Piltdown Superman

Today we have to be a bit more specific on words. The first one is clutch. It has nothing to do with vehicles, a rock band, or what Darwinists do with their pearls when learning the truth. Instead, it involves eggs. Another word is brooding , but it is not what Darwinists are doing while clutching their pearls. This is done by parents with eggs in a clutch for warmth, protection, and other care. Many dinosaur egg clutches were found in the Gobi Desert. Lambeosaurine egg clutch, Flickr / Tim Evanson ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ), modified at PhotoFunia Were dinosaurs the kind of critters to brood their eggs? Probably, if they were like reptiles, birds, and similar egg-laying critters. Scientists have millions of their eggs to study. Researchers reached conclusions that were...truly bizarre. One of the most famous sketches from Monty Python's Flying Circus is the pet shop and the dead parrot. The customer realized that the Norwegian Blue parrot was dead, and wanted a refund. When the proprieto

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  When Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ try to hornswoggle people by asserting "evolution has been proven", there is a wagon train-load of baggage attached. First,  science does not prove anything   People familiar with its workings should know it, and that science disproves  things. Another problem is that such a sentence uses subtle appeals to authority and popularity. Do you want people to think you are a science denier? Scientists accept the fact of evolution, and so does everyone else . Never mind the manipulation, there are other problems with the claim. One of the main problems is the word evolution . You may have noticed that I often use terms like microbes-to-misotheist evolution , Darwinism, and so on because there are several definitions. Some definitions are vague (such as "change") and worthless without context. Some of the baggage that comes along with the false claim that "evolution has been proven" are from a sneaky falla

Although the dirt-to-dinosaur evolution narrative precludes humans coexisting with them, there are historical evidences. We have examined some of these before, such as " St. David's Dragon ", the dinosaur on Bishop Bell's tomb , and others. There are others to consider. Spinophorosaurus  image credit: Wikimedia Commons /  Nobu Tamura  ( CC BY 3.0 ) Because of naturalistic evolutionary and deep-time presuppositions, Darwin's disciples evosplain away written historical accounts  and biblical depictions  of dinosaurs. If you strip away the storyline and assumptions to look at the evidence, it is not so easy to dismiss the fact that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. In addition to arguing from presuppositions, materialists argue from silence and ignore other possibilities. Is that a carving of a stegosaurus? No, because of this and that. Other possibilities neglected would be that it's a different dinosaur altogether, the carver was unskilled or made some adjustment

A common falsehood spread by those with atheism spectrum disorder and other anti-creationists is that biblical creationists do not publish in secular peer-reviewed journals. Sidewinders like that prefer to use prejudicial conjecture instead of doing their homework. The facts are quite complicated. Original image by Pixabay / skeeze , modified with Pablo The guard dogs protecting secular journals are vicious. While biblical creationists do indeed get published (as we have said before) , the equivalent of throwing the guard dogs raw meat is to say that their material does not threaten Darwin (blessed be!) or support creation science. Naturalists become frenzied when the truth of the Creator receives even a hit, such as when someone let a paper go through that said "creator" , even though it means something different in the author's native language. My conclusion is that they are cowards and willfully ignorant (Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes) Athe

Although we discussed polystrate fossils a few months ago (see " Let Me Be Polystrate With You "), it is time to run the subject up the flagpole again and see who salutes it. Like the problems of soft tissues, DNA, and such in dinosaur fossils, assorted rescuing devices are manufactured. Original image from GoodFreePhotos /  Paula Piccard The main approach of secular geology is uniformitarianism, but occasionally Janus-faced geologists will invoke catastrophes when their philosophies fail. They have even imagined multiple small floods without evidence instead of the best explanation: the global Genesis Flood. Polystrate fossils are a serious problem, and these are often completely ignored in textbooks and such. Wikipedia, that font of secularist propaganda, does not have a section on polystrate fossils, but there is a sentence in the fundamentally dishonest section on creationism about what creationists believe. Of course, they wave the fossils off without providing

DNA is vitally important, but is subjected to abuse through use; various stresses cause considerable hurt. Passing along such seriously damaged DNA to the next generation would lead to a quick extinction of humanity, and wouldn't be much good for other living things, either. Combined clip-art images from Clker The 2015 Nobel Prize for evolution — "No, Cowboy Bob. There is no Nobel Prize for evolution." Oh, right. That's mighty silly of me. Anyway, the 2015 Nobel Prize for chemistry was awarded for research into how cells repair their own DNA. It's not just a matter of enzymes, but also communication of information, and repairs are conducted. This process is clearly from the grace of our Creator, and evolution is impossible. Tomas Lindahl from Sweden, Paul Modrich from the United States, and American-Turkish researcher Aziz Sancar were awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for uncovering how cells repair their own DNA.1 DNA repair mechanisms keep u

