Piltdown Superman

Something that presuppositional apologists point out that, for the sake of discussion, if God did not exist, then we are just bundles of chemicals responding to our impulses. In a similar fashion, if we have orangutans as our evolutionary cousins , why should we trust our brains and their chemical impulses? Papa Darwin himself had some doubts. Some of the material postulated by evolutionists makes me cognate that they have mighty apish minds, and wonder why they haven't been naturally selected away. Credit: Morguefile / kakisky One thing that has not evolved is the ability to reason, and this is evident by the abominable reasoning presented by evolutionists as "science". Seaweed was partially responsible for our upward evolution, the octopus and squid lost their shells (loss of characteristics is downward, not upward evolution, old son), changes in precipitation affected evolution, and more.  Used under "Fair Use" provisions for educational purposes:

People have an odd fascination for space aliens. While there have been some documented UFO sightings, there has been no solid evidence that extraterrestrials are using the things. Aliens are frequent subjects in New Age buffet-style religious prattling, where people claim to receive messages from them that promise great things for humanity. Of course, they're more "highly evolved" and much older than humanity, and reject God. Credit: Pixabay / JavierRodrigues Mixed with the fascination and hope is fear. The presupposition is that evolution happened on Earth, there must be multitudes of highly-advanced and more evolved alien civilizations out yonder — and they may not cotton to having us sharing the universe with them. Stephen Hawking is a famous physicist, but he's also an unbeliever and an evolutionist. He assumes that they are more evolved than us, and may be dangerous. Keep a low profile, humanity, and cool it with that SETI stuff, you savvy? War of the Wor

There are many questions raised about the Genesis Flood, and one of those is about plant survival. Well, they floated. Okay, too short. Many plants are surprisingly versatile and can deal with harsh conditions. The island of Surtsey was formed by a volcanic eruption in 1963, and within a short time, flowering plants were growing there , a fact that baffled Darwinists. Horse chestnut image credit: Freeimages / alesia17 Seeds come in many sizes, and can be tough. Little seeds can give big plants. (Interestingly, we often eat seeds, even from plants that we do not consume in their mature forms, such as various nuts.) Seeds can appear dead, but are actually just dormant, and may become active in the right conditions because the Creator programmed them in several ways. They can be dispersed in different ways, but seeds are not the only ways that plants reproduce and spread. These things may have been less baffling to evolut ionists if they' d paid attention to the science started

You'd think that it would be just a matter of time that ancient fossils supporting abiogenesis would be found, what with all that searching for proof of evolution instead of doing useful science and all. Unfortunately for them, this fossil discovery causes some serious problems. Credit: Image cropped from Pixabay / Couleur One problem is that the fossilized microbes are pretty much the same as their living counterparts. Strange, I thought evolution was a kind of irresistible force and that everything has to evolve — especially over billions of Darwin years and environmental pressures. Sure, they can do plenty of hand waving and ignore the "stasis" problem, but there are more troubles: they have no idea how Earth got its oceans, and undocumented abiogensis is supposed to have happened almost instantly. Not scientific, old son. The evidence refutes evolution and supports recent special creation, but they continue to deny the truth. Recently, evolutionists discovere

Things must have been slow around Deception Pass, since the hands at the Darwin Ranch have been keeping occupied by proving — nothing. While theories and models are expected to change in light of new evidence, it's just plain insipience to keep feeding mules that won't pull the wagon. Not only do they feed the evolution mule, but they also feed the cladistics mule. In this case, rearranging the dinosaur family tree. Assembled from images at Clker clipart In the evolutionary scheme, scientists have no idea where dinosaurs came from. But they have clades showing the alleged relationships between them and where they perch on the tree of life. (Evolutionists do this cladogram circular reasoning stuff, proving evolution by assuming evolution, in much broader ways as well.) Using new models, some evolutionists are mighty agitated, "Everything we know about dinosaurs is wrong! Textbooks have to be rewritten! Katie, bar the door!" Take this branch here, put it ov

