Piltdown Superman

The noun  brook  is generally understood to mean a small stream or creek, but the verb is not in common usage nowadays. It is basically a synonym for tolerate . The fish known as the brook trout do not brook warm water very well. Supposedly, survival of the fittest is a law of science. Brown trout in that small Jabez Branch tributary  are doing fine, and don't care about the brook trout. Why should we? Besides, brook trout as a whole are not going extinct. Flicker / James St. John  ( CC BY 2.0 ) Before people start carping about my seemingly hard heart, it should be known that a view of let it die because of survival of the fittest and pleasing the puny evolution god Natural Selection is consistent with Darwinism. This happens on a large scale (such as eugenics) as well as a "law" of nature. If evolutionists want $1 million USD spent on that area for those fish, they are being inconsistent with their own worldview! Trying to help them is entirely consistent with a creat

Back in 1976, the late Bernie Kliban, famous for odd drawings including the "Cat" series , had a comic called People Humiliating a Salami . It is funny because inanimate objects do not have self-awareness. A computer does not get angry about what programs a user opens, and an MP3 player has no objection to repeating the same song a dozen times. Humans have self-awareness, and some animals have a bit. Scientists, like regular people, have wondered about the location and origin of consciousness and the soul . Credit: Pixabay /  Pete Linforth While it is a reasonable assumption, the mind is not the brain . The mind uses  the brain, and obviously, the mind cannot exactly work well if the brain is seriously injured or removed. Let's accept the idea of "the brain is the mind" for the sake of discussion. Materialists deny the spiritual nature of man as well as the Creator, so they attempt to explain things using evolution. An article in the July 2021  New Scientist  at

There comes a time when everyone has to cowboy up and face the failings, and this is mine. It turns out that not only have many others and I been deceived, but I have been deceiving my readers in my misguided zeal. Dinosaurs never existed. Playtime is over. Now we get to more serious but still almost unbelievable material. Although I have heard of them, I never met someone who claimed that dinosaurs are not real. The reasons for thinking this get...truly bizarre. Unsplash / Katie Smith I have to stop for a moment and say that this post almost went to Biblical Creation and Evangelism . It ended up here because, although it has to do with theology, biblical creationists emphasize critical thinking skills. To believe the outrageous idea that dinosaurs were never real, one must believe conspiracy theories on an absurdity level of September 11 "truthers" and Flat-Earthers. In all three cases, thousands  of people would have to keep secrets very well, and not have consciences that

Using uniformitarian  ideas  (slow processes over long periods of time), secular scientists have tremendous difficulties explaining the origin of stony meteorites (chondrites). Those other meteorites contain a great deal of metal, while chondrites are made of fine-grained chondrules.  Secularists claim they provide clues to the origin of the solar system, but that is just whistling in the dark. There are several stories told around the campfires at the Darwin Ranch about where the solar system came from, and Sherwood Tellit spins a find yarn about the accretion theory  and chondrites. Image Credit: NASA / Bill Ingalls (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Since none of the theories about the origin of the solar system are plausible, scientists pick the best of the worst — the " best in field fallacy ". Then they confirm their biases and interpreting data to make them fit. (Meteorites are considered remnants from the formation of the solar system and less contami

When science is done properly, it ruins atoms-to-archaeologist evolution. While too many people are gullible and simply accept what "scientists say", others are suspicious when research halts after propaganda points are reached or inconvenient questions are raised. A mummified sheep was in the news. (No, it was not mummified by ancient Egyptians, awakened, and Brendan Fraser stopped its rampage.) Natural mummification occurred where the right conditions cause drying out with little or no decomposition. A sheep mummy leg was so well preserved, its DNA was sequenced. FreeDigitalPhotos /  tawatchai (modified with Clker clipart) While decay can be slowed under ideal conditions, it cannot be stopped. This raises obvious questions about DNA in fossils buried in the ground under typical conditions. DNA deteriorates and would be too broken down to be analyzed. Once again, evidence indicates recent creation. DNA that is “extremely well preserved” has been analyzed from a sheep mumm

