COFFEE!!! Venomous dino-turkey ate my pigeon?

After telling us that many dinosaurs they told us about didn't exist after all, then telling us that sprinting crocidiles ate them, now they're spinning more stories. This dinosaur had feathers, and poison fangs!

Dinosaur with feathers and fangs prowled forests like a predatory turkey

Yes, suuure it did. This is comedy hour, right?

Analysis of the dinosaur's fang-like teeth revealed grooves that could channel poison from glands set into each side of the creature's jawbone, researchers said.

"This is an animal about the size of a turkey," said Larry Martin, curator of vertebrate palaeontology at the Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Centre at the University of Kansas. "It's a specialised predator of small dinosaurs and birds."

That Biodiversity Research Center, that's paid for by taxes, right? So you've got to make amazing claims to keep your funding coming. Obviously I'm not suggesting any wrongdoing, but a bird-eating predatory venomous turkeysaurus hardly passes the laugh test of common sense, which is the test I try to apply to all science. They go on, with more intricate details about the life of the bag of bones:

"You wouldn't have seen it coming," said co-author David Burnham. "It would have swooped down behind you from a low-hanging tree branch and attacked."

"Once the teeth were embedded in your skin the venom could seep into the wound. The prey would rapidly go into shock, but it would still be living, and it might have seen itself being slowly devoured by this raptor," Burnham added.

It's amazing how these guys with their beards and sandals and tenure, sitting in university rooms so far from the real world, can so confidently know so much about a creature which they say lived so long ago and they've only just found the bones of.

Find out: why there is a design controversy!!

Warmists crush dissenter

Johnny Ball, the "English God of Numbers" and science educator was recently on stage at, of all things, an "Atheists' Christmas Show" which sounds turgid enough and I can just imagine what the audience would have looked like, when he made a shocking transgression of the Darwinist Commandments. He dared to doubt Global Warming and point out that the whole charade is a tattered array of fraud and bad science. So how did this "scientific and liberal intellectual" audience receive this heresy? By shouting him down and booing him off the stage.

Ball, 71, claimed that spiders’ flatulence was more damaging to the environment than fossil fuels, and criticised the ‘bad science’ of global warming during a performance at a Christmas show in celebration of atheism and science.

Audience members at ‘Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless People’ at the Bloomsbury Theatre, London responded with slow handclaps, whistles, jeers until he left the stage.

That's how they do the science nowadays.

Now folks, I'm a free speech science journalist writer of non fiction who helped write the Canadian Constitution, so I find this shouting down of opposing voices as despicable as the sound of Dr Strangelove's jackboots stamping on a puppy's face. So I'm glad to see that Mr Ball has been given space in The British Express to expand on his claims without being shouted down by an ideologically-driven crowd. He makes worthwhile and substantial points which certainly can't be debunked in less than a minute by anyone with a search engine. For example he describes how volcanoes produce by far the greatest amounts of CO2 which sounds sensible to me, no matter what any so-called "experts" (who are probably paid for by taxes anyway) at the US Geological Service might say.

Chances are any warming there is - which there isn't, because polar bears are fine - is being caused by all the heat from the bonfires that the tax-funded warming alarmist scammers are burning the dissidents on.

After Climategate, how long until Darwingate?

Of course I've been following the Climategate scandal in detail, reading both Rush Limbaugh's and Sarah Palin's careful analysis of the slam-dunk red-handed caught-with-their-pants-down evidence that all the world's climate so-called scientists were definitely engaged in systematic fraud as well as maybe money laundering and possibly treason, although I'm not making any accusation. Of course even before this tsunami of evidence that they were "adding in the real temperatures" to the data to hide the decline in real temperatures the whole "man-made climate change" ideology was transparent nonsense. Changes in the climate are not caused by carbon dioxide (which is plant food) but by warming or cooling. That supposed experts could have been taking their public paychecks for decades without noticing this simple fact is an indictment of the depths to which science has sunk.

But how long until Darwingate? Not long now that their edifice is already crumbling because insiders will have an incentive to leak the academic elite's secrets in exchange for a better deal for themselves.

Find out why there's a controversy!!!

Why collide large hadrons?

The Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, which cost billions of taxpayer dollars and opened with a big fanfare before breaking down because some of its gas got too warm (seriously!) then was fixed before breaking down again because a bird dropped a piece of bread of it (seriously! French bread!) is back up and running again after having a staffer arrested for terrorism, so I can tell him he won't be welcome in Canada if he tries to come here to live.
I've no idea what conceivable benefit this "experiment" to supposedly probe the finest scale of matter and the earliest moments of the universe can bring anyone, other than make some boyish-looking young man who can't even be bothered to wear a tie very excited.
SO if no more birds drop bread on it and nothing else goes wrong whatever will this hugely expensive excercise in taxpayer-funded "science" achieve? Some science journalists would try to actually find out what it will do, or appreciate discovery for its own sake but I'd like to point out that IT BROKE DOWN WHEN A BIRD DROPPED BREAD ON IT thus is inherently ridiculous. It's an example of the sort of so-called "science" that fills whole books with fancy-pants equations but doesn't help to dig anyone out of a snowdrift.

Space alien crop circles are science, but ID isn't?

"Government scientists" in Bulgaria are examining crop circles and claiming to talk to space aliens which they think are all around us:

Aliens from outer space are already among us on earth, say Bulgarian government scientists who claim they are already in contact with extraterrestrial life.
They claim aliens are currently answering 30 questions posed to them. Lachezar Filipov, deputy director of the Space Research Institute of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, confirmed the research.
He said the centre's researchers were analysing 150 crop circles from around the world, which they believe answer the questions.
"Aliens are currently all around us, and are watching us all the time," Mr Filipov told Bulgarian media.

With these clowns communing with crop circles and Richard Dawkins thinking space aliens seeded the Earth with life what calls itself "science" is fast spiralling into a taxpayer-funded comedy circuit. And these are the same people who will flatly insist that examining living creatures and inferring the hand of an external guiding wise Intelligence who is in no way explicitly God somehow doesn't count as real science.
I can remember a time when "science" wasn't laughable and when people wanting to talk to aliens couldn't do it on the taxpayer's dime, and as my father used to say back then "Don't worry your head about that, missy, you just get that laundry sorted". At some point since then something's happened to "science" which most people don't understand, and they're real upset about it.

Find out why there's a design controversy!:

Coffee!! Tears as weapons?

Hot on the heels of their "lusty ladies" theory of Human evolution the evolutionary psychologists trot out their latest show pony; the idea that tears aren't a sign of tenderness or vulnerability or a manifestation of enrapturement by the Holy Spirit but that they are defensive weapons, crucial to survival back in the stone age as our ancestors were being stalked by wolves. This is comedy hour, right? Defensive weapons are things like a bombardier beetle's boiling acid spray, not the salty taste of cold inner sorrow.
The problem is that these evolutionary psychology people are just looking for any excuse for research dollars.

Just so jellyfish

"Scientists Unravel Evolution of Highly Toxic Box Jellyfish" yells the headline as if they've actually figured how and why a floating bag of jelly in the ocean millions and millions of years ago made the huge transformation into, erm, a floating bag of jelly in the ocean now. Closer reading of the article shows they haven't even managed to do anything as impressive as that, instead trickling out a few watery just-so stories.

Their vision may have something to do with the evolution of some extremely unusual mating behaviors in box jellyfish species.

"May have something to do with" counts as science nowadays? This is comedy hour, right? The flamingo's legs may have something to do with running up giant beanstalks but I can't prove it, can I have a grant from the taxpayer for my science as well?

Breathless fawning before the race altar

There's a wave of darwinianoid articles in the press because today is the 150th anniversary of the publication of Chales Darwin's 'The Origin of Species', or to give it its little-mentioned full title: 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' which exposes the dark racist heart throbbing within the chest of this bombshell planted under the morals of society. The vile racial agenda at the core of this most insidious of works is made clear only a handful of pages into the very first chapter as Darwin, dear saint Charles, that nice man with the kindly face and the fuzzy beard, makes clear that race lies at the core of his new ideology:

it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil, that they would to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock.

"The several races of the cabbage": has ever a more damning or ominous phrase been penned in the whole of philosophy or politics? Darwin started out as a racist with exactly this warped sort of brassica supremecist agenda and sought to apply it to every other divinely created kind he lay his eyes upon. Amid all the chatter today about his holy relics and fortunate toilet incidents don't let his followers in academia or the media pull the wool over your eyes to the true nature of Charles Darwin. The man was a racist with an unhealthy obsession about barnacles and pigeons, as well as a misogynist who wanted to breed a master race of supercabbage, a line of thought which led directly to Hitler. And he was cruel to puppies.


It's more important than ever to find out why there's really an intelligent design controversy!!!

