Piltdown Superman

A huge problem for evolutionary cosmologists is the formation of Earth's moon. Several theories have been put forward that seem somewhat plausible at a glance, but have fallen apart with further scrutiny. Even the newest (fifth) hypothesis is already on the verge of being ejected . Of course (and as usual), the most logical conclusion is one that best fits the facts, but evolutionists do not want to consider that  possibility. So, the Man in the Moon is having a good laugh at their expense... For the past 200 years, scientists have been working hard to come up with an explanation for the Moon's formation that does not involve the direct work of a Creator. The fourth hypothesis in that  the Moon was formed by the impact upon Earth of a body the size of Mars . Early this year it was  proved to be wrong by new evidence . A fifth hypothesis has quickly taken its place! You can read about the five theories, why they fail and the best conclusion at " Another Lunar Formati

Many people are familiar with the carnivorous plant known as the Venus flytrap. Kids like to poke it to watch the "jaws" snap shut, or feed it raw hamburger — both activities are bad for it , however. It's that snapping shut in 1/10th of a second that is the main puzzler. Venus flytraps, morgueFile / xianstudio It is not mechanical, so there are no wires, pulleys and things like that. And it is not an animal, so there are no muscles to make it close . Yet, scientists are working on biomimetics  because they believe that this plant inspires them to intelligently design imitation s of its actions. But they cannot figure out how (or why!) it allegedly evolved. The Venus flytrap remains one of the most intriguing plants in the world.  What makes it snap shut in a tenth of a second?  Can we imitate its motion without muscles, wires or batteries? A press release from the American Physical Society’s Division of Fluid Dynamics sets up the questions: Plants lack m

morgueFile/xandert (modified)  No scientist is neutral regarding data (despite the claims of Darwin's Cheerleaders). Everyone has a starting point. Creation scientists have long pointed out flaws and inconsistencies in radiometric dating. Evolution scientists obtain inconsistent results that are cherry-picked to fit their uniformitarian, fundamentally flawed presuppositions. Scientists put forward models and ideas and see if the data support them. Creationists from the RATE Project have been frustrating uniformitarian scientists . But they are not in lockstep on their models or their findings, and are continuing their investigations and analyses. Radiometric dating is  still a faulty argument  against biblical history.  Naturalistic geolo­gists often  “cherry-pick” dates  they deem appropriate to their particular studies.  Carbon-14  has been found in coal and diamond samples  supposedly be billions of years old , even though the half-life of  14 C is only 5730 years. The

morgueFile/JulesInKY So let me get this straight: A certain section of DNA was studied, some of it was understood, and then whatever else that was not analyzed or not understood was classified as "junk". Got it. Pretty arrogant, innit? We have seen that so-called "junk DNA" has clawed its way out of its premature grave and is humiliating evolutionary scientists who are finding out that the "junk" is useful after all . As proponents of Intelligent Design as well as biblical creationists have said all along, there is a purpose for it. Secular biology, intelligent design, and creationist communities are abuzz with the recently reported data from 30 simultaneously published high-profile research papers in the field of human genomics, proclaiming that the human genome is irreducibly complex and intelligently designed. From an evolutionary perspective, this is a massive blow to the myth of “junk DNA.” A large-scale international research effort,

Secular Humanism is a religion.  Evolution is religious in nature. It looks like the UK is forcing adherence to a state religion, and evolutionism is a cornerstone.  "Stop that, Cowboy Bob! Evolution is about science!"   An evolutionist disagrees:  ‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.' — Michael Ruse The four biggest bigot groups in the UK are at it again. They already forced the teaching of orig

morgueFile/chamomile This rather short article on the ability of penguins to zip through the water is quite interesting. There are several intricate features that show how they are designed for what they do — and do it quickly. Penguins are fast swimmers, but they shouldn't be. As they rocket themselves through the water and onto overlying ice shelves, the drag of water friction is supposed to be too great. Researchers familiar with recent attempts to use air as a lubricant for ships noticed air bubbles jacketing penguins during their boisterous ascents, and that led them to question if penguins use air to accelerate underwater. National Geographic recently reported on how Bangor University biologist Roger Hughes, inspired by a 2001 BBC documentary that featured emperor penguins leaping out of the water, partnered with an engineer in Denmark and two other researchers to investigate how the penguins could do this. Their results appeared in the journal  Marine Ecology Progr

