Piltdown Superman

We have already shown that textbooks contain bad and even fraudulent material . Although the secret is out, it is still happening: Junk is still in textbooks ( as you can see in the articles here ). Worse, people like Eugenie Scott and others encourage "educators" to lie to their students . The end justifies the means, ja mein herr?  One of the perpetually perpetrated propaganda pieces is the use of the Haeckel drawings that have been known to be fake for years. Let's not let false similarities deceive us. And yet, the topic is still controversial; not only is the subject a huge embarrassment to evolutionists, but some are still trying to defend the fraud! (One guy Tweeted to me that it didn't matter that the drawings were fake, they were still true — *facepalm*). While creationists may make mistakes, we do not resort to defending, rehabilitating and excusing outright fraud. It would help curtail the embarrassment if they did not keep putting this nonsen

If there is a formerly undiscovered continent in the Indian Ocean, cherry-picked data from radiometric dating and uniformitarian assumptions are a lousy way to prove it. But then, an ancient Earth is imperative for evolution, and must be justified, yes? morgueFile/embalu By examining zicron in sand from Mauritius, bad "science" has led to the amazing conclusion that there was once a continent in the Indian Ocean, which is now submerged. Never mind the more prosaic data, it's more entertaining (and sensationalistic) to produce tendentious interpretations of a limited amount of other data. Perhaps Atlantis moved? The lost city of Atlantis has been the source of much legend and folklore for centuries. The search for archaeological evidence for this missing city has continued even today, but mostly by amateurs and fortune-seekers. Now, scientists are making claims of a missing continent lurking deep beneath—not the Atlantic, but—the Indian Ocean. A group of

Earlier, I posted some material on the origins of the belief system of evolution . Now it is time to go into more detail, and I have three items for your perusal and edification. Evolution has roots in pagan religious beliefs which had nothing to do with science. For that matter, people treat "science" as some sort of entity. They will say things like, "Science will solve the problem" (fallacy of reification). No, maybe someday scientists will solve the problem. There are methods to obtaining and processing data in scientific disciplines. All of it is philosophy! The requirements for doing things a certain way, the presuppositions and worldviews for determining data, the conclusions reached — all based on philosophy. So, watch out when someone refers to "science" as some sort of life form, or even a deity. A friend of the ministry shared a link to this video . It is rather long, but can be downloaded for offline viewing, and definitely worth your tim

USFWS/Jerry Reid Every once in a while, uninformed proponents of evolution resort to using the "proof" for their view that, since we have certain elements in our blood that are also in the sea, we must have evolved from the sea. Not only does such an assertion smack of desperation, but the "facts" we are given about the mineral concentrations are not similar at all. (It is as if someone with the attitude similar to, "I am a physicist , therefore, I am qualified to prove evolution and disprove the biochemists, medical doctors, biologists, geologists, paleontologists, mechanical engineers, botanists and all the other disciplines in creation science" wrote the falsehoods of the alleged sea-water-to-blood similarities.) There are other insurmountable difficulties with these pretend similarities as well. It strikes me that this idea is contrary to evolutionary thinking, which requires huge changes and adaptations in organisms. So why should our blood refle

As you probably remember from your basic science courses, photosynthesis is the process where plants process sunlight and make food. This video explains a bit more in a couple of minutes: Dry Lake, San Gorgonio Wilderness/San Bernardino National Forest Carol Underhill, USDA Forest Service Recently, more details of the speed and efficiency of the process have come to light (heh!). The process is truly amazing, and, as usual, evolutionists put on their Darwin Spectacles to give praise and glory to "nature" and "evolution" as if they were intelligent deities. The transformation of sunlight to food gets all the way down to the level of quantum physics! The magic of light capture by plants is so small and fast, its secrets are only now being understood. Lightning is slow compared to photosynthesis. A press release from the Institute of Photonic Sciences (ICFO) explains how “antenna proteins” capture photons of sunlight and ferry the energy to reaction cen

When watching some of those "Let's see if we can find the real creature" shows on TV, a couple of sea monster sightings were dismissed as sturgeons. While I was not convinced that a real mystery had been found, I thought it was simplistic to blame a fish. (Sort of like when UFOs had been dismissed as the planet Venus, which was not visible at the time of the alleged sighting.) Later, I learned that sturgeons (which are a bit high in cholesterol) can grow to an impressive size. Ugly, too. fws.gov  But never mind about that now.  Evolutionists want to claim that they are "living fossils". You know, those things that have not changed much in the alleged "millions of years" from what we see now, and the impressions they made in the fossil record. And yet, they contradict themselves. Darwin's Cheerleaders are carping that the sturgeon does not cooperate with the expected rate of change. Nor do they change enough. But they "evolve" too

Some people have difficulty learning. For example, with the "junk DNA" fiasco, scientists put on their Darwin spectacles, examined a section of the genome, declared that things they didn't understand were "junk" — and were embarrassed by creationists , who said all along that it was not junk . A similar thing happened with pseudogenes. They look sorta like genes, but they're not really genes. So they're not important, right? Actually, they are important. The PTEN pseudogene is much more complicated than anyone imagined. Perhaps if they removed the evolution glasses and did not act so hastily, evolutionary scientists might get closer to the truth sooner. Not only have many pseudogenes been proven to be highly functional, a recent study has unveiled mind-boggling complexity behind the PTEN pseudogene, showing that it functions both forwards and backwards as part of an intricate gene network. Pseudogenes were once thought to be nothing but

Where did evolution come from? The minds of men. But Darwin (who was not a great scientist — his only degree was in theology ) plagiarized others, including his grandfather Erasmus . Various proposals of evolution cropped up throughout history, and it can be found in ancient pagan Greek religious beliefs. People seem to be desperate to find excuses to deny the Creator his rightful place. Science was the province of Christians, who established scientific methodologies. Unfortunately, with the geology of Lyell (a lawyer), Hutton and others in the 1800s, plus bold pronouncements that the Bible is wrong or misunderstood, the one-sided rewriting of history, science and theology had begun. A press release titled “The Evolution of Creationism” in a geology journal is just asking for a spoof. The Geological Society of America ( GSA ) posted the following press release on its publication, GSA Today : Throughout history, people have sought to understand how the world came to be and h

Biases. Preconceptions. Presuppositions. We all have them. It's all a part of being human. The belief that scientists are completely dispassionate, assembling data and following where the evidence leads is very naive. Evolutionists have already decided that evolution is true, and that makes it much more difficult for them to accept the evidence that refutes evolutionism and affirms creation. Their belief system heavily influences their interpretations of the data — often with absurd results. Are scientists always objective? Do they always interpret the evidence with an open mind? Some time ago I experienced first-hand how a scientist’s beliefs affect the way he looks at the evidence. Whilst a geology student at university, I needed to identify a fossil. After consulting the Atlas of Invertebrate Macrofossils I had tentatively identified it as a belemnite of the genus Hibolites . However, paleontology was not my specialty so I sought advice from an expert. T

In an earlier post, the claim that "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" was shown to be a false claim . Now we can examine how Dobzhansky's article was bad science and worse religion. Bob Enyart was published in the prestigious, peer-reviewed Creation Research Society Quarterly , and his radio show did a four-part discussion of the paper. Here is a hint on where you look for the free audio on each page (click picture for more bigness): Part 1 is here . Part 2 is here . Part 3 is here . Part 4 is here .