Piltdown Superman

In some ways, being born homosexual is a "gotcha" situation to condemn God. That is, if he created people that way, then he is wrong to say that their lifestyles are sinful. Proponents say that gay behavior that appears homosexual is seen in animals, so a hasty generalization is made to justify it in human behavior. People have long wondered what causes homosexuality. Many speculations have been proposed, including a "gay gene" — which does not exist (look it up). Perhaps it has a basis in biology? There has been a great deal of research in this area. Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, no gay gene, based on Sidney Paget (1893) with Clker clipart added It is not surprising to this child that research and studies were faulty. Geneticists tried to pinpoint a cause, and studies were undertaken regarding biological causes. The studies were poorly conducted, the best results being that more research is needed but with larger sample groups. The word  gay  was appropriated f

If someone gets a notion to saddle up and ride to the extreme northeast of the US, going on through Maine in a certain place will get them to the Canadian province of New Brunswick. Some fossilized plants were found there that paleontologists described as "enigmatic." One reason for this wording is that they show an extreme amount of detail, which seems to be increasingly common among fossils nowadays. In addition, scientists were surprised at the complexity of the fossilized plants. Neither of these facts are surprising to creationists. Fossilized water fern (image adjusted), Fossil Butte, Wyoming, National Park Service (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Yet again, secular paleontologists are assuming deep time and evolution, which in turn dictates the way they interpret evidence. Creationists have the same evidence, but presuppose recent creation and biblical truth in their interpretations (see " What is Really Seen from the Webb Telescope " for

Watching or reading material on dinosaurs from secular sources, the story that they evolved into birds frequently comes up. Many things are ignored, including how birds and dinosaurs existed at the same time but museums disingenuously omit this in their displays . Dino-to-bird evolution is also presented as a subject of scientific unity. False. Not only creationists, but some secular scientists reject it. They are not allowed to eat dinner with the big people, and have to scarf it down from paper plates while standing in the alley outside the main hall. Imagined dinosaur bird, Pixabay / Tirriko Evolutionists get mighty sneaky. If they can't prove something, change the facts — or in this case, definitions of dinosaurs  and birds . Presupposing dinosaurs evolved into birds, now we have "non-avian dinosaurs" in the definition. They require trust, but deceive people. Delving into creation science material on dino-to-bird evolution reveals numerous difficulties that changing l

Something that puts a burr under my saddle is the insistence by evolutionists that we did not come from monkeys, and creationists do not want us to say that, either. It is because we are to accurately represent what they believe. Okay, I get that. But it gets a bit difficult. Study on this: Our alleged ancestors and relatives sure did look like monkeys, and some had tails. Specifically, evolutionists say that although monkeys, apes, and humans had a common ancestor, we diverged millions of years ago — and we lost our tails somewhere along the line. Ring-tailed lemur, Pexels / Magda Ehlers Which  supposed ancestor and when  the tail loss occurred, nobody knows. There is no evidence, but the story requires these things. A loyal Darwinist in the media wrote, indicating that there is kinda-sorta a link between tail loss and a birth defect, and genetics. Sounds like faith. Unfortunately, the faith of secularists is in their narrative, and whatever it takes to deny the work of the Creator. A

There is an interest in looking at living things from an engineering perspective, which places evolutionary ideas of time, chance, mutations, and luck closer and closer to the rubbish bin. We have discussed how engineering concepts relate to creation several times. Parametric design  is used in several ways, using parameters  (see what they did there?) in algorithms (sets of instructions). This method has been helpful in architecture. It also fits quite well with intelligent design and works quite well with engineering considerations in creation. Spinal column, Pixabay / Clker-Free-Vector-Images Creation itself shows design. Not only design, but advance planning where living things grow and develop, often adapting to changes. There are many things in biology that show growth where things have to be in place so the critter can survive. Consider the human spinal column: Vertebrae and such need to grow from simpler cells, all the way to adulthood. No, evolution has no place here. The Mast

Secular cosmologists, cosmogonists, and astronomers are frequently astonished when their expectations are not supported by space exploration. So are deep-time creationists and many in the Intelligent Design community. They expect to see evidence supporting their beliefs in cosmic evolution. There were high hopes that the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) would reveal the primordial universe. Galaxies still forming, stars with only the lightest elements, and certain aspects of the redshift. Instead, they were astonished — again — and rescuing devices ensued. M80 galaxy, Flickr / NASA's James Webb Space Telescope ( CC BY 2.0 ) Over ten years ago, some atheopaths started a Page on Fakebook for the purpose of attacking me personally because of my stand on biblical creation science. (Attack the person instead of rationally dealing with the content...it's who they are and what they do.) I had written that there is no evidence of stars forming, and they found a secular piece that cla