Intelligent design makes headway

While the darwin-worshippers in academia keep bleating that intelligent design isn't going anywhere, engineers in the real world are more concerned about getting the job done so it's no surprise that they're swift to recognize design in nature. So the Biomimicry Institute is helping them do exactly that.

At first glance, a humpback whale and a wind turbine don’t have a lot in common. For that matter, neither do a shellfish and a sheet of plywood. But both sea creatures are the inspiration behind products designed using biomimicry, or looking to nature’s designs and processes to solve human problems.

People who work with design every day can see it in nature when they look clearly:

Instead of harvesting organisms, or domesticating them to accomplish a function for us, biomimicry differs from other "bio-approaches" by consulting organisms and ecosystems and applying the underlying design principles to our innovations.

Bird beaks designed like bullet trains:

The Shinkansen Bullet Train of the West Japan Railway Company is the fastest train in the world, traveling 200 miles per hour. The problem? Noise. Air pressure changes produced large thunder claps every time the train emerged from a tunnel, causing residents one-quarter a mile away to complain. Eiji Nakatsu, the train's chief engineer and an avid bird-watcher, asked himself, "Is there something in Nature that travels quickly and smoothly between two very different mediums?" Modeling the front-end of the train after the beak of kingfishers, which dive from the air into bodies of water with very little splash to catch fish, resulted not only in a quieter train, but 15% less electricity use even while the train travels 10% faster.

But of course the kingfisher's beak just happened in some non-design way. At least that's what some people would really want you to believe, regardless of whether they really think that themselves.


Find out why there's a design controversy:

Coffee!! Galloping crocodiles ate our dinosaurs?

Fossil finders have been digging in the Sahara and this time they turned up what they think are ancient "galloping dinosaur-eating crocodiles" from about a fajillion years ago. Here's what an artist thinks the scientists think the bones tell them what the creature would have looked like when alive:
Looks more like a dinosaur than a crocodile to me. One thing not mentioned in the article is what all this means for darwinism. If crocodiles were galloping around eating dinosaurs way back when then it doesn't look like much "evolution" has been going on since because now they just slouch about in rivers waiting for a zebra to come take a drink. If crocodiles have really been around for a kafrillion years and they've really been evolving from something which was agile and smart enough to chase down a dinousaur then they ought to be living in houses and wearing hats and composing operas by now. But they only live in houses when people keep them as pets which really isn't wise, folks, because crocodiles make lousy pets. Too often people get a crocodile when it's a sweet looking newborn and maybe the kids nag mom and dad who don't think it through and then they're astonished when it grows too big. Then when it gets too big for the house they mistreat the animal or release them into creeks which makes a stack of problems for other people. The city's Animal Control dept already have enough to do with just raccoons making trouble and a pound full of dogs without irresponsible people adding crocodiles as well.


There's a design controversy! Find out why there is!

Darwinists ready to embrace their corn overlords?

Humans compose music, write books, carve sculpture, learn languages, form societies and design the canadarm. Corn just stands around in fields. So if living creatures and people are really just the simple mechanistic result of their genes as darwinists insist then of course humans must have more genes. Turns out... not so true.

Corn 'contains more genes than humans'
Scientists have decoded the genetic make-up of corn and found the humble vegetable contains more genes than humans.
The researchers discovered that a stalk of corn contains around 32,000 genes.
By contrast the DNA of humans, decoded in recent years, is thought to contain an average of just over 20,000 genes.

Best not eat that corn, darwinists, it's more advanced than you think you are! Or maybe life is more complicated than you've thought it might be.


Learn why there's a design controversy!

Dawkins poked in the eye

Some people in England still get it and have the backbone to stand up to Dawkins and his followers. Quentin Letts in the Mail of London writes it up in neat:

Not A great week for militant secularists. ... one of the world's top cosmologists distanced himself from Richard Dawkins.
You know Dawkins: that soundbite- savvy Oxford biologist, the ayatollah of atheism whose adherents are as swivel-eyed as Opus Dei flagellants.
Dawkins often wraps himself up in Science with a capital 'S', declaring that the world's great religions lack fact. He loves to belittle us churchgoers as thickos.
Well, this week one of Dawkins's fellow eggheads torpedoed his claim to speak for the world of white coats and test tubes.
Professor John Barrow, director of Cambridge's Millennium Mathematics Project, suggested that Dawkins was 'dogmatic' and had a problem thinking beyond the confines of biology.

Read the whole thing. Mr Letts makes a good point that physicists "are used to dealing with uncertainty and being undogmatic", a quality which has sadly deserted too many in other fields.

