Piltdown Superman

NOAA.gov  Behold the lowly squid. Yon sea beastie is able to rapidly blend in with its surroundings to escape predators — and it's colorblind. Since humans like to study the work of the Creator (but seldom give proper credit) and learn the secrets of their success, the United States Navy wants to know how squids can camouflage themselves so quickly. Cephalopods—the group of mollusks that includes squid, octopus and cuttlefish—are famous for their amazing ability to blend quickly into their surroundings. Now the US Office of Naval Research is funding research in several universities into man-made materials that have the same instant camouflage properties. On land, the chameleon has a most ingenious colour-changing system. But the colour changes are caused by hormones that travel through their blood system. Cephalopods change colour through their nervous system, so they adjust much faster—in only a second or two. Their skin has the same sort of light-sensitive proteins

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen The "Golden Rule" that most of us learned is, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (derived from "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise", Luke 6.31). Another version has been said, "Know the Golden Rule? Whoever has the gold makes the rules". There is something else that I would like to put forth, a kind of "Golden Rule" for debates and discussions: "The one that makes the definitions controls the argument". When entering debates or discussions, it is extremely helpful to define terms. Otherwise, you can be arguing about something that the other party understands differently. This is especially important when flexible words like "science" and "evolution" are being used. Some people mistakenly (and I believe some do this deliberately) will equivocate on the word "evolution"; they see change that has nothing to do with evol

It's interesting how some evolutionists will claim that creationists "do not understand science". Well, when they act like "science" means, "Whatever excuses we can find to attribute to evolution", then we probably do not understand it. We prefer the proper definitions, and not the self-serving circular reasoning definitions that Darwin's Cheerleaders keep dreaming up at their convenience. morgueFile/bosela  We frequently read some of these things as if evolution was some kind of intelligent entity or  pantheistic religious view . To make matters worse, evolutionists will resort to a bait-and-switch on the meaning of the word "evolution". When change is observed, it will be erroneously called "evolution", but there was no evolution of any kind, under any legitimate definition. The sneaky part is where the word is equated with molecules-to-man evolution — and that is disingenuous at best. Cockroaches avoiding glucose ba

One of the religious tenets of evolutionism is that “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”. But this is patently false because  biology makes more  sense without  evolution . Worse, evolution has been detrimental to medicine, as well as to science and society . Credit: Freeimages / Kurhan Yet some people are pushing evolution (under the guise of "science") to have more emphasis in medical schooling. Educators do not have time for that, because they not only have their time taken up with observable, practical science, but the historical speculations of evolutionism have no value. The Evo Sith will do whatever it takes to indoctrinate people into their false belief system, n'est pas ? Should medical educators clutter the busy course schedule that medical students must master with additional instruction in evolution? The clamor to do so is not new. While many physicians surely believe in evolutionary claims, most don’t find that th

It has been well-established here and elsewhere that evolution is a foundation for atheism. Since atheists and humanists (humanism is the more blatant form of religious atheism) cannot account for the origins and development of life without God, they rely on naturalistic presuppositions. When the science fails, they make stuff up to keep the faith. Creationist ministries and organizations (as well as the Intelligent Design movement) are growing. (And why not? The science is on our side!) Some Christians are putting some serious effort into learning about science, philosophy, logic, theology and so on to be able to present the truth. Atheists hate that. The days of the "live and let live" atheists seem to be gone. At least, those atheists do not spend time on the Interweb , and the so-called "New Atheists" are the ones that we encounter. There has been an increase in vituperative attacks, defamation, libel and more. They show their intolerance of Christiani

Some people are not keeping up with science, and yet try to defend evolutionism. When told that soft tissues have been found, some will say that it's a trick by lying creationists trying to get you to believe in a holy God that hates lying (makes perfect sense). Others say that it's just plain wrong, from an outdated study that lying or over-enthusiastic but uninformed creationists are using — you get the idea. Soft tissues should not even exist if they were as old as evolutionists want to believe.  Denial is natural when your evolutionary presuppositions are shown to be radically wrong. The fact is, there are many reports of soft tissues being found and analyzed. Today's audio feature also has some impressive documentation. Click here to download the audio and see the article .

