Piltdown Superman

It's getting to become a common thing, just press play to hear approval for things that are passed off as "science". We've seen many times some amazingly unscientific speculations presented to the world as scientific advances, especially in areas related to origins. The Darwinism supporters in the press are all-fired joyful about sharing it with the world, often embellishing the "discoveries".  If people had a mind to, they could examine these speculations and see that there is no actual science  involved, just expensive words given with authority. To hear Darwinistas tell it, the consensus is that evolution is true, and scientists are all in agreement. Not hardly! I reckon they're getting more and more desperate to avoid facing evidence for the Creator, don't you? A scientist examines Earth animals, and has a guess as to what aliens would look like Evolution treated like an entity with the ability to learn  Evolution is like a computer

Proselytizers of microbes-to-monkey evolution are known to point out that humans and chimpanzees have some things in common, even citing spurious data about genetic similarities . EDIT: The preceding link is now out of date and in dispute. See " A Fresh Look at Human-Chimp DNA Similarity " (which was published the same day as this post) and " New Study Indicates Chimp DNA is 88% Similar to Human DNA ". Further research is planned. (Of course, the seventy percent genetic similarity that we have with sea sponges often goes unmentioned.) Using assumptions, circular reasoning, and other bad arguments, resemblances are used to show that we evolved from a common ancestor. Restrain your equines, Ernie, there are some problems here. The check's in the mail. Image credit: morgueFile / lightfoot The hands at the Darwin Ranch are not known for their efficient reasoning abilities. Ignoring data and alternative explanations are common over there, and in this case,

A new gibbon fossil has Darwinoids singing the same old song: "Look! Evolution!" Not hardly. As we have seen many times before, advocates of germ-to-gibbon evolution will "see" evidence for their conjectures where none exists, as well as giving credit to the puny god of evolution for any kind of change in an organism. Image credit: Pixabay / skeeze Now there's a newly discovered gibbon fossil that some people think may shake the family tree. Actually, it's a case of, big deal, since the usual "convergent evolution" and other convenient evidence-free machinations for evolution are invoked. More than that, the fossil is probably just another extinct variation on gibbons, does not give information about ancestral relationships, or anything useful other than being something shiny for evolutionary biologists to play with. The fossil Pliobates cataloniae could upset the accepted evolutionary concept of our remote family tree, or at least the s

There's a false claim by anti-creationists that the term living fossil  was invented by creationists. Even if that were true, such a claim would be meaningless. But the fact is, it goes back to Charles Darwin his own self, and other non-creationists use it as well. You savvy? A "living fossil" is something that exists today and is essentially unchanged from those found in fossils alleged to be millions or billions of years old. Chambered nautilus image credit: USFWS Sure, evolutionists have excuses for that. One is that it didn't need  to evolve. Right. Even though they claim that other creatures faced genetic mutations and environmental pressures that brought about evolution, but many things were unaffected? On one had, evolution is an irresistible force, but on the other hand, it doesn't happen. That's a policeman's exit (cop out). It seems that some people will come up with almost any excuse to deny the obvious: life was created recently, and evid

Secular cosmologists have been hanging their hats on the Big Bang for decades. Since accumulating data are recalcitrant, they keep changing the models and speculations. One of the main points is what is termed dark matter.  According to cosmic evolution tales, this is the stuff that comprises most of the universe, but it has not been observed or detected in any way, but we're supposed to believe it on their say-so, what with them being scientists and all. Such a concept is plumb loco to my reckoning. Image credit: NASA , ESA, M. J. Jee and H. Ford et al. (Johns Hopkins Univ) (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)  Governments have been spending mucho dinero on searching for something that only exists on paper, which is based on atheistic origin mythology. In actuality, there was no Big Bang and the universe was created recently. Why do you think astronomers and cosmologists keep getting surprised by discoveries? Evidence supports recent creation, old son. Ast

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen I disremember how I came across this 2012 article, " Should Humanity Take Religion On Interstellar Space Voyage? ", but thought it had some things that needed addressing. It's obviously written from a secularist perspective, and the token Christian that they interviewed certainly did not express an understanding of the Bible. He said we have to leave behind Earth-based religions. I reckon he doesn't know about religion, history — and people. Modified image from Pixabay / falco and clip art from Clker It's one thing to leave behind our political views or other things that we select, but the Christian faith is who we are, it's not like choosing a hat or something. A Christian has been changed by God (2 Cor. 5:17) and is adopted as one of his children (John 1:12, Rom. 8:15, Heb. 12:7). Several astronauts are Christians, including James Irwin , Jack Lousma , Rick Husband and Michael Anderson (who perished in the 2003 Columbia  di

Although many people deny it, people live according to their worldviews. In the issues of the age of the Earth, origin and development of life, cosmic evolution, ice ages, and other historical science matters, we have seen time and again that preconceptions influence the interpretation of data. "Science" is not a monolith of absolute truth remaining uncompromised by the assertions of dispassionate scientists. Hungarian 1990 mastodon stamp scan from my collection, modified with the oil painting tool. The Ice Age raises many questions, Manfred. Did it happen? How did it happen? How many were there? How long did it last? When it comes to the Ice Age, secular scientists are unable to saddle the data with their conjectures and models, especially the idea of multiple ice ages over long periods of time. Then they'll challenge biblical creationists to explain the Ice Age. Since scientists interpret data according to their worldviews, creationists find that recent creation