Piltdown Superman

The duckbilled platypus is presented as evidence for evolution, and Darwinists actually do this with a straight face. Although they assert that evolution happened, I lack belief and need convincing. When the critter was first discovered in 'Straya and shipped to the UK, the Brit scientists thought they were being pranked because it looks like several things put together. I've long maintained that the bigger prank is from God himself, who created it just to put a burr under evolutionists' saddles. Modified image from Openclipart Kind of like an otter, bill like a duck (that detects electrical impulses), the male's hind legs that have a venomous spur ( not lethal to healthy humans ), it lays eggs but is a mammal — and it's the poster boy for evolution? The fact is, evolutionists have never been able to explain it. Sure, they have excuses, and I've had people try to slap leather with me by throwing out links to propaganda sites — and it's just propagand

The book of Job is considered by most scholars to be the oldest book of the Bible. (It may have been written during or shortly after the Ice Age, since there are some icy references given in this Middle Eastern book.) There are a couple of creatures that God discusses that many biblical creationists believe are dinosaurs, the behemoth and the leviathan . (No, not the "leviathan" from the "Dark Shadows" television series .) This bad boy was a really ornery cuss, and nobody in his right mind wanted to get him riled. Sarcosuchus may have been the leviathan, image credit: Wikimedia Commons / ArthurWeasley Fortunately, we haven't seen hide nor hair (hair?) of him for a mighty long time, but it's the hide that interests us today. God's sarcastic questioning of Job described the leviathan's bad temper and how it was pretty much impervious to spears and hooks . There are creatures living today (maybe some are leviathan's descendants) that have

It's downright amazing sometimes to see proselytizers of worm-to-welder evolution using things that have nothing to do with their paradigm getting all excited about their lack of evidence. It's unscientific and disingenuous when these owlhoots claim that loss of traits (whether actual or inferred), or even no change, is support for their worldview. In the link provided below, we see that evolutionary scientists are going hog wild in Making Stuff Up™. They give credit to evolution for changes that have nothing to do with neo-Darwinism, and make evolution into an intelligent, choosing entity — which is the opposite of what evolution is all about. It's a huge amount of unnecessary work for the sake of denying the Creator credit for his work. Elephants pass on education for the purpose of survival, is that educational selection? The brilliant colors on spiders are the work of a mysterious evolutionary force, as if the spiders were able to see and manipulate colors at wi

According to common-ancestor evolutionists, their process is slow, with numerous gradual changes between forms. Papa Darwin said so, and they still believe it today. Problem is, there's no real supporting evidence in the fossil record. Sure, they'll trot out that reliable and unbiased source of scientific information called Wikipedia and say, "See? Here's a list of transitional fossils!" That'll be the day. Varieties and variations are not evidence of evolution, and there the few that are seriously considered to be transitional forms are disputed. There should be billions of transitional fossils, and Darwinists should be able to say, "Case closed". They can't do this, because their conjectures of evolution never happened, that's why the evidence is continually unfriendly to them. Instead, the evidence supports recent special creation. Two recent fossil finds are difficult for evolutionists to explain. One is an odd ichthyosaur, the ot

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