Piltdown Superman

Votaries of minerals-to-monk evolution generally accept the view promulgated by Darwin that evolution is the result of external "pressures". These cause organisms to adapt and evolve very slowly, eventually turning into something else. Some owlhoots support evolution through fake science and bad papers that often go unnoticed. Creation science, meanwhile, presents reality: designed, targeted, rapid adaptations programmed by the Master Engineer. Assembled and modified using components from Clker clipart and Paint.NET Instead of external influences on organisms, evidence supports the continuous environmental tracking model. Things change, and they do it far more quickly than Darwin's disciples want. How about the showshoe hare? We know that it changes color from white to brown, and then back again. The change has changed as well according to the environment. Some evolutionists are admitting that things change quickly. Then they deal from the bottom of the deck

The articles linked here should have more appeal to people with physics and mathematics background. Secular physicists have been attempting to salvage their Big Bang concepts, but they only have theoretical constructs, not experimental support. The Higgs boson was thought to be a way to hitch a new team of mules to the old wagon, but that did not work so well. In fact, some scientists speculated that the universe should not even exist . Later, they came up with supersymmetry (SUSY) , where bosons and fermions would find their superpartners . Guess they could dance the night away. They don't know SUSI like I know SUSI. Dance in the City , Pierre-Auguste Renoir, 1883 It was hoped that experiments at CERN would help lonely particles find their partners and help salvage the dark matter concept (the other team of mules hitched to the wagon for rescuing the failed Big Bang), and also the string theory ideas. Nope. For more about those subjects, see " SUSY is not the solutio

Here in these United States, we have laws against monopolies and racketeering. Sometimes they are even enforced. Unfortunately, since secular humanism (atheism, really) is the de facto state religion here and in other parts of the world, and monopolies on information cannot be restrained, evolutionary thought is mostly unchallenged. Especially in secular science publications, as even a hint of Darwin doubt is intolerable . Background image furnished by Why?Outreach On rare occasions, the censorship against creationists and Intelligent Design proponents is lifted enough so that something not overtly threatening to evolution is allowed for publication. But if those same folks knock at the science department's front door and says, "I have some science that challenges Darwin and/or deep time", then it's "Katie, bar the door!" and Darwin's disciples scurry away through the escape tunnel in the storage room. Meanwhile, creationists have to use their ow

One benefit of writing up these here posts is that I get a prairie schooner-full of education on all sorts of sciences. It is actually rather fun. In this case, a couple of new words to describe rapid geological deposits — and they do not appear in older geology dictionaries. Seismite photo from Wikimedia Commons / Mark A. Wilson If you think on it a spell, you can see the roots of these words. One is tempestites, because deposits were made by storms (tempests), and the other is a word for what we're going to look at right here, seismites (shaped by earthquakes). Secular and creationist geologists agree that plate tectonics occur. However, secularists are married up with deep time and uniformitarianism, so they cannot explain how plate tectonics even began. Creation science can tell them, but secularists don't like the concept of catastrophic plate tectonics, even though the Genesis Flood is the best explanation for plate tectonics . Continents get to careening down

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Darwinists keep refuting themselves in the foot by attempting to define intangible things with empirical methods. This time, they are trying again to grapple with morality, specifically with lying. Why do we do it, when is it wrong, when is it right, and (get out your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™) how lying evolved.  Composed at Image Chef Keep in mind that these sidewinders have hijacked science to promote pantheistic evolutionism, and are living up to their abysmal standards such as "survival of the fittest" and "the end justifies the means" (especially in science education , why lying is acceptable). Since they are materialists, things like logic, the soul, and morality cannot be determined through their systems. By doing so, they are riding onto the Metaphysics Trail and outside of the empirical sciences they claim to uphold. Let's take a side trail of our own, if'n y'all don't mind. What is lying? S

When watching movies where indigenous people were attacking, hunting, or driving off enemies, I noticed something resembling a long trough used to launch a dart, arrow, or spear. Seemed silly to me, just throw the spear. I was dreadfully wrong on that. Although it looked awkward, the tool became an extension of the arm and gave more power to the projectile. This made it possible for womenfolk and young'uns to get into the act. When you had a group of people on the prod who were skilled in using those tools, you'd better get out of Dodge mighty quick-like! Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Richard Keatinge ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) I was uncomfortable using a photo where people could be recognized, so I blurred the facts even though the original image does not do this. There are several names and styles, and simple enough that you can make your own atlatl . Interesting that these spear-throwing devices are very similar, and can be found in 'Straya and the Americas, among other pla

Secular astronomers and a few vacillating creationists believe in that elusive stuff called dark matter. It supposedly makes up the overwhelming majority of the stuff in the universe, but dark matter has never been seen, nor has any evidence for its existence been decisively indicated. I'll allow that some astronomers insist that dark matter has been indicated, but they set up a consequent to affirm and ignore other possibilities for explanations. Image credits: Credit: X-ray: NASA /CXC/Univ of Missouri/M.Brodwin et al; Optical: NASA/STScI; Infrared: JPL/Caltech (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Many tests for dark matter have been set up, but they keep jumping the fence. An 80-day experiment by Chinese scientists was a spectacular failure where the PandaX detector thumbed its nose at researchers. They get mighty disappointed when failing to detect something that probably doesn't exist in the first place. Cosmic evolution fails again. Since dark