Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen The termination of Dr. David Coppedge from Jet Propulsion Laboratory resulted in a high-profile court case where the ruling went against him. He was a team lead at JPL for the Cassini mission until his demotion and subsequent dismissal. The unexplained court decision coupled with the skulduggery and double standards of managers at JPL make the outcome very baffling indeed. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that the entire situation was based on people being threatened by Coppedge's worldview, and that the firing was retaliatory. Artist's conception of Cassini and Saturn,  NASA/JPL (useage does not imply endorsement of site contents) The crime of Dr. Coppedge was "religious": he dared to offer, one-on-one, DVDs about Intelligent Design. The ID movement is definitely not biblical creationist , their adherents have diverse views. Basically, ID people want to provide scientific evidence that unguided evolution is impossibl

Scientists who believe in scum-to-skeptic evolutionism spend a whole heap of time searching for evidence of common ancestry. Various "transitional forms" have been proposed, but none are undisputed, even among evolutionists. What could be considered the Holy Grail for evolution has been called LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor, which came about through abiogenesis (chemical evolution). Image credit: Morguefile / mconnors Some scientists think they've found LUCA, but are in sharp disagreement about where it is found. Also, they are using circular reasoning from their faulty presuppositions. This putative ancestor of all living things will never be found because it does not exist: life was Created, and this is the logical conclusion derived from the scientific evidence as well as the clear teaching of the Bible. Evolutionists believe the microbe LUCA was the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all living things.  Some evolutionists believe they know

Awkward title I have there, isn't it? There's a reason. Genome research is getting mighty awkward as well, especially from those who start with the presupposition that slime-to-stalker evolution is a fact. Years ago, some of the human genome was incompletely studied, and pronouncements were made that we had "junk" DNA. This "junk" was supposedly leftovers from our evolutionary past that had no function. Why did it have no function? Because scientists couldn't find a use for it, wrote it off, and moved on. Better scientists did further research with better equipment, and have junked the junk concept . Image credit: Pixabay / geralt You really have to hand it to secularists, the hubris continues. They found pseudogenes, and didn't understand what their purposes were, either. Those have been determined to be important as well. Further discoveries have been made, and now we have the pseudo-pseudogene. This whole thing shows that evoluti

Seems that just about everyone has an opinion, and lots of folks want others to know their cleverness. Problem is, many of them give equal cogitation to deeper matters as well as their favorite seasoning in a casserole. Not helpful. In fact, such uninformed (and often prejudicial) conjectures are actually harmful because of the negative reactions they provoke in others, and reinforce negativity in those expressing the opinions. Secularists are famous for demonizing Christians, and especially biblical creationists, for denying materialism and common-ancestor evolution. Quite often when they catapult their atheopathic sentiments at The Question Evolution Project , we feel there's no reason to give them a platform for odious rhetoric based on bad logic and little (usually no) research. Here's an example of a hateful reaction that is eradicated by a knowledgeable creationist. Although the article is from 2004, the material is still quite valid today. people like you are da

In August 2015, I ran some material about a fossil that was allegedly a snake with four legs , and this puzzled paleontologists. Instead of falling by the wayside after village Darwinists trumpeted this fossil as evidence for evolution, the subject is still disputed. Is it a lizard, or is it a snake? Mostly generated at Image Chef Ever notice that when evolutionists disagree, they're just scientists doing what scientists do, but if biblical creationists are not in lockstep , somehow that becomes proof that creationists are wrong, or even lying? Double standard. But I digress. Another interesting fact is that Evo Sith are up to their usual tricks of saying a loss of features is evidence of the increasing complexity of evolution, such as the blind cave fish  or elephants losing their tusks . (Sounds silly to me, too.) So, if  it's a snake, and it lost  legs, somehow, it becomes a transitional form? That'll be the day! They cannot find solid transitional forms because