If Quentin's in Toronto anytime we should meet up for coffee. I can tell him about beefalo and how the polar and grizzly bears have started interbreeding despite supposedly being different species and how wolves and coyotes are living together.






Find out how the intelligent design controversy is!

Infants' minds made to march in line

It's happened; England's pushing in a law mandating that evolution be taught to first graders.

Primary school children in England will have to learn about evolution and British history under a shake-up of the national curriculum.

And this move has come about not so much for real scientific reasons but because of lobbying by the humanists, who are the more openly theological branch of materialist atheism.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) had led a campaign to have Darwin's theory of how life evolved through natural selection made a compulsory element of the new primary curriculum.
It organised a public letter signed by more than 500 from scientists and supporters.
Andrew Copson of the BHA said: "This is excellent news. Evolution is arguably the most important concept underlying the life sciences.

There we go with more of the "most important idea in the whole of science ever" blather. Another reason the current liberal government of England is introducing this now is that they can see themselves losing an election and are trying to buttress their fortress against an incoming conservative administration having the courage to introduce criticism of darwinism into the syllabus, predictibly peddled as a scary risk of bringing the creationist doctrines of a “Religious Right” into the classroom instead of exposing minds to the new design paradigm.

Conservative plans to grant schools freedom from central control risk bringing the creationist doctrines of a “Religious Right” into the classroom, the Government warned last night.
Ed Balls, the Education Secretary, this week introduced new rules making the study of Darwin’s theory of evolution compulsory in primary schools.

Because we can't have the poor darlings learning that Darwin was anybody other than the greatest scientist ever, and if it takes government fiat shield them from the truth to then so be it. So sad.

Learn why there's an intelligent design controversy.

Darwinism rebutted in letters pages

A couple of letters pages entries which stand out recently. Darwinists will often insist that their pet ideology is "established fact" or "important to medicine". Not according to William E Smiddy MD writing in the medical journal Archives of Opthalmology:

However, lost in the platitudes is the fact that evolution is still but a theory, not an experimentally verifiable fact. There is no more than B:III evidence for the theory of evolution (ie, there have been no clinical trials, randomized or not, confirming the theory; rather, respected authorities have concluded its parts and, at best, there are case-control series that have been extrapolated to its conclusion) despite pervasive, frequent, and dogmatic proclamations to the contrary.

That evolution has not been subjected to randomized clinical trials is an inescapable fact and one which is not mentioned often enough. Thankyou for reminding us of this, Dr Smiddy.

In the Daily American, the key planks of the darwinist argument are neatly taken apart by Wendell McLaughlin:

Evolution not fact but theory. In fact there is more science that supports intelligent design. This is why evolutionists fight so hard to keep it from being taught in our schools.
Evolutionists say that evolution is based on science and intelligent design is based on faith, but both require faith in something. Neither can positively prove the beginning of everything from nothing.
Darwins theory of evolution requires working backward and sometimes ignoring facts that do not support their theory and requires millions of years opposed to the Bibles thousands.
Carbon Dating measures the amount of carbon monoxide in material. Many things can vary these results; if buried or not and in what or exposed to air or sun and for how long, etc. Also you can set the scale from 0 to millions or thousands.
The rotation speed of the earth is slowing, if reversed the centrifugal force would overcome gravity and fling us from the earth well before the time required for evolution. ...
The fossil record does not show any mutation between one animal and another. Evolution science is based on a false premise and therefore bad science, and mathematically impossible. In fact there are many scientists, teachers, and experts in every field that support intelligent design, and not evolution, search - intelligent design.

For all my years of science writing I don't think I could have put it better myself.


Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy!

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Coffee!! Darwin resurrects birds

From the you-couldn't-make-it-up department, the holy saint Charles Of Darwin is being credited with saving from extinction a species of mockingbird which went extinct 100 years ago.

But within 50 years of the great naturalist's voyage on HMS Beagle, the tame little birds had been wiped out on their native island because of the dogs and rats introduced by Darwin himself.
However specimens remained at the Natural History Museum in London and with the California Academy of Sciences. Now thanks to DNA samples taken from the stuffed birds naturalists have been able to find mockingbirds with a similar genetic make up to return to Floreana island for the first time in 120 years.

Notice it was Darwin himself who wiped the birds out in the first place. Hardly the behaviour of any "great naturalist", but don't let that get in the way of the hero worship.