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Biblical creation science is a branch of apologetics that presents not only evidence refuting evolution, defeating atheism, and upholding special creation (often referred to as young earth creationism), but includes defense of the Bible itself. There are many apologetics ministries that debunk atheism and give excellent reasons for believing the Bible. However, many of those are soft on recent creation, or worse, reject it altogether. Quite a few of those call themselves old earth creationists, and some OECs are theistic evolutionists. Not all OECs are TEs, but it appears that all TEs are also OECs. You savvy? Credit: Morguefile / pedrojperez These owlhoots are sending a conflicting message: we believe the Bible, but not the first eleven chapters of Genesis, which must be interpreted according to current atheistic views of science. Echoes of Satan's challenge in Genesis 3:1 NIV. Yet these people admit that they take Exodus as historical, how do they

Many people have heard that they have appendicitis, so they need to have their appendix surgically removed. Fortunately, it's a common procedure and complications are rare . The thought of emergency surgery of any kind is rather alarming, though, I know the feeling. Darwinists had long designated the appendix as vestigial, a useless remnant from our alleged evolutionary past. This has been a major folly , especially since this very useful organ has been removed for no valid reason. Credit: Pixabay / sasint Evolutionists had written off the appendix as useless, so understanding of its usefulness to medical science was hindered by evolutionary thinking. Even so, they have wondered where it came from, and why so many different creatures have one, and why they are not all the same. Predictions from evolutionists have failed many times in this are and others, and the evidence actually shows that living things were designed by the Creator, and are not the product of evolution.

Charles Darwin had a wagon train-load of ideas that he presented but did not have supporting evidence. As time goes on and science develops, evolution has many scientists offering conjectures, but are not offering credible reasons to accept such concepts. They believe by faith in science of the gaps, that maybe someday evidence will be found. That's not science, pilgrim. Welwitchia credit: Wikimedia Commons / Muriel Gottrop ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) One of Papa Darwin's biggest annoyances was the origin of flowering plants. Some evolutionists think they've partially solved the mystery by using circular reasoning and assumptions involving "a rather original gymnosperm called Welwitschia mirabilis". The plant lives in desert conditions and can survive for a thousand years. So, why evolve? Well, maybe to stop being so ugly, but that's ju st my opinion. Still, no sign of evolution. That's because plants were created and not the product of Darwinian hallucinatio

Clinton Richard Dawkins claimed in The Blind Watchmaker that “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”. You don't need your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™ to see that this is nonsensical. (My ring even has a one-note whistle on it. It annoys Basement Cat.) Anyway, notice that he inserted his own opinion in the way he defined biology, and believes that even though things appear designed, that is not the case. Livescience does not seem to share that opinion, but they do pay homage to Darwin, what with being a secular site and all. In the movie Duck Soup, Chicolini asked Mrs. Teasdale , "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" That makes me want to ask who you're going to believe, the pronouncements of evolutionists, or your own sensibilities? Credit: Pixabay / HeatherPaque We see a great deal of science supporting creation and refuting slime-to-slumlord evolution, and how both crea

Interesting how believers in deep time have shallow standards — two of them. It was a joke when creationists suggested that one means animals used to spread around the world was through "rafts" , but it was all right when evolutionists saddled up and rode along. The disputed research of Barry Setterfield into the slower speed of light received ridicule from secularists , but when Big Bang proponents postulate a varying speed of light , that's science. See? Just two examples of their double standards. Credits: Modified from Pixabay / CandaceHunter with NASA/ESA The Big Bang concept has never worked. Whenever a "yeah, but..." objection was raised, a rescuing device was sewn on, such as inflation, dark matter, dark energy, dark lady , dark whatever, other odd things; the original Big Bang has little resemblance to the patchwork quilt that is presented as cosmological "science" today. Much of this has to do with the horizon problem, which continua

Seems a mite interesting that some words have fallen by the wayside to some extent, then became somewhat reinvented for use in modern technology. F'rinstance, the first time I came across the word browser, I associated it with going shopping: "Can I help you?"..."No, just browsing". For that matter, the concept of identity theft existed since way back when (think of the pseudepigrapha ), but the actual phrase is fairly recent. A password is something you type for certain kinds of computer access, but was spoken for access to a Prohibition -era speakeasy , and back even further in the olden days. The word hijack may have originated during Prohibition as well. Someone driving a load of illegal hooch has someone come up and say, "Hi, Jack", shove a smoke wagon in his face, then make off with the booze for his own speakeasy. Later, hijacking was associated with taking over airlines, and also what Darwinists do to science. "Have you been drink

