Piltdown Superman

Uncle Pilty wants me to remind you that we use unregistered assault keyboards in the creation resistance army against the establishment of evolutionary dogma. Let's go... Evolution is called a theory (and many of its adherents refer to it as an incontrovertible fact), but it has very little resemblance to what Darwin popularized long ago. Today's Darwinism relies to a great extent on DNA and the amazing idea that we can have genetic mistakes causing us to evolve upward. Evolutionists will say that DNA is proof of evolution, and that they have made accurate predictions. Oh, really? Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures Darwinists will claim that there are predictions based on DNA that are fulfilled in evolutionary theory. That is not quite right. They use logical fallacies like circular reasoning , affirming the consequent , insufficient evidence (including ignoring other possible explanations for what has been observed), and so on. The truth of the matter is, DNA is a frien

At this writing today is August 30, 2014 and the Rosetta spacecraft has entered orbit around Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenk. (It is an understatement to say that this is an ambitious undertaking, since the flight alone has taken ten years.) The Philae probe is expected to land on the comet in a few weeks, and several sites have been projected . Comet on 23 August 2014 - NavCam / Copyright ESA / Rosetta / NAVCAM And I thought the 1986 Vega probes that dealt with both Venus and Halley's Comet were big deals! Well, they were for that time. It's interesting to me that the Rosetta will be using outdated equipment, because a great deal has changed in the ten years since it was first launched. But "old" does not mean ineffective. Secular scientists are starting with the presuppositions that comets are building blocks of the solar system. By rendezvousing with this comet, they hope to find secrets to the origins of many things, possibly even life itself. Not har

Give us a kiss... It is becoming more frequent when "science" is promoting an agenda — usually, a leftist agenda. Sure, science is great when discussing sex properly and scientists are actually doing real science. But when we have bad science and pseudoscience being used to ridicule traditional sexual values, promote promiscuity and abortion, get involved in government-mandated contraception, supporting gender confusion — the false researchers and the science press do not keep their own domain and abandon their proper abode, there is a problem. Especially since so many people will accept what "scientists say" without question, even when scientist say things that have nothing to do with science. To what extent should scientists presume to offer advice about sexual matters? Beyond providing descriptions of body parts and how they work, science exits its domain when telling people how they should behave or think about sex. Yet repeatedly, editorials in jou

It has been made into a joke where royal persons referred to themselves in the plural, such as, "We are not amused". Although they had no way of knowing it, they were more correct than they knew — but for different reasons. We are not alone inside ourselves. There are billions of microorganisms living there, coexisting and even helping us thrive. Naturally, evolutionists will assert that they gradually evolved along with us, but they do not offer models, believable explanations or anything other than assertions. In fact, to want us to believe such a thing is asking quite a bit. Further, they equivocate "evolution" with "adaptation", and make it sound like microbes-to-man evolution is realistic, but such a word game is disingenuous at best. It makes much more sense to believe that they are doing what they are designed to do from the beginning. By learning more about “who” lives in you in sickness and in health and what they are doing, medical scient

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen When running this online creation science ministry, and being in contact with others who stand for biblical creation, we see some pretty vicious stuff from anti-creationists and misotheists. (When I say that I am a biblical creationist, I mean that I believe in a literal six-day recent creation as well as the global Flood, according to what the Bible teaches.) Evolution is a cornerstone for atheism and liberal Christianity (or a word I like to use for liberal religion, “churchianity”), and they detest those of us who will not compromise on what the Bible says. Several creationist Pages on social media are what I consider "link mills", simply pasting links to creation science articles ( sometimes sending them to sites that are, as a whole, opposed to our message even though the specific articles may be adequate). Some of us strive to aim higher, and are very selective in what links we post. In addition, we encourage people to learn how to

Helium was detected on the moon during solar eclipses. There are claims that helium-3 is too abundant for the young universe models of biblical creationists, but there are problems with these claims. One is that it is rather difficult to actually measure. Another is that there are many assumptions involved. A third problem is that several factors that can lead to an abundance of He-3 are not taken into account by evolutionists, and the amount of helium on the moon is not a problem for creation science. Helium-3 arises from the radioactive decay of tritium, a ‘heavy’ isotope of hydrogen containing one proton and two neutrons. Through beta decay one of the neutrons in the nuclei emits an electron and is converted into a proton; thus the new atomic nuclei has two protons and one neutron turning an isotope of hydrogen into an isotope of helium (31H → 32He + e). This decay process has a half-life of about 12.3 years. Helium-3 also arises from complex nuclear processes in the sun and

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Experiences, observations and material that I have have read brought me to these speculations. With more time, reading and experience, I may adjust some of them later. Some people will play with semantics, claiming that the word "evolutionist" is something contrived by creationists in an effort to malign proponents of evolution. Their "sources" for such an accusation are anti-creationist sites that simply make the assertion without evidence. The word evolutionist is indeed a valid word that gives a useful description, so I see no need to change my use of it. Vehement anti-creationists Having an online ministry brings out people who hate biblical creationists who will seek our Websites, Weblogs, social media areas and so on. They will lash out at us with assertions and ridicule (often calling us "liars" and "science deniers") because we disagree with naturalistic and atheistic interpretations of scientific evidence

Evolutionary scientists had some basic guidelines for determining how to classify humanoid fossils and so forth. (For that matter, the concept that a larger brain meant that the owner was more intelligent was discredited.) Once again, we see that when more information is discovered, we also see that there is a great deal more information to be learned. Adjustments must be made. Henry Vandyke Carter / PD One of the criteria to determine if a skull belonged to a Neanderthal was the layout of the inner ear — it was unique to them. Or so they thought. Since that same inner ear arrangement has been found in a non-Neanderthal, some rethinking has been happening. The lines of biology are more complicated, and archaic humans traveled quite a bit. This may be startling for evolutionists, but it fits in very well with the biblical creationist timeline. How can you tell a fossilized skull belonged to a Neanderthal? The comparatively large size and prominent brow ridges? Actually — unt

Are you familiar with the expression, "The same thing only different"? 'Tis a silly phrase and I really don't like it — except when it's useful. It came to mind when reading two articles about two moons orbiting two planets. Many of the events discussed were extremely similar. Mosaic of Jupiter's moon Io, NASA / JPL / USGS Ice particles on Saturn's moon Enceladus, NASA / JPL / SSI Quite often, the solar system does not cooperate with stories given about its formation because of many anomalies; some things just don't work. With these two articles, we have two moons that are recalcitrant. Io (a moon of Jupiter) was rowdy, firing off huge amounts of volcanic material that should have been dissipated long ago according to deep time belief systems. In addition, Saturn's moon Enceladus is shooting ice into space. Enceladus should not be able to do this. In both cases, scientists used an implausible explanation and expect people to belie

Some people have the mistaken notion that so-called "microevolution" (small-scale changes in organisms) lead to "macroevolution" (goo-to-you). (Some atheists dishonestly charge that creationists made up those words to deceive people.) Use of these words is discouraged by creationists , as "micro" and "macro" involve change in a different direction. Federal Republic of Germany, Gregor Mendel, 1984 While Charles Darwin was saying that small changes led to big changes, Gregor Mendel was experimenting with genetics, using peas. Mendel wondered if he could support Lamarckian evolution (a concept that Darwin disliked), and actually refuted it when he discovered the laws of genetics . His work also demonstrated the opposite of Darwin's speculations. Again we see that the Bible is right, things reproduce after its own kind and does not change into something completely different. One of the “heroes” of evolutionists is Gregor Mendel, a Eu