Piltdown Superman

When the question is asked, "Why did this feature evolve?", the answer is often a simplistic, "Because the organism wanted it to", or some such. (Almost like orders were placed at an annual convention: "I'll have night vision, please".) Proponents of dust-to-Darwin evolution fail at explaining how something allegedly evolved, but adding in why is beyond answering. That is because, according to evolutionists, their process is without design, so they're contradicting themselves by implying that something evolved on purpose. Can't have it both ways, old son. Image credit: Pixabay / markovojkic Turtle shells are for protection, sure. But a turtle is much more than a reptile with a protective outer casing has properties of architectural design . (Did you know that the Eastern box turtle has a kind of antifreeze ?) Shell, skeleton, muscles, lungs — all were designed by the Creator to work together as a unit. Evolutionists found a fossil and

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Greek mythology tells us that Achilles was a great warrior and was invulnerable except in his heel. When Paris, son of the king and queen of Troy, shot him in the heel, he was able to be killed . This gave rise to the expression Achilles' heel to indicate someone's weakest point. Common-ancestor evolution has a passel of weak points, and several of them are quite serious. Disclaimer: none. I bought Evolution's Achilles' Heels all by my lonesome, so I received no benefits for writing this here review. Just over a year ago, I gave a favorable review of the 96-minute documentary by the same name , and it's fitting that I write about the book as well. I reckon that because people are enamored with credentials and such, the good folks at Creation Ministries International didn't give scoffers the excuse of saying someone is "not a scientist" — the book has nine Ph.D. scientists, and the documentary ups the ante to fifteen.

Creationists frequently encounter atheopaths and other Darwinistas who make inane demands resembling, "Show me just one peer-reviewed creationist paper!" You can tell up front that they don't want answers, otherwise, they'd be doing their own research and finding out that yes, creationists are indeed published in noted journals. (I recently gave one tinhorn a link to " Creationist Scientists and Journal Publication ", but he preferred to make childish attacks and refused to click on it. I reckon some people don't want answers.) Many folks expect that peer review is a guarantee of accuracy, and that something is established science if it undergoes peer review. Not hardly! Modified from an image at Clker clipart Creationary scientists have their own peer review systems and seek to honor God as well as strive for excellence in the process. Although all scientists are human after all, secularists seem more prone to plagiarism, misconduct, fraud, bias,

Ever since Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life in 1859, his version of evolution has undergone a series of crises. His book underwent revisions, and he admitted that his story had serious flaws (such as the fossil record). As time went on, those pesky facts of science showed that it's not valid. Traditional evolution by natural selection was abandoned. Not willing to admit failure in light of new scientific evidence, the view became the Synthetic Theory (neo-Darwinism), where mutations were added to natural selection. Evolutionists are not in lockstep , and controversies continued. Some admitted that there was no evidence, but hey, there's no Creator God in their worldview, so they proposed a different idea that also has no evidence: evolution happens in bursts. The cell, genome, epigenetics, and other continuing discoveries further show that evolution is not supported b

For many years, the Cambrian layer contained the oldest animal life ("oldest" in Darwinspeak years). Other bewildering fossils had been popping up here and there, but were a curiosity. More were being found over the years. After the century got itself a notion to turn, in 2004 that is, the Ediacaran geologic system was designated and the geologic record gained a new track. Vinyl record generated at Says-It The Ediacaran system has a variety of critters, but they seem to be all soft-bodied, and they didn't make much of an impression. Speculations and disagreements ensued (but they did not stop this writer from making baseless assertions mixed with "maybe" terminology to keep the evolution faith). Biblical creationists have some ideas involving the Genesis Flood model that should shed some light on the situation. We’ve all heard about one of the great mysteries in paleontology: dinosaurs. They disappear from the fossil record without a trace. The disapp

Remember that television series Seinfeld? Personally, I found the thing annoying, but it was a big hit in the ratings. It was about nothing , but had sub-plots and complications . Kind of like the Big Bang. Scientific evidence? Nothing. Lots of complicating factors and rescuing devices to keep the thing from jumping the corral fence, and the biggest fudge factor of all is dark matter. Bullet Cluster image credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/UCDavis/W.Dawson et al; Optical: NASA/STScI/UCDavis/W.Dawson et al. Since the Big Bang doesn't work, the invoke dark matter as a god of the gaps. (From that, astronomers, cosmogonists, cosmologists, theoretical astrophysicists and others have gone on to dream up dark energy, dark photons, dark...) Dark matter has never been seen, but cosmic evolutionists insist that this force awakens to comprise the overwhelming majority of the stuff of the universe. It can't be seen, but can it be proved to exist? Depends on who you ask, because these owlho

Proponents of spores-to-spectroscopist evolution like to tell biblical creationists how wrong we are, and they cite "evidence" from textbooks and the popular press. Those of us who have ridden the trail for a spell have seen numerous occasions where new discoveries in human origins cause turmoil for the hands at the Darwin Ranch. Modified from an image at Openclipart Time and again, there are troubles in evolutionary dogma where we read, essentially, "This changes everything, and we have to rewrite the evolutionary timeline". Even so, outdated and even false material shows up in textbooks, on documentaries, and especially on Internet posts by Darwinistas. They wouldn't have this problem if they didn't cling to their rebellion against the Creator and keep concocting false origins fantasies. Some of the latest problems involve Homo naledi, Homo floresiensis, and a really disturbing bit of news on Homo sapiens in Borneo, where they had just about everyth