A while ago, I posted an article about the amazing design of penguins' ability to swim . Now there's something even more amazing: Stories about how they evolved. There are claims that the puzzle of penguin evolution are "solved". stock.xchng/saito  There is a great deal of conjecture and outright guesswork, but nothing that resembles actual science. It makes much more sense to believe that penguins were actually designed the way they are, instead of making up tall tales to fit evolutionary presuppositions. After all, the fossil record is still a hostile witness to evolution. Penguins are superb swimmers, well adapted to their Antarctic climate.  They use their wings to “fly” in a different fluid—water, not air.  The sight of a swarm of penguins darting through the water under the ice with speed and grace makes for dramatic film footage.  Most of the major science news sites (e.g.,  BBC  News, National Geographic, Science Now, Nature News, New Scientist) are cl

Tibetan Plateau -  Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC Actualist and uniformitarian geologists are having to deal with more and more evidence for the global Flood. Current geology does not adequately explain observational evidence, including the coarse gravel sheets in south-central Asia. Rapid continental erosion and uplifts of mountains fit some creationist models. Tall erosional remnants indicate rapid, continent-wide erosion, which is consistent with the Retreating Stage of the Flood. While the floodwaters were retreating and eroding the continents, resistant rocks were transported long distances, as has been documented for the United States. A similar pattern of coarse gravel transport is evident in the mountains of south-central Asia. These areas are south of the Himalayas, north of the Tibetan Plateau, all around the Tian Shan Mountains, southwest of the Zagros Mountains, and east of the Tibetan Plateau on the west edge of the Sichuan basin. The character

People have a serious misunderstanding of the nature, origin and purpose of science. It is a method, a tool for acquiring knowledge. The definition of science cannot be determined by  science, nor can any of the scientific methods. These definitions are philosophical in nature. When there are arbitrary, self-serving assertions such as, "You must be an atheist to use science", the entire process is misunderstood. Many people cannot differentiate between operational science and historical science . Further, many will equivocate "science" with "evolution" , leading to the fabrication that evolution is  science and misleading people who do not know the difference. morgueFile / cohdra Like in silly assertion just below, I have had people say that Christians cannot do science because of their worldview. A scientist's belief in creation does not negate his or her ability to perform actual science. One of the most baffling remarks I ever encountered was w

For many years, uniformitarian geologists claimed that fossils were formed over long periods of time. Something died, sank, was buried by sediment and so forth, and became a fossil. Some seem to still believe this, but it defies common sense and the most basic observations. morgueFile/gracey  One killer for the idea that fossils happen slowly is the very existence of their tracks. Yes, dinosaurs left tracks in mud. And it is apparent that different ones were attempting to deal with flood waters. This supports creationist models for the Noachian Flood. What's so fascinating about dinosaur tracks? Maybe it's because their many mysteries beg for solutions. For instance, because tracks in mud are so short-lived today, how did dinosaur tracks ever preserve in the first place? Newly described prints bolster biblical creation's explanation of dinosaur footprints.  Researchers working in China's Sichuan Province recently reported their discovery in the Chinese

  Gale Crater on Mars NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona (slightly modified)  Evolutionists are desperate to find signs of life elsewhere in the universe. They insist that evolution is true here, so it must have happened out there. Finding some kind of life would (to them) prove evolution. But then, we're used to circular reasoning from them. Actual observations are constantly wrecking their hypotheses and dreams. Water on Mars would be a good chance of finding life on Mars. Bzzzzz! Wrong answer, Hans!  What appeared to be signs of water are actually signs of wind. The more we learn about Mars, the more we learn that it is downright toxic, and even colonizing Mars is probably a bad idea. Evidence disputes Mars water, let alone life.  It’s looking like a toxic place.  Besides, where would the water come from?  The big mound in Gale Crater, site of the Mars Curiosity Rover, looked like a tantalizing place to look for habitability.  Mt. Sharp, as it is called, appear