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  It is increasingly common to encounter phrases like, "Follow the science!" Well, first of all, science  is not an entity, so it cannot lead anyone anywhere. Darwin's disciples often claim that evolution has been proven, but science proves nothing . Evolutionists tacitly admit to their pagan mythology by treating  evolution  and Natural Selection  as decision-making entities when it suits their storytelling purpose.  They also jeer at Question Evolution Day with irrational remarks like, "Ya gonna have a Question Gravity Day, too?" Credit: CSIRO /  Frank Filippi  ( CC BY 3.0 ) Another horse apple they polish is, "Why don'tcha write up your evidence for creation and get it published in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal and win a Nobel Prize?" Come on, man! We've been over those things. So often, people claiming to follow the science are simply virtue signaling. Urging others to do the same can many times be an appeal to a

If you think the title is overly sensational and provocative, take a look at historical evidence. Yes, it is provocative because what follows is quite alarming. People can learn from the evils of Nazi history — if they are willing to do so. There are people who think that comparisons to Nazi Germany are hyperbole. Many reject them out of hand, even assuming a fallacious "slippery slope" argument will be made. Such things should be considered on the validity of their arguments. Credit: RGBstock /  Jean Scheijen First, some comments on the slippery slope fallacy . People have wrongly claimed that when concerns about slippery slope are raised, they can be waved off as fallacious. Dead wrong. The actual fallacy is based on vague assumptions that a domino effect will cause an adverse result. For example, the Equal Access Act of 1984 was about discrimination against students using school facilities. It was okay for Marxist and other clubs to meet, but Christians were forbidden. Wh

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This article is going to be mighty different from our usual fare. If you or someone you know is a lighthouse aficionado, the first part may prove interesting.  Warning beacons are ancient, ranging from open fires to building more permanent structures when possible. The most famous lighthouses of old include the Pharos of Alexandria, Egypt and the Tower of Hercules (which still exists, albeit with reconstructions and such). Rebuilding happened frequently throughout history, and many restorations are done even now. Smeaton Lighthouse at Eddystone The word "lighthouse" is often used generically because although they were lights, not every one had living quarters. Some were visited by the keepers. Also, that word has connotations of the famous big towers, but there were other kinds. Let's look at a few on the Hudson River. The "spark plug" tower at Tarrytown had living quarters. Look at the  Saugerties Lighthouse , it strongly resembles a ho

We continue the series by Dr. Tomkins of the Institute for Creation Research on geological layers, this time seeing problems presented by the Cretaceous to particles-to-paleontologist evolutionists. Slow and gradual transitions from simple to complex are just not happening. The lack of transitional forms was acknowledged by Charles Darwin to be a difficulty for his ideas, but he pressed on in the hope that maybe someday they would be found. Evolution is supposed to be built on evidence, not blind faith or wishful thinking. Edmontosaurus annectens by  Nobumichi Tamura  at Wikimedia Commons ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Despite their appearances in movies with the word "Jurassic" in their titles, some of the most famous dinosaurs are registered to vote in the Cretaceous. (Paleontologists are seeking rescuing devices while biblical creationists are celebrating soft tissues and more from these bad boys.) There is nothing to indicate evolution, they just suddenly appeared — which is yet anoth

Descent with modifications evolution is presented in sanitized versions, omitting or even misrepresenting inconvenient facts. Presenting both sides of the equation can get someone virtually horsewhipped, such as in this example . Sometimes, facts against evolution are glaringly obvious. (Out near the Darwin Ranch on Peach Road lives one of the workers who was driven insane by the truth. He keeps mumbling, then screaming, about living fossils.) Charles Darwin himself admitted that living fossils are one of many problems for his speculations. His acolytes are blowing smoke on the problem. Mostly made at PhotoFunia Presupposing deep time and assigning dates to fossils and rock layers, paleontologists find fossils of various organisms that are essentially unchanged from their living counterparts. They get tagged with the moniker living fossils . There's a passel of them, not just a few here and there. Since evolution is used to explain everything (logically fatuous, so it actually expl