Piltdown Superman

To hear proponents of goo-to-gunslinger evolution talk, evolution is a random, unguided process. They also present it as something that has a kind of will and decision-making ability; a Gnostic-type demiurge, if you will. Evolution is also a sort of irresistible force — except when it isn't. The inconsistencies of the paradigm help illustrate the weakness of the paradigm. Amoeba lassoes a bacterium for chow. Image credit: CDC / Dr. Barry S. Fields , who are not endorsing these here contents Some Darwinoids got themselves all agitated when a multicellular fossils was found and dated way, way back yonder. Dubious dating methods aside, there are still some basic questions that evolutionists are unable to answer: how and why would unicellular organisms have any need of evolving? These organisms are getting along right well, and even if you give evolutionists the existences of unicellular organisms (including abiogenesis to start the whole life thing going), they cannot expla

Microbes-to-Medical Doctor evolution requires a prairie schooner full of random mutations that need to be beneficial to each and every organism, but they're difficult to find, and not necessarily helpful after all. Some mutations are neutral, most are harmful, and some are considered "beneficial". (The CCR5-delta32 mutation was at first thought to be very beneficial, but it was later discovered to be associated with a potentially life-threatening liver disease.) "Beneficial" is in the eye of the beholder's agenda. One example touted by Darwinistas is sickle-cell anemia , which sometimes gives a person resistance to malaria. They conveniently ignore the fact that it's still anemia and often fatal. My upper left arm is sore, which reminds me... On the day I'm writing up this here post for y'all, I went to the doctor. (Blood pressure is up, but I'm sure that the doctor is an attractive woman has nothing to do with it.) I also got my flu shot

Something that biblical creationists freely admit is that events in the past cannot be observed, tested, or measured. Although secularists want people to believe that Earth is ancient, they have to admit to the same thing about the past. What's a scientist to do? Present an idea and see if it fits the data. Better yet, have a kind of model to go with it. Modified from images found at Clker clipart Biblical creationists have long pointed out that if we take the current decay rate of Earth's magnetic field, it would have been long gone before now, and we'd have nothing to protect us from solar radiation and so forth. If we work backward, the magnetic field would be impossibly strong. Either way, Earth could not be 4-1/2 billion years old. Long age proponents came up with various rescuing devices, the most famous of which seems to be the dynamo model. One model test gave an upper limit of 700 million years, which puts a burr under the saddle of long agers. The problem

There is a featured article here, and links follow to additional material. Secularists have been making a lot of noise in the press lately, whoopin' and hollerin' about a bit of amber that they claim contains a dinosaur feather. We should be used to this kind of unbridled excitement, and you'd think the advocates of particles-to-paleontologist evolution would have learned to slow down and examine all the facts before making grandiose proclamations. After all, they made silly claims about dinosaur feathers in the past, and made much about nothing with Nebraska Man  — among other follies. Image credit: Freeimages / Edwin Pijpe Amber is a product of trees (evergreens have it) that is similar to sap, but much thicker. When a tree is damaged, it secretes resin to cover the wound. Insects and other small critters would get trapped in the sticky stuff, and it fossilized into amber. (Yes, I said fossilized, even though it hasn't been permineralized.) People make jewel

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen I've previously written on the way people label other people . Sometimes it's a means of reference, but quite often it's a way of pigeonholing them to avoid listening to what they have to say, or even as a means of trying to control their speech. Labeling can also be a means of demonizing and manipulation. There's another approach that is similar to labeling that is quite popular: playing the card. Assembled using graphics from Openclipart and modified with Paint.Net There are several cards to "play" that, in the mind of the user, trump all other considerations . In the United States, it's common to hear someone "refute" a criticism, complaint, or even an observation regarding someone of a minority ethnic heritage and say, "You're a racist!" That's the race card. (Reading that a black leftist called a black conservative a racist may cause Cranial Keyboard Embedment Syndrome.) Don't want wome