 The more we learn about real science, the more evolutionary theory suffers for it. To protect their faulty worldview, evolutionary scientists and publicists need to "spin" the data. That is, the make excuses and manufacture transparent explanations that do not fool anyone except fundamentalist evolutionists and the willingly galactically gullible. Library of Congress The spin is extremely noticeable in regards to the newest discoveries in genetics (such as their humiliation about "junk" DNA ) and unique genes. The pusillanimity regarding the raw facts is distressing. You’ve heard of novel genes—genes that are found in only one species, and you’ve heard of alternative splicing—complex genes that are edited in different ways. Now put them together and on steroids, and to top it off, all in a mere unicellar algae. It’s another damage control nightmare as evolutionists again can’t figure out what went wrong. The explosion in molecular biology in the past

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Here is a "sorta" sequel to this post . It stems from remarks and questions like the one below, which creationists encounter rather often. It has been modified somewhat: You assert that evolutionists take our facts from Wikipedia and other biased sources but don't read what creationists really believe. So what do you guys really believe? I've looked at your FB page but I can't find anything. Are you young earth creationists? I assume you're Christian from the tenor of this Page .  Unfortunately for people who ask questions like this, I have not been appointed as the spokesman for creationists. morgueFile/RoganJosh There are times when atheists will fuss and say, "You don't know anything about atheists! And don't lump us all into one group, there are several kinds!" Sometimes, I think that some of those atheists do not know what atheists think, because they seem to have created (heh!) definitions specific

Have you noticed that paleontologists and anthropologists will find a fragment of something, believe it's conclusive proof of evolution, and then find out later that they were wrong? They try to quietly drop their embarrassment. The process of making something out of nothing reminds me of this: Anyway. The scientists at major creationist organizations seldom have time for small-time bloggers who think that they are the smartest people on the short bus. In this case, they made an exception. "Lucy" at the Creation Museum  Adam Benton took exception to the "Lucy" exhibit at the Creation Museum , and decided to show how stupid and evil creationists really are. Except that he had several things working against his "analysis": He did not actually see the exhibit Ignorance of facts that he tries to present Ignorance of facts that he tries to refute Exceptional bias in his worldview Unwillingness to examine the evidence more completely  He

morgueFile/jak It seems that most people consider ants to be nothing more than an inconvenient bug that finds things you've spilled in your kitchen and brings its friends to celebrate. Then you have to get ant traps. Or perhaps you've just watched them scurrying to and fro, often carrying something awkward. Have you ever seriously considered what they are doing, and how they do it? The spill on your kitchen floor that you thought  you had cleaned up, or planned on getting to later — they found it, and told their friends. How? And when they're carrying some dead thing in their caravan, what's up with that? Ants have taken over the world, it seems, but they didn’t do it alone! One reason they’re so successful is their ability to communicate with each other—where to go, what to watch out for, how to help. The lone ant follows the path marked earlier by her companions. In her ceaseless search for food, she decides to veer off the trail and blaze a new path. Along

CERN-AC-0510028 01 First, a silly side note. This article was scheduled to post on the last repetitive date that we will live to see, at 12.12 PM Eastern Time on 12-12-2012. The hysteria and publicity about the Higgs boson particle seems to have faded. Perhaps now we can give it a calmer examination. Some people rave that it is the particle (field) that was sought, and it is somehow proof of the Big Bang. (There are even people who go as far as to say that it proves there is no God, which is an asinine and unscientific statement.) What does it prove, if anything? Scientists from Europe’s CERN research center presented evidence on July 4, 2012, for a particle that is likely the Higgs boson, the last remaining elementary particle predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics. Does this discovery have relevance for the creation-evolution controversy? Particles can generally be classified into two categories, according to the quantum mechanical rules that the

There is considerable dispute between creationists and evolutionists about transitional forms and missing links. Creationists say that there are no indisputable transitional forms, and proponents of evolutionism claim that there are many. (Some of Darwin's Juvenile Cheerleaders introduce emotions with cries of "Liar!" in a manipulative attempt to "win" the argument.) Sure, there are plenty of fossils. Some may appear  to be "in between".  Sometimes, the problem may be in the wording, and what is understood by "transitional". Also, it does not help matters for evolutionists that certain things that have been trotted out as transitional forms were presented too hastily, and they were quietly dropped from the show. Unfortunately for proponents, some are presenting outdated "proof" because they did not get the memo. First, the fact that the links (transitional forms) which the concept of evolution would prima facie cause its

