Piltdown Superman

Charles Darwin had a wagon train-load of ideas that he presented but did not have supporting evidence. As time goes on and science develops, evolution has many scientists offering conjectures, but are not offering credible reasons to accept such concepts. They believe by faith in science of the gaps, that maybe someday evidence will be found. That's not science, pilgrim. Welwitchia credit: Wikimedia Commons / Muriel Gottrop ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) One of Papa Darwin's biggest annoyances was the origin of flowering plants. Some evolutionists think they've partially solved the mystery by using circular reasoning and assumptions involving "a rather original gymnosperm called Welwitschia mirabilis". The plant lives in desert conditions and can survive for a thousand years. So, why evolve? Well, maybe to stop being so ugly, but that's ju st my opinion. Still, no sign of evolution. That's because plants were created and not the product of Darwinian hallucinatio

Clinton Richard Dawkins claimed in The Blind Watchmaker that “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”. You don't need your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™ to see that this is nonsensical. (My ring even has a one-note whistle on it. It annoys Basement Cat.) Anyway, notice that he inserted his own opinion in the way he defined biology, and believes that even though things appear designed, that is not the case. Livescience does not seem to share that opinion, but they do pay homage to Darwin, what with being a secular site and all. In the movie Duck Soup, Chicolini asked Mrs. Teasdale , "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" That makes me want to ask who you're going to believe, the pronouncements of evolutionists, or your own sensibilities? Credit: Pixabay / HeatherPaque We see a great deal of science supporting creation and refuting slime-to-slumlord evolution, and how both crea

Interesting how believers in deep time have shallow standards — two of them. It was a joke when creationists suggested that one means animals used to spread around the world was through "rafts" , but it was all right when evolutionists saddled up and rode along. The disputed research of Barry Setterfield into the slower speed of light received ridicule from secularists , but when Big Bang proponents postulate a varying speed of light , that's science. See? Just two examples of their double standards. Credits: Modified from Pixabay / CandaceHunter with NASA/ESA The Big Bang concept has never worked. Whenever a "yeah, but..." objection was raised, a rescuing device was sewn on, such as inflation, dark matter, dark energy, dark lady , dark whatever, other odd things; the original Big Bang has little resemblance to the patchwork quilt that is presented as cosmological "science" today. Much of this has to do with the horizon problem, which continua

Seems a mite interesting that some words have fallen by the wayside to some extent, then became somewhat reinvented for use in modern technology. F'rinstance, the first time I came across the word browser, I associated it with going shopping: "Can I help you?"..."No, just browsing". For that matter, the concept of identity theft existed since way back when (think of the pseudepigrapha ), but the actual phrase is fairly recent. A password is something you type for certain kinds of computer access, but was spoken for access to a Prohibition -era speakeasy , and back even further in the olden days. The word hijack may have originated during Prohibition as well. Someone driving a load of illegal hooch has someone come up and say, "Hi, Jack", shove a smoke wagon in his face, then make off with the booze for his own speakeasy. Later, hijacking was associated with taking over airlines, and also what Darwinists do to science. "Have you been drink

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen First of all, I'll allow that I'm biased regarding Bill Nye the Scientism Guy (like so), because of his atheistic anti-creation activism, abuse of logic, and militant advocacy for his version of global climate change. Even so, I shall endeavor to be as objective as I can in this article about the unofficial "second debate" between Nye and Ken Ham at the Ark Encounter [ 1 ]. I was annoyed while watching it, and one time, a Nye fallacy actually made me LOL. A bit of background is in order. Bill Nye made vituperous attacks on creationism, and against Answers in Genesis in particular. Two AiG scientists challenged him to a debate [ 2 ], especially Dr. Georgia Purdom. He ignored them. Is it because "the Science Guy" is not an actual scientist? He earned a Bachelor of Science, but went no further in his formal education. [ 3 ] Eventually, the formal Ham-Nye debate was established [ 4 ]. I wrote an article about it, which included several

In a January 2017 article, atheist Michael Shermer offered suggestions on dealing with people who are not convinced by the facts, preferring to cling to their worldviews. Interesting that owlhoots like Shermer consider atheism the embodiment of logic and reason, yet demonstrate disdain for actually using logic and reason. It's not a matter of facts, but of interpretations of facts. Modified from Freeimages / Kenn Kiser People can assert things they consider to be facts, such as, "St. Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland ", or, "St. Patrick used the shamrock to illustrate the Trinity ". Sorry, Seamus, those are legends that people consider factual. Going further, someone can claim, "This fossil is fifty million years old, that's a fact." Nope. It's an interpretation of the evidence based on presuppositions. Atheists and evolutionists interpret evidence while wearing their Darwin spectacles that distort what they understand. People

Like so many other tales told by proponents of common-ancestor evolution, the lineage of the snake has been weak at best. For the most part, fossils of snakes have been quite a bit like snakes that are living today. A few fossils have been presented as transitional forms, but not without controversy among evolutionists. Credit: US National Park Service The wild-eyed science press, in their ongoing quest for sensational stories (and to bolster the secular science industry), has been mighty unhelpful by leaving out pertinent details and presenting fake science images. Further, one of the fossils shows what appear to be hind legs. I can't rightly recollect a snake doing any strolling these days, just slithering. Yet some evolutionists insist that a loss of features is evidence of advancing upward evolution. Not hardly! That's devolution. The great irony for secularists is that the fossils actually affirm creation. Until early 2015, the ‘earliest’ date reported for a fo