Piltdown Superman

Every once in a while, something so outrageous comes across the news feed and I want to cry out, "Who pays these jaspers?" But we already know the answer, because they are paid from grants and the secular science industry — much of this is our tax grotzits at work. Consider bioastrology — I mean, astrobiology. Perhaps this child is not right in the head, but it seems that a field of science needs something to study. Atheists and evolutionists have no evidence for their invisible friends (a position held by blind faith), but they take their pseudoscience seriously . Once again, there are unfounded speculations of life on Enceladus. Enceladus image credit:  NASA/JPL-Caltech/SSI/PSI Those plumes of methane may be signs of life in hydrothermal vents under a huge ice crust. While there are thermophiles (organisms that live in hot temperatures) on Earth, there is no reason to think they formed out yonder. Bioastrologers — there I go again, I mean astrobiologists — are ignoring scie

Through indoctrination classes, Darwinian propaganda documentaries, and other places, many people have heard of how peppered moths were solid evidence for evolution. Light moths on dark backgrounds became bird chow while dark moths did well. Indeed, H.B. Kettlewell said that the Bearded Buddha would have been happy to see this. However, Kettlewell was a #liar4darwin. Despite the fraud in his videos and photos, this fake news is still in textbooks. (So are the fraudulent embryonic recapitulation drawings by Haeckel the Jackal.) I am once again asking why, if there is so much solid evidence for the "fact" of evolution, do they need dishonesty to promote it? 1931 peppered moth image source: Flickr / Ben Sale  ( CC BY 2.0 ) As will be demonstrated in the following two articles, natural selection is not evolution . Was Kettlewell potted when he made his claim? There was no added genetic information, no vertical evolution — peppered moths did not evolve into something else. (A vi

As you probably know, biblical creationists believe the Bible indicates that Earth is only a few thousand years old. This is contrary to the atheistic naturalism narrative of 4-1/2 billion years. Radiometric dating cannot support that number without unwarranted assumptions , and evolutionary population genetics is even more ridiculous. Darwin's disciples have to play fast and loose with observed data to make it appear like their presuppositions are valid. Storytelling has its rewards because people obtain phony-baloney jobs — unlike having a degree in, say, history of art. Credit: RGBStock /  Sanja Gjenero Anyone making a hypothesis or model works from presuppositions, then attempts to see if data and testing bear them out. Creationists and evolutionists make assumptions. Using very conservative assumptions about population growth, it is easy to reach a figure consistent with today's population. For evolutionary views that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of y

When critiquing a theory, hypothesis, worldview, or whatever, it is necessary to see if it is logical and consistent within itself. Ideas of universal common ancestry evolution require that living things began as simple organisms and became more complex over time. This is consistent within itself. People with a worldview based on atheistic materialism must believe in evolution. However, observed evidence does not support evolution, and scientists frequently remark about being surprised at how findings do not fit the belief system. Pantolambda by Heinrich Harder, 1920, via Wikimedia Commons This is because they are locked into erroneous views, and we have seen many times that they try to evosplain away their predicaments. A recent post about cave women, DNA, and Neanderthals  shows how unyielding evolutionists are troubled by discoveries. Similarly, they presuppose that mammals of yesteryear were "primitive". Because evolution. Because dating methods. But examining what is kn

Many people, including Christians, erroneously believe that the age of the earth has been conclusively proven to be about 4-1/2 billion years old. Although serious mathematics is involved, the essence of the method is rather simple. Chip away a rocky outcropping and take a sample to the lab and ask them nicely (as well as paying a fee) for them to tell you its age. From there, you know the age of the earth. Just kidding, such a thing does not happen. Assembled and modified with components from Clker clipart The unstable radioactive element and the stable isotope in a rock are measured. The unstable decays and leaves the stable. Rate of decay and other factors are calculated to give the number of years. But that rock that you chipped away? Not happening, at least regarding Earth's age. Secularists and their churchian allies believe that rocks on the earth are not reliable indicators, so they assume meteorites are more pure, and calculate from those . There are other assumptions to

If you start in London town, it takes about twelve hours to drive to Loch Torridon, a place that got Darwinists all excited about fossils that look like tiny balls. (If you go to Kelso , that is the wrong way. People who start out there, however, still have almost six hours to drive.) Several science disciplines are involved in discussing these balls found in phosphate deposits, such as geology and biology. This ties in with their beliefs about the origin of life. Loch Torridon image credit: Freeimages /  Ceitidh MacMaster The articles we are going to examine has some technical material, and it is split in two parts. Evolutionists make a passel of presuppositions regarding the fossils that look like balls of cells. They evosplain that they are primitive, and that the ancestor of all living things (who never receives birthday cards or phone calls) was even more primitive. Well, that part is consistent with their views. It is becoming more frequent for scientists to find exceptionally we

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Having written thousands of posts and articles, and having shared even more at The Question Evolution Project and elsewhere, there have been several times I tried to provide information on negotiating posts and videos.  There are many available, and some are long.   This does not only apply to social media, but it is obvious that a wagon train-load of material is found there. The whole thing is a buffet of information: take what you like. As you can see here, material is offered that covers a wide variety of formats. How can someone make use of things? Background image: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann , ebook reader insert is my own A number of resources I have used are going to be mentioned. For your own sake and mine, use discretion. A site that was safe for me yesterday may not be safe for you today. Probably, but no guarantees. First, the Basics The most obvious course of action is to save the link as a bookmark/favorite in your browser. However, things can get over