Piltdown Superman

Try as they might, evolutionists still fail with trying to force-fit "missing links" into the parade of human "ancestors". The tale of the hobbit begins with a strange hominid skull found in 2004 in a cave on the island of Flores, part of Indonesia. Although otherwise appearing human, the skull, like other bones found nearby, was diminutive—hence the appellation “hobbit” to the finds. But since then, scientists have been divided: was this hobbit (and its kin) fully human, on the whole—or do the bones represent a separate species (dubbed Homo floresiensis )? Now, scientists Robert Eckhardt of Pennsylvania State University and Maciej Henneberg of the University of Adelaide have released a new defense of the idea that the hobbit skull was actually from an abnormal Homo sapiens . The work appears in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology . Read the rest of the story of the Bagginses here .

One of the most basic points against evolution is the scarcity of "transitional forms" (something in process of evolving into something else). When queried, fundamentalist evolutionsts exclaim, "The fossil record is full of transitional forms!" Actually, no. When something is found that can be considered a transitional form, it makes the news. Why? Because they are so scarce! Just like archaeopteryx was reclassified as a true bird (again) , Tiktaalik is also a disappointment for the faith-based, no evidence religion called evolution. Tracks of footprints found in a quarry in Poland have turned the palaeontological world upside down. For years there has been a neat evolutionary story about how fish evolved four legs and came out of the ocean onto the land. Probably the most famous fossil in this sea-to-land icon of evolution is Tiktaalik roseae , a fish with fins that was claimed to have had features intermediate between fish and tetrapods. Creation

"For the past five years, I have closely followed creationist literature and have attended lectures and debates on related issues.... based solely on the scientific arguments pro and con, I have been forced to conclude that scientific creationism is not only a viable theory, but that it has achieved parity with (if not superiority over) the normative theory of biological evolution .  That this should now be the case is somewhat surprising, particularly in view of what most of us were taught in primary and secondary school. In practical terms, the past decade of intense activity by scientific creationists has left most evolutionist professors unwilling to debate the creationist professors . Too many of the evolutionists have been publicly humiliated in such debates by their own lack of erudition and by the weaknesses of their theory." Robert F. Smith, "Origins and Civil Liberties,"  Creation Social Science and Humanities Quarterly,  3 (Winter 1980): 2

Uniformitarianism simply fails to explain what is observed not only in the fossil record, but the landscapes of the world. Here is an article that emphasizes how the flat land surfaces testify to the global flood. The globe we call home is adorned with beautiful snow-capped mountain ranges and lush, wide valleys. Plains and plateaus are common. Have you ever wondered how these landscapes formed? Most scientists who study landforms (i.e. geomorphologists ) believe the landscape was carved slowly by the same erosion processes that they observe today. This idea, that the ‘present is the key to the past’, is called uniformitarianism . Starting with this belief, scientists try to imagine how rain, snow, ice and water eroded the rock bit by bit over millions of years. Increasingly, how­ever, these scientists are finding that there are many landscapes on the earth that they cannot explain this way. Read the rest of "It's Plain to See" here .

Addendum:  Some people are unclear on the concept. This video is not the be-all and end-all of creationist teachings! Rather, it is a st arting point. There are links referenced in the video for you to further your studies . For the guy who insisted on creating his own rules and definitions, he lost me when he said that "evolutionist" is not a real word. Well, do a search and find out otherwise. Here, let me help, here ,  here and here ...Oh, I see he got the message and changed his post. Types like that will never admit that they're wrong about anything.

The following article will rankle fundamentalist evolutionists to no end. They conveniently ignore the facts that founders of modern science were "believers", and that Francis Bacon developed the scientific method. Worse for the emotional types, biology is rooted in the Doctrine of Creation. The popular science press may be on the cutting edge for bringing us the latest and greatest news from laboratories around the world, but when it comes to integrating historical and philosophical ideas into our modern conversations, it is woefully shallow.  Of particular note is the venom afforded to the doctrine of creation in modern biological thought. The doctrine of creation is represented by a number of different groups in modern America, including young-earth creationists, old-earth creationists, and Intelligent Design proponents. Each of these groups includes top-notch scientists, yet the popular science press pretends that they are non-existent. Michael Zimmerman, for

The OPERA detector at CERN (Wikipedia) The science media is abuzz with claims that scientists at the world’s largest particle physics lab (CERN) have observed subatomic particles traveling faster than the speed of light. If this observation is confirmed, it could deal a severe blow to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, which has an enormous amount of experimental confirmation. However, the first part of that previous statement is really, really important. These results need to be confirmed, and I am rather skeptical that they will be. Even if they are confirmed, however, they don’t necessarily mean that special relativity is incorrect. That’s probably the most overlooked part of the story! Find out more about the question, "Particles Traveling Faster Than The Speed of Light?" here .

Lawrence Lerner is a skeptic and a retired professor of condensed matter physics. His recent report, supposedly on US State science teaching, has grabbed news headlines for its grades of all 50 state curricula. One would think that an assessment of ‘good science’ and ‘bad science’ would assess real science like physics, chemistry, experimental biology, etc., on how effectively their important concepts were learnt by the student. But no, these ‘science teaching’ grades are based solely on how favourably each state deals with biological evolution in the curriculum guide. Ten states scored ‘A’, meaning (in Lerner’s opinion) ‘Treatment of evolution is very good or excellent’; the grades drop as evolution is treated less dogmatically, while one state (Kansas) received an ‘F-’ for allegedly ‘removing all references to biological evolution’. As documented below, Lerner’s report contains much in the way of rhetoric and logical fallacies and li

Darwin stood for me like a mighty doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe. I was intoxicated with his minute, precise, conscientious and at the same time powerful, thought. I was the more astonished when I read . . . that he had preserved his belief in God. I absolutely declined to understand how a theory of the origin of species by way of natural selection and sexual selection and a belief in God could find room in one and the same head. — Leon Trotsky Eugenics Congress logo Stop and think about it for a few moments. Masquerading as "science" and "proven fact", the faith-based philosophy of evolution is used as a scientific justification for all kinds of evils in the world. Laissez-Faire Capitalism , Communism , Nazism's extermination of the "lesser races" , eugenics and more all evolved from a common ancestor called Darwinism. After all, it's "survival of the fittest", isn't it? While wars, selfis

NASA Photo C ritics of biblical creation sometimes use distant starlight as an argument against a young universe. The argument goes something like this: (1) there are galaxies that are so far away, it would take light from their stars billions of years to get from there to here; (2) we can see these galaxies, so their starlight has already arrived here; and (3) the universe must be at least billions of years old—much older than the 6,000 or so years indicated in the Bible. Many big bang supporters consider this to be an excellent argument against the biblical timescale. But when we examine this argument carefully, we will see that it does not work. The universe is very big and contains galaxies that are very far away, but that does not mean that the universe must be billions of years old. Read the rest of "Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?" here .