Atheists and other anti-creationists use Stephen Jay Gould's claim that the panda has an ineffective thumb as an argument against creation and Intelligent Design, but this dysteleology fails in several areas. One should be glaring obvious: Why would a bear need a thumb like humans have? The comparison is not valid, as we are different creatures with different life niches. Gould and subsequent followers claim that it is a scientific refutation of creation and ID, but it is not a scientific argument ! It is philosophical — really, it is theological. Modified from "Giant Panda Tai Shan" /  Fernando Revilla / Wikimedia Commons Misotheists are very fond of "bad design" arguments, which is silly. They do not believe God exists, but presume to fault him for things in nature that (in their unhumble opinions ) are flawed. Those of us who use presuppositional apologetics can show that anti-creationists are not consistent with their own belief system, especially when they

People have been trying for some time now to give legal status to parts of nature, which most folks find...truly bizarre.  Rivers can file lawsuits , an  elephant was declared a person for a while , and more. At least Utah and some other states are not participating in this madness . Yet. Nature "rights" are rooted in evolutionary beliefs. Think about it: We all evolved from a common ancestor, so humans are not special — and not created in the image of God. Indeed, many environmentalists are actually  engaging in goddess worship . Now we are to talk to trees? Dead trees, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen People giving legal status to things in nature lower the status of humans, and wanting to talk to trees is not helping matters. Yes, they have their own communications systems, but denizens of the Wood Wide Web are not exactly having discussions or developing a culture. Yet some evolutionists think that every living thing has intelligence. An image of vegetables floating around

Some of the hands from the Darwin Ranch traveled down from Deception Pass and gone into town to celebrate. Rusty Swingset, the foreman, was even paying for their drinks. The reason? Some evolutionists had used education, technology, and skill in making a hybrid plant receptor, supposedly demonstrating no intelligence or Designer was necessary. Study on that a spell. Good science is often tainted by worthless efforts to prove evolution. Plants pay attention to their environment with receptors, and two of them control development and immunity. Woodland sunflower, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen It is not an isolated incident. Instead, faulty logic, incomplete evidence, materialistic presuppositions, and more are common. For that matter, part of our DNA was called "junk" by tinhorns who did not know what they were doing and used a faulty dataset. Other Darwinists gleefully joined in and added their two grotzits-worth of opinions "Junk" DNA became the consensus — and it

Posts and articles here will be sporadic for a few days or weeks until things get more under control. People are totally (heh!) excited about the February 8, 2024 solar eclipse, even more so than they were in 2017. Scientists can make observations, make predictions, test equipment, and so on. I'm happy for them. This one will be a bit different than the last one . It is not just for scientists, either. Just two days ago at church, I was talking with a couple of ladies who have friends in the area of totality. They are taking a trip there. Also, I saw people asking a worker at a big box store if they had the eclipse glasses. Get ISO 12312-2 from a reputable dealer to be safe . So I was surprised to hear that God's judgment on the formerly United States is part of the festivities. Total solar eclipse 2017, NASA / Aubrey Gemignani (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Bluntly, these people who see "signs" and "prophecy fulfillment" are embarras

There are several reasons to fake things, including replicas. Money, prestige, grant money, pranks, pushing the fish-to-fool evolution narrative, and more. Replicas and souvenirs are fine as long as they are not marketed as the real thing, which makes them forgeries. When it comes to fossils and paleontology, fraudulent fossils are a serious problem. A famous fraud is Piltdown Man , which fooled evolutionists for over forty years. More recently, Archaeoraptor  was put forward. Those and others should have been scrutinized without Darwin worldview glasses that contaminate perceptions — and rejected. Tridentinosaurus antiquus , WikiComm / Ghedoghedo ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ), modified at PhotoFunia Some forgeries are not just a bit of fun, but are intended to push the evolution story. Why, if evolution were a fact with "mountains of evidence," is there so much fraud? Keep the pressure on !  Earlier, I mentioned Darwin worldview glasses. Some bad science creeps into the narrative becaus