It's the first time this science journalist has seen Darwin credited with bringing something back from the dead. What's next - walking on water?

Intelligent Design among the bestsellers

A graceless post in the Seattle Weekly manages to get the truth out between gritted teeth - the Intelligent Design movement is making inroads into the popular culture with bestselling books.

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, published in June by Discovery Fellow Stephen Meyer (shown at right), has cracked Amazon's Top Ten list of science books of 2009. The list is ranked by customer orders through October.

With the success of Signature in the Cell now and the runaway blockbuster documentary hit film Expelled last year even the most wilfully blind darwinists can't kid themselves that ID isn't a force to be reckoned with. Their castle is crumbling, and anyone who wants can get a souvenir brick.


Find out why there is a controversy.

Ideas aren't made for stealing

Given that their prophet lifted whole parts of “his” work from the less attention-seeking Wallace it's no surprise that Darwin's acoloytes think it's okay to steal people's ideas. Dr William Dembski, Professor of Mathematical Complexity at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and one of the leading visionaries in information theory and its applications to ID, draws attention to the latest terrible example of this intellectual piracy.

RationalWiki is reprinting large portions of an article I did with Robert Marks that far exceeds anything permissible under “fair use” copyright protections. I was getting ready to contact my attorney about having them remove our article from their website (go here — I’ve saved this page in case it changes as a consequence of this post), but couldn’t find any contact information on the site.

Question: Who is running this site and how to contact them?

That the thief tries to hide their identity behind the anonymousness afforded by the internet is simply sickening and a clear indication of what my father would have called “girly yellow cowardliness” but that was back in the day when people still had a moral backbone and went to church on Sundays. And do the darwinbots feel any shame when this pilfering of Professor Dembski's words has been exposed? Of course not; some number-juggler at "scienceblogs" even claims that it is Professor Dembski who is being unreasonable in simply trying to control who can read the fruits of his research. Of course it's easy for them to talk a good fight, but I doubt they'll be sounding so confident when the case goes to law, because one thing the Intelligent Design movement is renowned for is its record of performance in the courtroom.

Find out why there is an Intelligent Design controversy.

Neurolaw's chilling developments

The materialists' ideological attachment to the idea that your innermost thoughts and feelings are nothing more than the result of chemicals sloshing about in the sack of your brain is now taking an eerie turn into the courtroom with the new field of "neurolaw". This is the notion that their fantastical neurobabble should be used as evidence in court or for deciding sentencing; they're selling the idea of the Ultimate Lie Detector but really the whole thing's as convincing as a Fairy Powered Dream Machine. Given everything else that's happening in society with special "human rights" commissions being set up to stop pastors from preaching against the sodomite machine and the push to redefine Intelligent Design as a "hate crime" you have to wonder how long until the Darwin Police are scanning people's brains to find out whether you're sympathetic to Intelligent Design and whammo if you're not marching with the atheist herd then it's off to the gulag or badthink reeducation camp for you. As someone who helped write the Constitution I don't understand how the country that built the canadarm has come to the point where this is something which looks like it could really happen.

David Berlinksi's clarity of insight

The usual crowd of darwinists often fall back to throwing a few standard claims at the burgeoning Intelligent Design movement, such as "ID is not properly defined" or "ID lacks rigour". Such attacks have always lacked merit but are now more ineffectual than ever. So noted philosopher of science David Berlinski's bestselling new book The Devil's Delusion comes along at a good time. David Berlinski is possibly one of the most perceptive minds in this field and the book is a joy to read and is quite the tour de force as we say here in Canada. It also stimulates the reader's own thoughts. As a textbook reviewer I've reviewed many textbooks and am happy to see that the Devils' Delusion comes with a downloadable discussion guide which makes it ideal for use in school settings where it is bound to spice up an otherwise dull philosophy or science classes. Berlinski has always strived lion-like to convey important matters to the wider public. Regal is another fine word. He dares to ask whether a designer whose nature we cannot fathom, using principles we cannot specify, constructed a system we cannot characterize, and lays bare the intellectual dishonesty of dismissing this essential question as "lacking rigour" or being a "science stopper".