You'd think that with all the dissonance in the jungle or zoo from various simians, they'd have a lot to talk about if they could. Well, they can talk, if the sounds and physical hardware are any indication. Physically, there's no reason those critters couldn't talk , but those things are not enough. Modified image from Pixabay /  RobinVerhoef It takes more than physical abilities to enable the making of speech. There has to be mental capacity as well. An ALS patient is unable to speak, but can communicate because of a neural implant that bypasses her body. Her mind makes it work. Ever see those statues of a chimp sitting on books (one of which says "Darwin") and pondering a skull? I want one, but they can be a bit pricey. Anyway, such deep thought is not going to happen from a non-human creature. Darwinoids cannot explain speech in humans but not simians. It’s not that monkeys don’t have the vocal apparatus to talk like humans. They just don’t have

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen My unregistered assault keyboard is ready to keep on going into 2017, and I'm looking forward to giving you more things to think about that refute evolution and support biblical creation. (Darwinistas object when you tell the truth about them, and the dogmas they insist upon.) Let's get going. The Apostle Paul managed to get quite a bit of attention in his time, and it was often explosive. When he and Silas preached in Greece, they outcry was that they "troubled the world" or "turned the world upside down" (Acts 17:6 ESV). He was called a "pest" by an enemy (Acts 24:5). They preached to pagan evolutionists in Greece ("preaching" was more of an explanatory dialogue), who had many gods, and they didn't cotton to hearing the truth of the one God. Worse than that, Paul proclaimed that God is the Creator and Sustainer of all things (Acts 17:24-25), which prompted some evolutionists and other philosophers to ridic

There has been a wagon train-load of news about fossils, especially aspects of soft tissues, because what has been found is oppugnant to minerals-to-mocker evolution. Proponents have gone into damage control by looking for excuses, making wild extrapolations (such as, "Iron preserved tissues for a year in a lab, therefore, they were preserved for millions of years in the wild"), going into denial, and even calling biblical creationists "liars". Their worldview is threatened by reality, and they can't deal with it. Image credit: Morguefile / gary3141 But these owlhoots are not entitled to mangle the facts to suit the Darwinian storyline, nor are they entitled to make up their own facts. There are "timers" in biology; things will dissipate after a long enough period. Pigments, chitin, collagen, and more have been found that should be there if the fossils were as old as evolutionists claim — the timers would have expired. The facts support recent c

Believers in cosmic evolution insist that stars formed in the past, and they are forming today. Nice tale, since nobody has seen a star form (it takes 100,000 to tens of millions of years in Evospeak ). Secular astronomers have manifold stories about old stars, new stars, red stars, blue stars, how they formed, and so forth. When flaws in their credenda are descried, circular reasoning ensues: "Of course stars evolved from the Big Bang. We see them, ya idjit!" Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech , who would not endorse this site even if they knew it existed Secularists have told wild tales that have been discredited, made numerous assertions, and even lied outright, but have yet to present a plausible model of how the laws of physics can be superseded in the formation of all them stars up yonder. The logical conclusion from scientific evidence and failed conjectures is that God created the universe. Many astronomy articles have a bad habit of assuming star formation withou

Y'all understand multiverse, right? It's when a song has a lot of, well, verses. " Amazing Grace " has — "You made me facepalm very hard with that one, Cowboy Bob." Moving on... There are many suppositious remarks about parallel universes, and some of those universes are just like ours with very slight changes. If you were able to saddle up and ride sideways through these universes, eventually the changes would add up and you might find, say, Clinton Richard Dawkins as a respected biblical creationist, Rome never fell, dinosaurs are common pets, and so on. Some very interesting stories have arisen from the parallel universe concept.   I've even read that some think every decision that is ever made causes a new universe to form where the unmade choice in this one has been made in that one. Another fine image by Gerd Altmann ( geralt ) at Pixabay Folks are adding the multiverse to the foundering Big Bang choplogic, and astronomy is being dragged