Piltdown Superman

When scientists first sequenced the human genome, they were working from their evolutionary presuppositions and using inferior equipment. They also made mistakes, and there is a problem with inaccurate results from contamination. Their "junk DNA" assumptions have been debunked. Credit: CSIRO/ Garry Brown  ( CC by 3.0 ) (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Since scientists could not find a use for some parts of the genome, they called it "junk", leftover from our alleged evolutionary past. Creationists said all along that the stuff is not junk, and eventually were proved right because many functions have been discovered. Sad for Darwinists, because they need  the so-called junk to support their ideas. The usefulness of introns  has also been doubted. How about going to something simpler for testing? Yeast is good for this. The genome only has 295 introns, after all, so yeast is easier to study. Research showed that introns are also valuable. B

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen It has been said that an atheist cannot find God for the same reason that a thief cannot find a police officer. In a similar way, atheists, evolutionists, and other believers in an old earth cannot see evidence for biblical creation and the young earth because they are unwilling to look for it.  I know of some tinhorns who were ridiculing a biblical creation science conference that was going to be happening in their area. One said that  he knows what they're going to say .  Credit: Freeimages /  Will Thomas In another instance, I was included in spam mailings and responses where an owlhoot was promoting his Bible-denying articles. Someone sent him a passel of links to which he responded, "I haven’’t [sic] got time to read your twaddle". (Ironically, the sender was another biblical creation science denier, and the recipient was too bigoted to find out for himself, hence the unthinking reaction.) One of the atheopath mantras conjured up by Cl

A few days ago, I rode into town and saw that both Rusty Swingset (the ramrod at the Darwin Ranch) and my prospector friend Stormie Waters also happened to be there for supplies. We sat down in the saloon to talk about things, and we found ourselves discussing paleosols. Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Francesco Malucelli ( CC by-SA 2.5 ) Well, even though Rusty and I are supposed to know about such things (he tried to evosplain them), Stormie was the one giving us the education. Paleosols are supposedly soils that had been formed a passel of Darwin years ago and then buried by volcanic activity, sediments, and the like. They supposedly give an indication of climate a long time ago.  Paleosols were originally thought to be rare and took a long time to form, but both of those ideas are incorrect. While creation scientists need to investigate them further, there is some doubt that paleosols are buried soils in the first place. During the Genesis Flood, we see things like mudstone a

There are a few icons of old earth geology that proponents tout as conclusive evidence of great age, therefore the biblical timelines and records are wrong. One of these is counting the layers in ice cores, where each layer is assumed to be annual. Actually, the ice sheets are young and support biblical creation science Flood models. Perito Moreno Glacier, Argentina image credit: Unsplash/ Miriam Duran The dating methods used on the ice cores are fundamentally flawed, and calibration is based on circular reasoning . "Annual" layers are not necessarily annual, as there are reasons for multiple layers in one year. Also, these layers are thinner at greater depths. There is evidence that correlates with the Genesis Flood models that includes layers and residue from volcanic eruptions. Ever been to the Gamburtsev Mountains? Probably not, as they are buried under Antarctic ice sheets. That's a whole heap of weight, plus grinding and erosion. Uniformitarian geologists

Believers in old earth geology believe in uniformitarianism, where gradual processes in the present are the key to the past. As we have seen here numerous times, this belief system is far from being rock solid. Secularists can no longer use mudstones and mudrocks as evidence against creation science Flood models. Mudstone boulder image credit: NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) It has been known for several years now that the prevailing mudstone formation idea that they can only form in still waters. Instead, mudstones can form in rapidly moving water, and do it quickly. This fact supports Genesis Flood models. New research shows that these star rocks can form even more quickly than secular scientists had reckoned. One of the most common sedimentary rocks can form a hundred times faster than previously thought. In 2007, geologists learned that their theory for mudstones was incorrect. Mudstones—the most common

While you do not have to be an atheist to believe in fish-to-fool evolutionism, it helps. Some owlhoots think they can merge the Bible and evolution (giving evolution precedence), but this is folly. The religion of atheism  requires biological, chemical, cosmic, and other evolution concepts for its mythology of origins. These, in turn, require deep time, which necessitates the defenestration of logic and science. In reality, evolutionism is intended to be a replacement  for God. Original image: Pixabay/ Peter Fischer Back in 2005 at the "Dover Trial", a judge ruled that evolution is "good science" and does not conflict with religion. This remark got evolutionists on the prod. It is interesting that atheopaths believe this ruling in a backwater borough by an incompetent, coached, biased judge somehow proves that the Intelligent Design movement is creation science in disguise. The ruling has no effect on anyone else. Meanwhile, when we point out that the US Sup

This post contains some direct material, but it is biological, not salacious. We have seen how Darwinists make claims that something is "poorly designed", therefore, evolution. (This is self-defeating, because chance cannot produce something better that the subjects they question.) Their claims are refuted upon examination. We can add the male reproductive system to the list. Credit: Freeimages/ Erik Araujo I could say that I have no complaints, and have children to prove that it works. People who know about logical fallacies should be able to see how that one is wrong, and the same bad reasoning has been used to support evolution. One secularist complaint is that since testicles are outside the body and not on the inside (such as with reptiles), this is bad design. That is a very superficial "argument" based on opinion, not scientific facts. Naturalists have made bland assertions about things like "junk" DNA, vestigial organs/structures, and more