Alnitak, Alnilam, Mintaka  Credit:  Digitized Sky Survey , ESA/ESO/NASA  FITS Liberator   Color Composite: Davide De Martin ( Skyfactory )   Blue stars cause a problem for cosmologists: They should not exist. Since they are bigger and hotter than other stars, and their fuel supply should be exhausted comparatively quickly. Blue stars exist on our own Milky Way galaxy . In a manner reminiscent of the Oort Cloud excuse for replenishing short-term comets, cosmologists say that certain areas are "stellar nurseries" where new stars are being formed. Except that there is no observational evidence of such a thing, it only exists in theory. Biblical creationists do not need to conjure up excuses like the Oort Cloud or stellar nurseries. Orion is one of the most well-known and easily recognized constellations of the winter sky. The three bright blue stars in Orion’s belt seem to draw our attention instantly. Such stars are a strong confirmation of the bibli

Some scientists, in their rush to show that they know all things and can make ex cathedra  proclamations, have said that DNA is flawed because of parasites. Looks like they spoke too soon — again.

MorgueFile / MaryKBaird   It is easy to think of a spider web as a group of sticky threads in a pattern. It is more than that, however. There are different strands for different purposes, and they even have unique functions. Break a strand? Not a problem for the arachnid in charge. Imagine a cloth that gets stronger after it is damaged. That is what scientists recently discovered when probing the strength of garden spider webs. A research team tested the resistance of a spider web's supporting radial threads and compared that with the thinner spiral threads. They found that placing a certain amount of pressure on just one thread caused it to suddenly stiffen and distribute the stress to the rest of the web. Of course, too much damage eventually weakened the web, but the initial damage had the opposite effect. After investigators applied even more pressure, the additional stress was not transferred to the whole web, but to tiny protein crystals acting as stress

morgueFile / ronnieb (modified) The previous article was about what the author called " Genetic Relativity ". It turns out that he has a follow-up article. For chance and mutations to have an effect, they cannot be occasional or random. Many parts must be in place at the same time, or nothing makes sense — or functions. A door hinge unhinges Darwin. There is a huge emphasis in the naturalism (including evolution) vs. creationism debate, over whether "new information" could arise via undirected processes... But it is my thought that an exponentially greater problem for Darwinian evolution exists; one that involves what kind of new information mindless processes would have to create, if molecules to man evolution were true. I'll start out with an example to illustrate the point: In order for the human jaw to work, such that we're able to chew, talk, and so forth,  multiple biological parts  must function in harmony together - starting with the maxilla

So often, critics of Intelligent Design and creation science have notions that are fundamentally flawed. Some of the problem is that schools do not teach critical thinking skills, but prefer to condition students to accept evolutionism as "science" and ignore the bad (and fraudulent) "evidence" that is offered to support evolution. In addition, people will gather ideas about creationism from people and sites that are just as ignorant and biased as the inquirers; they do not bother do do their homework. When they start spouting opinions and prejudicial conjecture, they humiliate themselves in front of creationists who do know how to reason. A third problem is that many of them have a basic misunderstanding of science, and then spread it as truth ( such as Bill Nye ). How about getting some basics settled? Recently, I ran across a few comments about this image on a site called atheistthinktank.net. I really don’t expect fans on these sites, but I wa

MorgueFile/AcrylicArtist A common challenge from atheists is to say, "Prove to me that God exists. It must be something scientific". (Usually, that kind of remark comes from someone who has already suppressed the truth of God's existence, and there is no "evidence" that will convince him or her.) They are often assuming that this is an intellectual approach, but consider: The Creator is a spirit, and outside of time and space. To demand proof of God's existence in this manner is irrational, and a category mistake . So far, nobody has chosen what kind of litmus paper they would use to test for him, anyway. However, his presence is known, and inferred. Many inventions and innovations have come about from studying nature. Humans imitate what is observed in nature, and have had some success. (Ironically, they are looking at something that is designed, and not appealing to the failed concepts of time, chance, random mutations and so forth of e