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Edited 6-21-2016 Before I went ahead with this article, I checked with some other people about the content. Three hours before auto-publish, I removed the name of the evolution stormtrooper that I dealt with, even though they thought I should use it. "Dr. Duncan, I forbid you from letting any student pass your class if they still believe in their imaginary friends by the end of the semester.  If you don’t make every student in there an atheist by the time they graduate, then you, sir, have failed as an educator!" — Dr. Robert Farris, The Deception  by Steven J. Wright , p. 68 We have seen that indoctrination is paramount in evolutionary education; students are not told how  to think (critically, honestly examining the evidence), but what  to think (presupposing that evolution is true, and then using circular reasoning to "prove" it). Although the "educator" in the example at the top is fictional, such antics are not. T

stock.xchng/ninci  It has been stated here several times before, but must be repeated: Scientists are not the impartial, objective bringers of knowledge that many people think. In reality, they are human.  As such, they are subject to the same ambitions, lusts, greed, dishonesty and other vices that the rest of us face. And the competition to produce something is fierce. "Why are you defaming scientists, Cowboy Bob?" No, dispelling false images is not defamatory. In fact, it's a public service. People do not need to be accepting something as truth just because a scientist  says so. We still have to use our minds. They might appreciate the chance to get off the pedestals, as they are not objects of worship — I doubt that many choose to be, either. The peer review process is biased, discriminatory and unreliable. Papers are being recalled for serious errors, and some are outright plagiarized. Academic fraud does exist, I hate to tell you. Being a scientist is a n

Evolutionary geologists insist on using their failed models and presuppositions when doing their studies. Uniformitarianism, "the present is the key to the past", takes present processes and assumes that they have been constant.   Image credit: NOAA  These assumptions frequently prove embarrassing, inaccurate and contradictory within their own framework. If they would admit that their models did not work and used the far more accurate biblical Noachian Flood models, they would have greatly improved results. An alarming headline on  Science News  reads, " Ice-Free Arctic May Be in Our Future, International Researchers Say" . This report provides a classic example of how researchers’ flawed understanding of earth’s geological history leads them to to seriously wrong conclusions. Their conclusions actually fly in the face of the evidence they report, and in this case it could cause unnecessary panic about a situation that will not happen. The report explains

NOAA  Squaring off against evolutionary conjecture is a strange critter called the boxfish . These toxic avengers look like they have the maneuverability of — well, a box. But that is the opposite of the truth. Kind of cute, really. But they have some surprises. In fact, they are so well designed that they are self-correcting, and even change the water flow. Auto manufactures have copied their design . They are being checked out as inspiration for undersea robots, too. With their ‘boxy’ shape and rigid bony carapace that covers most of their body, boxfish look somewhat awkward compared to most other fish. As Science journal commented recently, ‘One look at the aptly named boxfish, and you might expect it to swim as well as a barn would fly.’  In reality, boxfish are able to swim extremely smoothly. This is even more remarkable considering where they live—reefs washed by highly turbulent and unpredictable waters. But even when continually buffeted by swirling

Review by Cowboy Bob Sorensen “To believe in creation, you have to believe in a God.  But what evidence is there for God anyway?  And if you were to find that evidence, how would you know which God was the correct one?  Doesn’t Hinduism have millions of gods?  Maybe one of them is the real god, and he or she created everything instead of the Judeo-Christian God.  Or what if it is the Christian God?  How would you know which of the thousands of denominations is the correct one to follow?  I might add that many ancient cultures and religions have similar myths on origins.  It goes to show that folklores get passed down and shared from culture to culture, but there is no scientific evidence to support them.  That’s why they are called myths.   “Class, I’m not here to debate God.  I have my own beliefs, but this is a science class, and we only study the natural things—the things that can be tested and proven with experiments.  Let me go over some of the evidences we have of evolu