Who are the people who advanced science? The ones who moseyed along with the herd? Not hardly. When you hear about famous scientists, they are usually the ones that broke away. You know, people like Louis Pasteur, Ray Damadian, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin), Joseph Lister, Andy McIntosh, Isaac Newton, and many more are known for what they accomplished, not for supporting the prevailing views. "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus

Remember the February 4, 2014 debate between Ken Ham and Bill "I'm not a scientist, but I played one on TV" Nye? You know, the debate that Ham is encouraging people to watch, and it can be seen for free here , but Nye doesn't talk about? Strange, evolutionists and atheists were claiming victory. Actually, Nye used numerous logical fallacies as well as thinly-veiled personal attacks , and his supporters ( such as this one ) tend to use fallacies as well. Recently, I was contacted by Michael Boehm of " Youth Apologetics Training ", and have been listening to his podcasts. (Don't be ruffled by the "youth" part, this isn't kid stuff and adults like the podcasts, too.) He covers many topics. I was pleasantly surprised to find that he interviewed Ian Juby of "Genesis Week" , and I regret not knowing about both Michael's work and this interview long ago. Sorry about the picture, I couldn't get a more recent picture of Ian J

The general theory of evolution has been disingenuously (and fallaciously) equivocated with science for years now. But evolution is not  "science". In fact, evolution fails the criteria for being a scientific theory! Get yourself to cogitating on this: evolution is not testable, repeatable, or observable (see the video at the bottom of this post for more). Oh, sure, proponents insist that evolution has been tested and observed, but that's from small samples and playing games with words (using the fallacy of equivocation by referring to "change" and "variation" as evolution). And nobody saw microbes evolving into all the life forms we see today. Image provided by Why?Outreach I reckon that evolutionism is getting more desperate all the time. There is a considerable amount of fact-free storytelling, and when the data becomes inconvenient, they use the scientific method of Making Stuff Up™. Although the structure of the "theory" is wrong

One of the tired canards of evolution is that the whale has vestigial hind legs and a pelvic girdle. This means they are leftovers from its alleged (and preposterous) evolutionary past where it something flopped from the sea onto land, evolved, then turned around and evolved further into a whale . Yeah, that's science. People believe this, and promote it as if it could kill off belief in the Creator: Part of this guy's elephant hurling session. Click for larger. So-called vestigial organs have been an embarrassment to evolutionists. They declared various organs and such to be useless leftovers from an evolutionary past, and then (like "junk" DNA) uses have been found. So some are actually redefining the word "vestigial" to sidestep the issue. As usual, evolutionary thinking has hindered actual science. Things were declared useless, they were not studied. Creationists have always maintained, in the correct scientific attitude, that things have a

Remember when the Brontosaurus  was considered an actual dinosaur and not an amazingly bad mistake by paleontologists? Too bad it never existed, the name meant "thunder lizard". Imagine, he would not be sneaking up on anybody. "Oh, here comes Bronto, pretend to be startled when he says, 'Boo'!" The more digging they do, the more they dig up larger dinosaurs. Excavation took four field seasons from 2004-2009 , and is the latest contender for the world's largest dinosaur — and may be a juvenile. Surprisingly complete for something that size, but it also gives some testimony to rapid burial (such as in the Great Biblical Flood). It also has no signs of being a transitional form, where it is evolving into something else. But that is not a surprise for creationists.  Scientists described a new and remarkable fossil skeleton of a giant titanosaur, a group that includes the largest creatures ever to have lived on land. Dinosaur enthusiasts of all backgr

It's a bit distracting to be writing this while the cat is snoring. I should record it, people won't believe the log-sawing.  Creationists keep pointing out that there are fossils out of order according to the geologic column, and Darwin's Cheerleaders come up with various rescuing devices to keep from discarding it. Similarly, there are things that just do not belong according to archaeology, history and so on. Rather than admitting that evolution has been refuted seven ways from sundown, people will resort to speculating that ancient space aliens are the answer, or simply cover up the many anti-evolution smoking guns. Spend a half an hour on this video by Ian Juby for " Genesis Week " and see some information about artifacts that fluster evolutionists . They really should abandon their "theory", the evidence supports the biblical creation model far better than their conjectures. ADDENDUM: A three-part article on OOParts can be found at the

"Why don't you write a paper that refutes evolution, get it peer reviewed and get a Nobel Prize?", he smirked. Similarly, "Show me proof of creation, but only from peer reviewed sources", she insisted. Generally, there are some assumptions made with statements and questions like that: Creation science is not "real" science Creationist scientists are not "real" scientists Creationist scientists do not publish in scientific journals, nor have they had their work peer reviewed Peer review guarantees that the material is accurate Peer review us uncluttered with biases and personal views Also, people making such statements are showing ignorance of what really goes on in the peer review process, and that the Nobel Prize has been awarded to people who were rejected by the peer review process. It is a valid process, but peer review does have some serious drawbacks . And yes, creationist scientists do  publish in scientific journals . But