Piltdown Superman

Yes, I'll allow that the title is a bit grandiose, and philosophers of science have been wrangling about the subject for decades.  However, there are serious considerations raised by Christians regarding the controversial subject of human cloning — and secularists will give these scant attention. Especially on matters of morality and ethics. Credit: dream designs / FreeDigitalPhotos.net I'd be obliged if you'd ride with me on this little side trail a spell. Although there is no definitive proof that Sasquatch (Bigfoot) exists, several areas have made it illegal to shoot one . It may seem silly on the outset, but if you study on it, you'll see that there are actually good reasons to protect the beastie. One of these is the possibility is that some drunken jasper might shoot another person, maybe even another drunken jasper in a costume. Back to the main trail now, cloning itself has been advancing, especially with progress that has been made regarding genetics.

Excuse me while I check the status of my unregistered assault keyboard... okay, we're ready to continue bringing you evidence affirming creation and showing that there are many serious questions about minerals-to-materialist evolution. Ready? Theoretical astrophysicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss has made a name for himself on the owlhoot trail by promoting atheistic materialism and cosmic evolution by using sciencey words to promote irrational concepts. He believes that everything came from nothing, but redefines nothing as (my paraphrase here) something that we call nothing. He has written books that his followers (many of whom are disciples of Clinton Richard Dawkins, who also has much to say that has very little meaningful content) happily purchase and believe that they contain evidence for his views. That'll be the day! Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann Krauss has a book that seems to have borrowed from an epic film about Jesus, and called it The Greatest Story Ever Told — S

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A spell back, an anti-creationist shared one of these here posts to social media, and complained that I was claiming that evolution uses teleology. The article was " The Spirit of the Origin of Life " and showed how evolutionists themselves are using teleology! The misotheist was a mite upset because evolution is supposed to be through chance, and does not have a purpose-driven life. "What's teleology, Cowboy Bob?" Great timing, I was about to get into that. The word teleology sounds like the study of telecommunications or something, doesn't it? Basically, it means design in nature . Going a bit further, it means that the Creator engineered living things, and the design refutes evolution through intricate specified complexity. Christian apologists have used the teleological argument (or fine tuning, or argument from design ) for God's existence . This child isn't too fond of that argument by itself. Credit: US Depar

These winged wonders are found in the Western Hemisphere, and there are a lot of them, more than 325 species. Most are in the Southern United States, except those that see fit to migrate to parts far away. They have a range of sizes, such as the bee hummingbird that's, well, about the size of a bee. There's also the giant hummingbird ("giant" being a relative term), 9.1 inches (23 cm). Here's something I won't leave alone: if you have a hummingbird feeder, clean it often so you don't end up poisoning them (and don't use bleach!) , you savvy? Credit: Pixabay / luxlioness Creationists like hummingbirds. Not just because they're amazing, but also because they fustigate evolution. (Darwinists cannot explain their intricate specified complexity, and have to resort to the mysterium tremendum of evolution: they don't know how, but they evolved.) These little critters can move mighty fast when they want to, and have an extremely fast metabolism

Proponents of universal common ancestor evolution have a great deal of difficulty when it comes to explaining the intricacies of sight. You'll get a passel of speculations sans evidence and models, and even a dodge, such as, "The human eye is poorly designed, therefore, evolution". So, uninformed evolutionists want to deny the Creator, and inadvertently admit that evolution does a poor job of causing the eye to happen. Sure, Poindexter, keep deceiving yourself with that pile of bad science . Things do not get better for you. Rangifer tarandus credit: US National Park Service (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Way up yonder in the northern polar areas is a caribou (also called the reindeer) that has a neat trick: the eyes change color. No, not quickly, but in winter and summer. They have a golden hue in the summer, and blue in the winter. This is due to a complex arrangement of factors involving light wavelength, eye structure, reflectivity, and so

As we have pointed out before, pompous Darwinists studied some of the human genome, did not understand certain aspects, and labeled them as "junk" DNA — especially if they did not code for proteins. This reaction became zombified, reappearing time and again to make strong men faint and women scream. And this is in the science lab. Okay, so I exaggerate a mite, but with additional research comes additional embarrassment for arrogant evolutionary scientists who spoke from evolutionary assumptions and without knowledge. The transcription of information into RNA is pervasive. There are different sections with different functions, including long non-coding RNA, lncRNA. There's a heap of the stuff, and it has very precise functions that are being analyzed. No, scientists do not understand the genome yet, but progress has been made. The genome testifies of the ingenuity of our Creator, and frustrates evolutionary speculations. In addition, some scientists in biomedical gen

From a materialistic standpoint, the origin of sex is puzzling, and has been so for decades. According to universal common ancestor evolution, the goal for living things is to survive and pass on their genes to the next generation. Not a heap of personal fulfillment or purpose there, really. So why sexual reproduction? Seems like asexual reproduction is the most efficient from an evolutionary standpoint. Credit: Clker clipart In addition to secularist science deniers that believe someone's sex can be changed , others claim that gender is "fluid", and point to the animal world. A few creatures actually change gender, but this is done because there is a reproductive need, not a personal identity or desire for recreation. They are animals, so comparing them with us is a bit silly. Other critters have the option to lay eggs or give live birth, and there are other baffling reproductive procedures in the animal kingdom. For sexual reproduction between a male and a female