Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This article is going to be mighty different from our usual fare. If you or someone you know is a lighthouse aficionado, the first part may prove interesting.  Warning beacons are ancient, ranging from open fires to building more permanent structures when possible. The most famous lighthouses of old include the Pharos of Alexandria, Egypt and the Tower of Hercules (which still exists, albeit with reconstructions and such). Rebuilding happened frequently throughout history, and many restorations are done even now. Smeaton Lighthouse at Eddystone The word "lighthouse" is often used generically because although they were lights, not every one had living quarters. Some were visited by the keepers. Also, that word has connotations of the famous big towers, but there were other kinds. Let's look at a few on the Hudson River. The "spark plug" tower at Tarrytown had living quarters. Look at the  Saugerties Lighthouse , it strongly resembles a ho

We continue the series by Dr. Tomkins of the Institute for Creation Research on geological layers, this time seeing problems presented by the Cretaceous to particles-to-paleontologist evolutionists. Slow and gradual transitions from simple to complex are just not happening. The lack of transitional forms was acknowledged by Charles Darwin to be a difficulty for his ideas, but he pressed on in the hope that maybe someday they would be found. Evolution is supposed to be built on evidence, not blind faith or wishful thinking. Edmontosaurus annectens by  Nobumichi Tamura  at Wikimedia Commons ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Despite their appearances in movies with the word "Jurassic" in their titles, some of the most famous dinosaurs are registered to vote in the Cretaceous. (Paleontologists are seeking rescuing devices while biblical creationists are celebrating soft tissues and more from these bad boys.) There is nothing to indicate evolution, they just suddenly appeared — which is yet anoth

Descent with modifications evolution is presented in sanitized versions, omitting or even misrepresenting inconvenient facts. Presenting both sides of the equation can get someone virtually horsewhipped, such as in this example . Sometimes, facts against evolution are glaringly obvious. (Out near the Darwin Ranch on Peach Road lives one of the workers who was driven insane by the truth. He keeps mumbling, then screaming, about living fossils.) Charles Darwin himself admitted that living fossils are one of many problems for his speculations. His acolytes are blowing smoke on the problem. Mostly made at PhotoFunia Presupposing deep time and assigning dates to fossils and rock layers, paleontologists find fossils of various organisms that are essentially unchanged from their living counterparts. They get tagged with the moniker living fossils . There's a passel of them, not just a few here and there. Since evolution is used to explain everything (logically fatuous, so it actually expl

Science is supposed to be about searching for knowledge, which includes forming ideas and testing them to see if they work. The process should thrive on examination and challenges. Unfortunately, the narrative of atheistic naturalism is more important than knowledge. Many of Darwin's disciples consider evolution a "fact" and "settled science". I am once again asking evolutionists why they need dishonesty, fraud, omission of pertinent data, and outright suppression of contrary views supporting this alleged fact. That is not the true spirit of science. Modified from an image furnished by Why?Outreach Charles Darwin knew that his theory had numerous flaws, but didn't want a bunch of sycophants propping up the thing. He wanted challenges and impartial discussion. Of course, he expected to prevail and make our Creator irrelevant despite the lack of evidence supporting his conjectures. One attempt at putting forward a rational view was shut down as "fake scie

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Many times, biblical creationists will post something about the Genesis Flood, then professing atheists get all fired up. Professing Christians who believe in an old Earth (especially theistic evolutionists) often saddle up and with misotheists against creationists. Their antics are vexatious. Often, self-appointed defenders of materialistic science comment on social(ist) media with personal insults, attacks on God and the Bible, etc. Occasionally they will form a posse comitatus  for a trolling raid. Creation science (and especially the Flood) are threats to deep time. The Man Made Mad by Fear / Gustave Courbet, 1844 We often get remarks that science has refuted the Flood. These owlhoots often find links that supports their preconceptions, post them, and pretend that they are "gotchas" to creation science Flood geology. What is omitted is the speculative nature of uniformitarian geology as well its problems. Years ago, the Bearded Buddha himself put

Down Arkansas way, they have an interesting state park called Crater of Diamonds . Folks might get a mental image of a hole full of sparkling diamonds, but the crater is volcanic, and people commence searching for raw, uncut diamonds. Some find them, too. Cut diamonds that go onto jewelry are mighty expensive, but you can buy a 15-carat raw diamond for about $400 USD in some places. The park has the usual old-Earth propaganda that satisfies the owners of the Darwin Ranch, but those are dead wrong. Digging at Crater of Diamonds State Park Image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Doug Wertman  ( CC BY 2.0 ) The Bearded Buddha needs deep time so he and his votaries can perform their magick, but the hands at the Darwin Ranch hate diamonds because they friendly to creation science . Not only does Crater of Diamonds State Park unwittingly have evidence that fits a Genesis Flood model, but diamonds themselves were tested and found to be a hostile witness to deep time. At Crater of Diamonds State Par

Centuries ago, someone in my workplace was coaxing the assistant manager to insult the crew. "Tell them what they are." "A bunch of nimrods !" "Uh, what's a nimrod?" Apparently you  are, Poindexter. Nimrod painting by David Scott, 1832, modified at PhotoFunia Nimrod, capitalized, was a "mighty hunter before the Lord" (Gen. 10:9), We will deal with serious matters soon. First how the name became an insult instead of a complement to a hunter has a murky history. Some say that Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck described Elmer Fudd, the mighty wabbit hunter, with " What a nimrod! " It was apparently sarcastic, and more modern phrasing might render it, "A nimrod. Not." The cartoons seemed to increase the popularity of nimrod denoting a stupid person, and many people have no idea of the original meaning. Ironically, there is evidence that this was not his real name, but rather, a  dysphemism  (using a disparaging word rather than the r