Piltdown Superman

There's no shortage of tales to tell by evolutionary owlhoots for the sake of propping up their presuppositions. What does the variation in eyes throughout living things tell you? Simple answer first: the variety of eyes tells you that there's a variety of eyes. National Geographic  people are saying that they can reconstruct the history of evolution based on computer programs and speculations. Evidence for evolution? That'll be the day! Cats' eyes have a tapetum lucidum that reflects light back through the eye so they can see better in the dark. Part of the story is that "convergent evolution" (a theoretical excuse that is used when there is no actual evidence) for eyes happened at least 40 times. Also, evolution is given a demigod status here, too, exhibiting creativity and thrift. Not hardly! This evolutionary storytelling is also an example of ignoring certain data and alternative explanations. The best explanation is that the Creator designed diff

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Evolutionist owlhoots are showing their blatant bigotry when a paper in PLoS One  used a bad word four times!  No, it wasn't ****, ****, or even ************, but it was far worse: the "C word". That's right, someone dared to say "Creator" — and they did it more than once. Researchers said that the human hand was the product of the Creator's design. Katie, bar the door, our propaganda mills are threatened by truth! Image credit: morgueFile / GaborfromHungary The use of the word "Creator" was not done to prove the existence of God or creation. That was not the reason for the paper, which was written from a naturalistic perspective. The Evo Sith were outraged, throwing down on PLoS One , demanding a retraction.  So they got one. Here is the retraction , which is mighty strange, since  the article is still there . This is a blatant illustration of what creationists have been saying for a long time, that secula

Know why Darwinists keep seeing things that aren't there? Because they want to. Many times, there has been one "evidence" for evolution after another brought out of the corral and shown off to adoring spectators, only to find out that there's nothing to it after all. Feather from Clker clipart Those proclaiming dinosaur-to-bird evolution keep imagining feathers, but they have the blinders on as to seeing other explanations for "proto-feathers". To be consistent with their own viewpoints, they should be considering the fossil evidence against such evolution in the first place! If Darwinistas would do their research a bit more thoroughly, they wouldn't be rushing to erroneous conclusions quite so often. For that matter, the evidence really  shows that birds and dinosaurs were each created separately — and more recently than evolutionists want to admit. A recent claim of a newly discovered “feathered” dinosaur has pushed the controversy over bird

Time to do some thinking, as the article featured below has some rather technical material in it. Ever hear of jumping genes? T hey don't actually jump. Rather, they move around a bit under certain circumstances. Retroelements are found in DNA, traveling in the chromosomes of their hosts. They were thought to be "junk" because of evolutionary thinking. As before, so-called junk has been found to have a purpose. "Retroelements" image composed from items found at Clker clipart. The genes of a certain wallaby were sequenced, and the findings seem to support rapid speciation as postulated by biblical creationists. They were doing what the Creator programmed them to do from the beginning. Yippie ky yay, secularists! Jumping genes or transposable elements (TEs) are present in virtually all life forms, from bacteria to humans. They are short DNA sequences that can move from site to site in the chromosomes of their hosts. They have been divided into two grou

Take the trail toward Deception Pass and you'll most likely come upon the Darwin Ranch. The hands there have been a mite cranky lately because they depend on billions of years to justify their worldview, and the news hasn't been too good as of late. Especially regarding astronomy and cosmology. We're all star stuff from the Big Bang, you know — a star died so you might live, and all that kind of thing. Their stargazing friends have made pronouncements of how everything came to be (never mind the lack of observable, testable, repeatable evidence), and those people have been getting humbled these past few years. More so in recent times. Here are four reasonably short articles to 'splain, Loocy. Saturn / Image credit: NASA / JPL / Space Science Institute Hot Jumping Jupiter! You might jump too if you were as hot as some of the exoplanets detected elsewhere in the universe. What's frustrating to astronomers who presuppose evolution is that these seem to be the

Remember how Bill Nye the Propaganda Guy insists that acceptance of molecules-to-medical doctor evolution is essential for the advancement of science? Other Darwinistas make this ridiculous remark as well, which has been refuted many times. One of the examples that Ken Ham used in his debate with Nye was Raymond Damadian, biblical creationist and inventor of the magnetic resource imaging machine. Possible image source: Answers In Genesis . Used under Fair Use provisions. Sometimes, atheopaths will say something like, "You shouldn't be using the computer because it was invented by an atheist!" To answer a fool according to his folly so he's not wise in his own eyes, we can say, "Hope you never need an MRI, because that was invented by a Christian who is a biblical creationist". Besides, the "father of the computer" was Charles Babbage , who was a Christian. Dr. Damadian was interviewed on Real Science Radio. There is some interesting pers

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Let it be known that I am challenging Dr. James White to a formal debate. The topic will be the validity of debating, and I will be taking the position that they are worthless. Hold on a moment while he stops laughing at how the "debate" was over before it began because I refuted myself.  Dr. White has done a passel of formal and other kinds of debates on various topics with many people, and I've learned a great deal about the debate process itself. (Want to see him in action? Here's the a debate with Dan "Don't Quote From My Books Even Though They're For Sale in the Foyer" Barker .) Dr. White has discussed the debates on " The Dividing Line ", and that's good and bad. Good because he is giving helpful information, and bad because I cannot give chapter and verse on where he said something I'd like to quote (unless I'm taking notes like I did here ), but taking notes is usually too impractical. I thou

One of the biggest problems with purveyors of lichens-to-lizard evolution is that they claim to see "evolution in action" when nothing of the kind is happening. Occasionally, some of these owlhoots will not only use "evolution" incorrectly, but will do the bait 'n' switch equivocation to say that any little change means that Darwinism is true. Not hardly! Image credit: US National Park Service (text added later) Fence lizards have been getting eaten by fire ants. Some do the usual thing and sit there, hoping the problem goes away, and are consumed. Others have learned to do their version of the safety dance, twitching and shimming, and running away. Darwinistas are claiming that variations and natural selection are "evolution in action", but that is downright false. No new genetic material is added, they are drawing from the same DNA that they were created with. Everyone ‘knows’ that evolution is slow and gradual—except when it’s fast a

Perhaps it's a mite unfair to say that Darwinists misuse their own piece of fiction, but when it's passed off as something seriously scientific, then we can throw down. Since the origin of life and the origin of mitochodria cannot be explained, the concept of endosymbiosis was dreamed up. Of course, when you point out that they don't really know what they're doing, evolutionists get on the prod. Endosymbiosis cannot be tested, and obviously, it has not been observed, but that hasn't stopped particles-to-pirate evolutionists from using it as a convenient "explanation" anyway. But even people from their own camp are pointing out that it's full of glaring problems . They sure do put a lot of effort into denying the fact of creation, don't they? The theory that early cells engulfed microbes that became mitochondria is often presented overconfidently. Most evolutionists accept without question the decades-old theory that mitochondria and chlo

As we have seen many times (and further examples are scheduled here), telling stories about evolution takes a great deal of imagination, but precious little actual evidence. When facts are examined, Darwinistas need to backpedal to change the stories — or ignore the evidence and let people continue to believe outdated material. Humpback whale image credit: NOAA.gov via Wikimedia Commons Tales of whale evolution have changed over the years, but the simplified version: we all evolved from sea creatures, then some mammals commenced to thinking they liked it better in the water, so they evolved into whales. Even worse, some evolutionary sidewinders are telling distinct untruths based on their "here's evolution because we want  to see it" paradigm. Vestigial hind legs and a pelvic girdle? Nope, those are used for making little whales . The same falsehood is said about hip bones. Ethics and integrity in science, indeed! There is nothing "vestigial" in whal