem to do a lot of harm. (Our Basement Cat eats the things if she can catch them.) They do lay eggs in our stuff, though. These monstrous, huge aviators (1/8 inch, 3-4 mm) not only thwart efforts to force them to evolve , they're full of fascinating information — and possible inspirations for applications. Fruit fly liking a coffee fruit / Image credit: USDA-ARS (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Although larger flying insects are studied, scientists are discovering just how they were intricately created; they defy evolution. (Not that fungus-to-fruit fly evolutionists will admit that they defy evolution, of course.) Their flight stabilizers are controlled by a kind of multiprocessor in their tiny brains, their biological clocks are being studied to possibly benefit human health, and more. It's a-pear-ant that you should read the

It's a war zone. No, not a military campaign. This war is going on inside you on the microscopic level. Your immune system identifies threats and discerns how to deal with an intruder (or just ignore it), and the system replaces its working parts, has search and destroy missions, passive barriers, and much more. Camp Lejeune, North Carolina - Marines with Bravo Company, 2nd Combat Engineer Battalion Photo by Lance Cpl. David Hersey Image use does not imply endorsement of any of this site's contents by the US Department of Defense Advocates of molecules-to-Marine evolution have hindered the understanding of biology. We have two lines of defense, and the first line was pretty much ignored as something inherited by our alleged evolutionary forebears. The second line of defense got most of the attention because they assumed it evolved (without anything other than "evolution did it"). A lot of information was undiscovered, and now scientists are realizing that ou

The first thing taught in Darwinian catechism is that evolution is a given. Second is that Earth is billions of years old. When evidence is presented that threatens either assumption, evolutionists tend to get on the prod and try to dismiss the evidence (you may like " Fear and Loathing of Dinosaur Research by Evolutionists ", " Dinosaur Soft Tissues and Evolutionist Science Deniers ", and " Soft Tissue Time Paradox " by ICR's Dr. Vernon Cupps). Dinosaur soft tissues have them mighty angry because the evidence strongly refutes not only the idea that dinosaurs have been extinct for tens of millions of years, but that the planet is as old as they want it to be for evolution to happen. The real  evidence, without evolutionary trappings, shows that everything was created recently, and did not evolve in the Darwin way. Image credit: Pixabay / agfcontact (modified) Someone sneered on one of my posts, "What next, dinosaur DNA?" Pay attentio

When we point out that evolution is actually an ancient religious view, uninformed Darwinistas tend to get a mite irritated and tell us, with incontrovertible logic, "That's not true!" This is often accompanied by assorted insults. If they had a mind to do some homework, they'd learn that evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, and beyond that. For that matter, when anti-creationists want to claim that we believe in Bronze Age fairy tales, they'd be upset to learn that forms of evolution have been the subject of fantasies and legends in many ancient cultures. To equate the Bible and biblical creation with fairy tales, magic, and other ideas is not only ignorant, but disingenuous. I've been told to read Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, maybe I'd learn something. First, which version? It's been revised several times. Second, it's been larg

The popular conception of scientists is that they are driven by facts and reason, and have everyone's best interests at heart. Also, scientists are above regular people, uncorrupted by greed and avarice, so they're morally above us as well. If you study on it, you'll see that this Scientism view makes them non-human. But they're not automatons. It occurs to me that one reason people may be looking up to scientists is something lef t behind f rom the days of class distinctions. Ed jamakation was not freely available to all, only the elite few. (If someone was wealthy, they were somehow "better" than the poor, who were also created in God's image.) So, a scientist was a bette r , elite person who had money for education, so you have jolly well listen. These days, degrees are much more freely available, and the criteria for granting them are much lower. Everyone has a worldview, even though most don't sit down and cognate on it, "Here's my