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen First of all, I'll allow that I'm biased regarding Bill Nye the Scientism Guy (like so), because of his atheistic anti-creation activism, abuse of logic, and militant advocacy for his version of global climate change. Even so, I shall endeavor to be as objective as I can in this article about the unofficial "second debate" between Nye and Ken Ham at the Ark Encounter [ 1 ]. I was annoyed while watching it, and one time, a Nye fallacy actually made me LOL. A bit of background is in order. Bill Nye made vituperous attacks on creationism, and against Answers in Genesis in particular. Two AiG scientists challenged him to a debate [ 2 ], especially Dr. Georgia Purdom. He ignored them. Is it because "the Science Guy" is not an actual scientist? He earned a Bachelor of Science, but went no further in his formal education. [ 3 ] Eventually, the formal Ham-Nye debate was established [ 4 ]. I wrote an article about it, which included several

In a January 2017 article, atheist Michael Shermer offered suggestions on dealing with people who are not convinced by the facts, preferring to cling to their worldviews. Interesting that owlhoots like Shermer consider atheism the embodiment of logic and reason, yet demonstrate disdain for actually using logic and reason. It's not a matter of facts, but of interpretations of facts. Modified from Freeimages / Kenn Kiser People can assert things they consider to be facts, such as, "St. Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland ", or, "St. Patrick used the shamrock to illustrate the Trinity ". Sorry, Seamus, those are legends that people consider factual. Going further, someone can claim, "This fossil is fifty million years old, that's a fact." Nope. It's an interpretation of the evidence based on presuppositions. Atheists and evolutionists interpret evidence while wearing their Darwin spectacles that distort what they understand. People

Like so many other tales told by proponents of common-ancestor evolution, the lineage of the snake has been weak at best. For the most part, fossils of snakes have been quite a bit like snakes that are living today. A few fossils have been presented as transitional forms, but not without controversy among evolutionists. Credit: US National Park Service The wild-eyed science press, in their ongoing quest for sensational stories (and to bolster the secular science industry), has been mighty unhelpful by leaving out pertinent details and presenting fake science images. Further, one of the fossils shows what appear to be hind legs. I can't rightly recollect a snake doing any strolling these days, just slithering. Yet some evolutionists insist that a loss of features is evidence of advancing upward evolution. Not hardly! That's devolution. The great irony for secularists is that the fossils actually affirm creation. Until early 2015, the ‘earliest’ date reported for a fo

Today, we have a couple of related items for you. Materialists are unable to account for a sense of purpose, and have no ultimate foundation for morality. Some believe morality has its source in evolution , but that simply doesn't work. They have two minds, seeking a sense of purpose, but also claiming that "reality" dictates that when we die, that's it. Atheists agree to an arbitrary definition of "reality" as materialism with no God. This concept is based on their own presuppositions — as if they had some kind of right or moral imperative to define reality itself. Seems a mite ironic. Another irony is that anti-creationists need creationists to give them a false sense of purpose , as exhibited in their secularist jihads. Made at Atom Smasher Secularists have been doing some research on areas of the brain to see what lights up (so to speak), and are seeing that those who have a sense of purpose — a large-scale purpose — have happier lives. Biblically

Here is another article that I read with reluctance and ended up fascinated. I'll allow that linguistics can seem dreadfully dull for some people, but this is more of a big picture aspect. And we're not going to be examining things like the dangling pluperfect indefinite participle or whatever. A very basic definition of language is that it is a means of communication, and languages are not merely verbal. There are written forms of verbal languages, braille raised dots for the blind , sign language for the hearing impaired, and more. There needs to be some degree of uniformity and consistency for a language to be useful. How many times has someone inserted some slang that you've had to ask for a definition or look it up if you had not experienced it before? Some slang words become established in a language because of agreement and acceptance, but many drop off (such as, fortunately, " gag me with a spoon "). The gesture I received while driving the other day co