Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen If you study on it, you may realize that atheists, cultists, anti-creationists, and others have similar thinking patterns. While much of Western society tends to have an adoration for logic, numbers , science, scientists, facts, and so forth, people are prone to "thinking" with their emotions. That is, some owlhoot comes along and sounds like he knows what he's saying, possibly using expensive words, but there is still some kind of appeal to emotions. Then people end up being deceived. Other biblical creationists and I keep trying to encourage people to learn how to think rationally so they can spot logical fallacies and manipulation. Thi s can help keep deception to a minimum . Ever notice that some people can be excellent thinkers, but when it comes to certain religious matters (and especially evolutionism), they can't think straight ? Before I continue, I want to point out that there are different kinds of common ancestry evoluti

The word "law" seems a mite loose nowadays. Some jasper on the Internet makes an observation or declaration, and if it gets support, it's called a "law". Fine, I'll make Cowboy Bob's Law right here and now: If a biblical creationist gives evidence against evolution, some sidewinder will cry, "Liar!" Howzat? Great, put that on the master list, okay?  There are other "laws" that are more like guidelines of common observations. Mostly assembled with the Says-It badge generator Laws of science, however, are supposed to be established through observation and testing. Louis Dollo came up with the Law of Irreversibility for evolution, that an organism cannot return to its ancestral state. It turns out that this "law" is another instance of scientists making assertions when they do not have a full understanding of science, but instead, realy on faith in evolution. Dollo's declaration actually hindered science, and his

G'day. While we have a passel of rock formations in these here United States where I live, there are many around the world that give strong evidence of the Genesis Flood. (We do seem to have the best dinosaur boneyards, though.) There's an area in the Northern Territory called Red Centre,  which has an abundance of, well, redness. The frontier town of Alice Springs can set you up if you want to do some sightseeing and as a starting point for exploring Flood geology. I'd like to go myself, you betcha. " Kings Canyon " image credit: Pixabay / walesjacqueline But this isn't advertising for 'Straya tourism. Like I said at the onset, there are many geological formation that support the Genesis Flood. Sure, uniformitarian geologists continue their old Earth assertions (evolution requires an old Earth), but much of what they say defies science and basic reasoning skills, and basically falls apart. Here is an article written from a biblical creationist poi

A common falsehood told by Darwin's Drones is that people reject evolution because they do not understand it. Often times, they proceed to "explain" it to evolution deniers and get their own pseudoscience wrong. It doesn't help matters that many evolutionists don't understand evolution themselves. They'd be far better off if they'd stop rebelling against our Creator and realize that science does not support evolution, it supports biblical creation. Charles Darwin hung his evolution hat on the peg of natural selection, a concept developed by a creationist years earlier as a preserving factor, not something to cause change. When DNA, mutations, and so on were investigated, natural selection fell out of favor, and we have neo-Darwinism, or the modern evolutionary synthesis. Natural selection is not what causes evolution, but contributes. Except that some owlhoots disunderstand natural and artificial selection, and use the fallacy of reification and gi

A great deal of science depends on consistency and predictability; we expect things to behave in certain ways and according to established patterns. In biology, cells have mitochondria or traces of it so they can survive. Monocercomonoides seems to be making its own rules, and causing a whole heap of consternation for biologists and especially Darwinists. Assembled at the Says-it sign generator Naturally, some "Just-so" stories are being fabricated, such as  Monocercomonoides having mitochondria, then losing it, surviving now through a cellular version of horse trading. Funny how these people use an alleged loss  of function as evidence of onward and upward evolution, isn't it? Not that this protist showed any sign of ever having had mitochondria, can't let that get in the way of good propaganda. Here's a thought: the Creator built it that way so it could thrive in its particular environment! But no, materialistic worldviews preclude the possibility of th

Proponents of the Big Bang point to CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) radiation from the original fireball as strong evidence for the Big Bang's validity. When CMB was discovered, the fellas won a Nobel Prize, probably because secularists like science that fits their worldviews, even though things haven't been thought out well enough. Image credit: NASA (click on the link to see a short animation of the presumed initial explosion and afterward). Even though the original Big Bang concept was an explosion (and is still referred to that way ), the whole story keeps evolving. (That's because evidence keeps interfering with the secularist mythology of origins and cosmic evolution, and they refuse to admit that evidence supports the Bible's claim that God created the universe, and did it recently.) The question has been raised, "Where are the shadows?" If the background glow was way, way out yonder, celestial bodies should cast "shadows". One of

It is an exciting time to be a biblical creationist. Evidence keeps on accumulating to confirm what we've said all along, and it is not supportive of evolution. The refutation of the"junk" DNA evolutionary idea is bothersome for them. But one item that really gets evolutionists on the prod is the fact of soft tissues in fossils. (Note that I'm deliberately using the word fossil in its more general sense ; it doesn't necessarily mean that something has been permineralized. Ian Juby discussed that word in a segment on fossilized dinosaur skin at the 20 minute 13 second mark in this video clip .) The reason for consternation on the soft tissues is that they are strong evidence that Earth was created recently, not billions of years ago, and that dinosaurs have not been extinct for millions of years. Image credit: Pixabay / agfcontact Some anti-creationists will pretend that dinosaur soft tissues are irrelevant, others try to ignore them completely, and you