Piltdown Superman

The June 13, 2011, issue of New Scientist magazine summarized recent work by astronomer John Kormendy of the University of Texas at Austin and cosmologist Jim Peebles of Princeton University, as well as others. Astronomers are finding evidence that, according to Peebles, shows that "galaxies are complicated and we don't really understand how they form. It's really an embarrassment." In the January 2011 issue of Nature , Peebles summarized two papers that described galaxy discs that totally failed to fit the standard theories of how galaxies supposedly formed. The galaxies they investigated had very dense points of mass in the center of their cores, presumably black holes. But only about half of them had a "bulge" of associated stars nearby. The other galaxies were razor-flat in side profile, even though they appeared brighter near their centers. Read the rest of 'Wildly Unexpected' Galaxies Defy Simple Naturalistic Explanations he

When it comes to evidence, many people think that the fossils prove evolution. You may have seen a diagram of the geologic column with pictures of plants and animals showing how evolution progressed over millions of years. It gives you the impression that fossils are always found in the same definite order and that no fossils are ever found ‘in the wrong place’. You may be surprised to learn that fossils are being found “in the wrong place” all the time. Out of place, that is, compared with the areas, or ranges, shown for them on the geological column. But evolutionists don’t think of them as being ‘wrong’ because they have a way of ‘explaining’ every new fossil discovery, no matter where it’s found. All they do is change their story about how evolution happened. Evolution is never questioned. Read the rest of "Are fossils ever found in the wrong place?" here , and see the video below.

Cambrian rock layer is considered to be "Cambrian" because of the particular fossils it contains. But what does it mean when a rock layer designated as "Ordovician" contains distinctly Cambrian fossils? Paleontologists are facing that question after a recent find in North Africa. Researchers in Morocco found fossils of Anomalocaris—a unique and until now characteristically "Cambrian" creature—in Ordovician rocks, which in some locations are positioned just above Cambrian strata. This evidently extinct animal belonged to a group of rather strange sea creatures classified as "anomalocaridids." One such marine animal was Hurdia, which had well-designed and fully-integrated body parts, including dual-function swimming flaps and gills.1 Despite their unusual appearance, no anomalocaridid looks like an evolutionary transition, and all of them look well-suited for aquatic life. Read the rest of  Out of Place Marine Fossil Disrupts Evolutionary

"Whenever someone punctures the theory of evolution, he or she is subject to character assassination, so vested is the left in the philosophy of naturalism." — Jim Fletcher Whenever someone dares to show flaws in the religion of evolutionism, they are subject to ridicule. Why is that? I mean, really? If the "theory" of evolution can stand on its own merits, and if the spirit of true scientific inquiry is alive and well, evidences against evolution would be examined.  Media have always been biased, usually outrageously biased. All thinking people realize both liberals and conservatives are biased, although the liberal-dominated media in America point that finger at conservatives.  Though conservatives have a quasi-conservative news network, TV's deck is quite stacked in favor of liberals. The three major news networks have been dominated by a left-wing worldview for decades, and if you don't believe me, read extensively about Uncle Walter Cron

Sadly, it is my thought that the data from genetics is being interpreted incorrectly. It is assumed that because all living lifeforms operate on a genetic structure from bacteria to man...that we had to have originated from a simple rudimentary life form. It is claimed as irrefutable proof to validate evolution. Furthermore, science considers genetics a form of evolution that can be quantified or summarized as population genetics over time. Read the rest of "The Vital Breath" here .

Living forms supposedly evolved by adapting to environmental challenges. It is generally assumed that they did this by gradually acquiring the needed genetic mutations until brand new features arose and whole creatures eventually morphed into totally different ones. But does real science support this story? Experiments with bacteria continue to show that although adaptations do occur, they are bound by hard limits to how much change can take place. And these limits also circumscribe evolution’s potential. Read the rest of "The Cost of Adaptations Limits Evolution" here .

The Hubble Space Telescope, which had been programmed to search for planets, has found 42 "oddball" blue stars in the Milky Way galaxy. These stars burn so brightly that they consume their fuel much faster than other stars. Though they are found in more abundance in more distant galaxies, the discovery of nearby blue stars presents a particular problem for standard long-age cosmologies.  Blue stars should not exist in a universe that is 13.7 billion years old, because they should have burned out billions of years ago. University of South Carolina astronomer Danny Faulkner recently noted, "In fact, the hottest blue stars could last only a few million years at best. Both creationists and evolutionists acknowledge this fact." Thus, evolutionists have proposed that these stars have been constantly generated during this long time span. But that means blue stars should be forming even now. "Despite their diligent search, however, [astronomers] hav

A review of Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters by Donald R. Prothero Columbia University Press, New York, 2007 reviewed by John Woodmorappe This book is so jam-packed with information (and disinformation!) that it would take a separate book to address it. Predictably, Prothero dismisses rejection of evolution as the product of the fear of loss of God, morality, and human uniqueness. This ignores those (myself included) who once reconciled their religion with belief in evolution, but eventually came to realize that the scientific evidence doesn’t require acceptance of evolution. He considers creationism claustrophobic (p. 358). Having found it a fascinating intellectual adventure, I couldn’t disagree more. We hear the usual mantra about most religious leaders accepting evolution. This ignores the fact that it is much easier to conform to the pressures of modern thinking than to be out of step with them, and that this

From the way people talk, the so-called "Big Bang" was the start of the universe. Everyone knows this, scientists believe it, you should too. Case closed. Propaganda and lies, Leroy. When the Big Bang was proposed, scientists (such as Fred Hoyle) resisted the idea. Even today, there are scientists who do not believe that it happened . (Of course, they'll support other ideas about the origin of the universe, and some of those are pretty far-fetched.) It would be better to follow where the evidence leads, and not force-fit the evidence into piles of theories, suppositions and outright guesswork. By the way, some atheists cannot distinguish between disagreements about evidence  and outright lies.  That is, if you disbelieve in the Big Bang, evolution or other atheistic presuppositions, you are considered to be lying. Those of us with some sense consider people like that to be irrational. But enough of my rant. Few questions hold more intrigue than that of