It may come as a shock to some people, but there are certain things that biblical creationists and atheists agree on. One of those is the rejection of knowledge, but we come at this concept from different directions. Atheists have materialistic presuppositions, and biblical creationists have (or should have) Bible-based presuppositions. It's interesting that Clinton Richard Dawkins would say that those of us who reject evolution fall into four categories: ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked. Seriously? Many brilliant and sane people reject evolution, so that leaves the possibility of wicked to consider. He's assuming that his naturalistic worldview regarding science somehow gives him insight into morality. There are atheist tinhorns who call biblical creationists "evil", but cannot justify their accusations. That's some mighty convoluted logic, old son. In fact, for an atheist to say something is wicked or wrong, he is tacitly appealing to the God that he k

It's not uncommon for an to come along and attack the Bible with prejudicial conjecture such as, "We can't believe the Bible, it was written by a bunch of illiterate Bronze Age goat herders!" If these owlhoots bothered to do their homework, they'd know that the Bible was written by people from a variety of occupations, including kings and highly-educated men as well as peasants. Maybe two or three were sheep and goat herders, but not "a bunch". Also, it's easy to laugh at these proponents of "reason" who add the "illiterate" part. Uh, if they were illiterate, they didn't exactly write anything, did they, pilgrim? Throwing in the words "fairy tales" in their attack probably gets them bonus points with their friends. More important than the ignorance of arrogant atheopaths is the fact that they are arguing from materialistic and naturalistic presuppositions. Terms like "Bronze Age" and so on are made up to

It should be safe to say that good music is not boring, and has elements to keep the listener's attention. Typically, songs have a beat, melody, harmony, and other elements. (Except the stuff that the strange woman in the upstairs apartment plays.) Jazz offers improvisation , composing and innovating on the spot. Real music is quite intricate. Image credit: Pixabay / sandid , modified with Clker clipart on Paint.Net Music and creativity are baffling enough for Darwinists , but it gets worse for them because our alleged cousins lack such skills. You cannot say to an ape, "Hey, Kala! Give us a song. How about one of the lullabies you sang to Tarzan?" Can't happen, old son. To make matters worse for evolutionists, birds (which are not closely related to us in Evo-Speak) have intricate and innovative musical abilities. This further shows that our Creator gave special abilities that show no signs of evolution. A recent paper by an international team of researcher

According to my clock on the mantlepiece, the universe is somewhere around 14 billion years old, give or take a few million years. Our solar system (and therefore, Earth itself) is around 4.5 billion years old. But my clock is set to secular timekeeping and not observed data. Image credits: NASA / JPL-Caltech / Space Science Institute That planet next out yonder after Jupiter, whaddya call it — "That's Saturn". I like the name, has a nice ring to it. Saturn has several rings, and they are showing signs that, according to secular deep-time reckoning, are quite a bit younger than the planet itself. Computer models are giving some wild notions, but the results are based on bad assumptions in the first place. For that matter, an exoplanet orbiting J1407 has a ring system that are going the "wrong" way. Big deal. It happens. But scientists have come up with some ad hoc "maybe an ancient catastrophe" made things go opposite what is expected. Wha

It's fascinating and even fun to see the intricacy of God's handiwork and beauty he's provided. But he also made some things that are dreadfully ugly — and least by human standards . At least they find each other attractive. One of these is called the hagfish, and it's blind. The hagfish doesn't seem to mind lack of vision, it can get along right well. It's cousin the lamprey can see. And no, neither one of them are eels, they just look like them. Two similar fish, one is blind, one has sight. Proponents of minerals-to-moray evolution claim that the hagfish's blindness is an intermediate state of eye evolution, but fossils filleted that idea: hagfish fossils show eyes just as developed as lamprey eyes. This wrecks one aspect of evolutionary storytelling, but they have can say the magic words , (in this case, "Convergent evolution") and bada bing, they have their rescuing device. Sorta. No evidence for what happened (or didn't happen) in