Piltdown Superman

Going to have to use expensive words in this post, especially since the subject is rather technical. A chimera is a mythological creature made of multiple parts. Depending on the myth it would have the head of a lion, snake tail, and the body of a goat. This word has been incorporated into biological and medical sciences involving ethical considerations regarding biological tampering . Chimaera image credit: Wikimedia Commons / ArthurWeasley That was the easy part of the vocabulary. Now we move on to microchimerism, and you can see micro in there as well as chimera , but adding -ism does not make it into a religion. Instead, it is a rapidly-developing area of study for women's health. Simply put, it is male DNA in a woman's body, had has a great deal to do with fetal development. God's ideal for marriage and procreation is one man and one woman . T he DNA is found in father, mother, and child , which includes a woman having multiple fathers for her children, and a

The series continues on how Darwin's externalism has interfered with scientific investigation on living organisms, and evolutionists give credit to nature for changes real and imagined. Engineered complexity is the opposite and arguably more scientific approach. Now we need to look at some additional factors. Credit: Pixabay / Adi Rahman Materialistic scientists are frequently surprised at what is found in nature. Organisms adapt, and do it quickly, but Darwinism requires huge amounts of time and assumes that conditions are the primary factors. While conditions are important, the best approach is to see that organisms adapt because they were designed by the Master Engineer to do so. Anti-creationists often lie about biblical creationists that our argument is "GodDidIt", so there is no need to investigate further. Yet evolutionists essentially say "NatureDidIt", and even personify nature in a kind of pantheistic view. No, both camps want to know how som

Proponents of fish-to-farrier evolution find the subject of dinosaur soft tissues distasteful, and I've even seen some outright deny that they exist! Others tried to downplay and ignore them, but they're here — and they're spoiling Darwin's party. It shouldn't be a surprise to learn that Darwin's disciples are loathe to have dinosaur fossil tissue tested for carbon-14. After all, that would mean their deep time presuppositions are wrong. No soft tissues in this bad boy, he's entirely concrete. Credit: Library of Congress / Carol M. Highsmith Several years ago, radio host Bob Enyart offered to pay $23,000 USD to Jack Horner, the paleontologist without an earned degree , to test his T. rex fossil for C-14. He declined . Other evolutionists have resisted having specimens carbon-14 tested as well. If you dig out your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™, you'll get, "We can't handle the truth!" That is, there would be further eviden

There was a time when education meant equipping students for the future. This included lectures, learning from books, debating, listening to lectures that would challenge their thinking, and more. Now we have "safe spaces" where the darlings can feel safe, and they are spoon-fed information that conforms to ideologies. This is a good way to protect evolution from scrutiny and logical thinking. Generated at Add Letters The politically/culturally correct movement is useful to suppress free speech, and is frequently advantageous for political and moral leftists. Evolution is the reigning paradigm in government-run educational centers (as well as liberal religious schools), and the very idea that Darwin's views are not supported by scientific evidence is harshly suppressed. (It interferes with their materialistic indoctrination.) Perhaps academics and students realize that if they have to admit there is a Creator, they have to also come to terms with what he has to say.

Rocks falling through the sky can be interesting, and those quick streaks of light indicate for us that a meteor burned up in the atmosphere. Most burn up, and tons of dust lands on Earth. No, they don't know quite how much, but it's a lot. When rocks do not burn up and actually reach the ground, then they're called meteorites. Big ones are rare, so there's no call to be worrying about them. Meteor image credit: NASA (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Meteorites have a lot to tell us. (No, they don't talk, and if you're hearing talking meteorites, I'll observe you from a safe distance.) We can learn from meteorites by studying them, especially the chemical composition. Secular geologists presuppose that they are the best things to use for obtaining the age of the earth through unreliable radiometric dating methods because they're not from Earth. Creationary scientists also have hypotheses about our planet's age that differ g

Believers in evolution and deep time get on the prod when soft tissues are discussed, mainly because they cannot exist over millions of Darwin years. Lately, the most frequent discussion on soft tissues involves dinosaurs, but they are found in other areas, such as the ink in a fossil ink sac that was used to draw a picture . In a similar manner to soft tissues, fossil plants are not cooperating with the evolution narrative. Gingko leaves in autumn, Wikimedia Commons / Joe Schneid  ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Even after the alleged millions of years, original plant molecules and chemical bonds were found — and a term that brings the concept of entropy to mind, thermodynamic stability, was used. Worse for Darwin's disciples, plant material was essentially unchanged between those in the fossils and living counterparts. I reckon that the term living fossils may be applicable here. Yee ha boy howdy, evolutionists were frustrated twice in one study! Truth is, the earth is not billions of ye

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen We've seen several times before that evolution was not the brainchild of Charles Darwin, and had been around since way back when. It is actually an ancient pagan religion , and had received some "scientific" adjustments before Darwin became its chief popularizer . Darwin's disciples revere him as a "great scientist", as well as the other 19th century propagandists for evolutionism. Except that most were not scientists at all! Many creationists point out that Darwin had no formal scientific training, and was actually a backslidden theology student. (I'll allow that he did make some good observations while learning in the field, however.) We also point out that old earth advocate Charles Lyell was a lawyer. Several others that influenced Darwin and the revival of evolutionism had no scientific training. "That's not quite fair, Cowboy Bob. Geosciences are comparatively new, so they weren't giving away those