Put in simple logical terms where the Darwinists go wrong is when they collectively root their pseudointellectual foundations in a profound overconfidence and misunderstaning of what they claim is the "scientific method" and even before they begin reject a priori a huge swathe of Human experience. This arises of course as an inevitable consequence of their syllogism mired in a miasma that was imposed initially by the enforcement of this so-called "methodogical naturalism". Thus they will adopt a fundamentally theological stance while claiming to reject any theological prerequisites to their postulates ipso facto. Blinkered to the inherent circularity of his reasoning the darwinist builds an ever more teetering tower of inferences and rhetoric on the weak sandy foundation of his mental alluvial mudflats. Recently this house of cards has begun to be shown for the shaky ivory tower construct it always was and is being increasingly rejected by a public demanding change. Wearing pink tasseled slippers and conical hats covered in polka dots the Darwinists descend, honking sadly, into the tar pits. Among the whole Darwinian Guild there is not a single first rate intelligence in the bunch.

But these aren't arguments you'll ever hear a darwinist give an answer to.

Find out why there's an intelligent design controversy...

ID "is not science" trotted out again

The Discovery Institute's Casey Luskin recently gave a lecture at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in which he argued very well that Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific realm of investigation regardless of what the loudmouth darwinist congregation might say. Speaking against Dr Luskin was a theologian, and isn't it strange that the darwinists sent a theologian to argue against Dr Luskin instead of a biologist. Truth be told, darwinism is pure theology and they know it.

Peter Hess, a theologian, author of "Catholicism and Science" and a defender of teaching evolution in schools. He said Intelligent Design is "not science'' but is "poor theology.''

Again with the tired old trope that Intelligent Design is "not science''. This might be hard for some people to understand but detecting design and making legitimate design inferrences from the world around us is too science.
Consider an episode of Diagnosis Murder. When Dr Mark Sloan finds a patient at Community General has been murdered he doesn't just leap to the conclusion that unguided materials and energies just happened by chance to create the appearance of murder. He meticulously examines the scene and performs experiments in the form of interviews to arrive at a logical deduction of how an intelligent agent performed the complex specified act. And he gets it done in under an hour despite being interrupted for commercial breaks. Intelligent Design researchers are just doing the same thing.

Stop already with trotting out the "ID is not science" pony.

Molecular clock really goes tick tock?

There's much puffery spoken by people who should know better about the supposedly exact "molecular clock" which the darwinists pin their hopes on to explain how bears turned into whales. Or at least they use it to proclaim loftily and mightily about when bears turned into whales even if they always forget to explain how and change the subject if anyone dares ask them or else come out with a stream of gabble which makes this science journalist's head spin or just as often simply accuse the questioner of misunderstanding. Unsurprisingly it turns out again their "molecular clock" isn't as accurate as we've been told. This time someone's been digging up frozen penguin corpses in antarctica and comparing the "molecular clock" to the true age of the birds

Penguins that died 44,000 years ago in Antarctica have provided extraordinary frozen DNA samples that challenge the accuracy of traditional genetic aging measurements, and suggest those approaches have been routinely underestimating the age of many specimens by 200 to 600 percent.
In other words, a biological specimen determined by traditional DNA testing to be 100,000 years old may actually be 200,000 to 600,000 years old, researchers suggest in a new report in Trends in Genetics, a professional journal.
The findings raise doubts about the accuracy of many evolutionary rates based on conventional types of genetic analysis.

That's a really useful clock you've got there that gains a week every day. Expect this study to be slipped quietly down the memory hole and the "molecular clock" to remain on its pedestal. After all, too many people have got their nice tenure funded by the taxpayers to want to confuse the huddled masses with the truth.


Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy!

Into the minds of infants

The Guardian of London is reporting that in Britain the Darwinianist establishment which is increasingly losing its grip on adults and teens is shifting its aim to catch future believers when they're at the youngest and most impressionable by peddling their dogma in junior school

The government is ready to put evolution on the primary curriculum for the first time after years of lobbying by senior scientists.
The schools minister, Diana Johnson, has confirmed the plans will be included in a blueprint for a new curriculum to be published in the next few weeks.
It follows a letter signed by scientists and science educators calling on the government to make the change after draft versions of the new curriculum failed to mention evolution explicitly.

And who are these "scientists and science educators" who were so up in arms that a government might actually serve children with an education instead of an indocrination of atheist fairy tales? Hold onto your hats and prepare to be shocked, shocked, shocked:

Among the signatories were the Oxford University evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.
The letter expressed alarm that the theory of evolution through natural selection, which it describes as "one of the most important ideas underlying biological science", was ignored in the revamped curriculum.
"We consider its inclusion vital," the letter said.

Of course Dawkins considers it vital. It's the atheist Creation myth and he knows there's no better time to get someone to believe that molecules somehow turned into fish somehow turned into men than when they still believe in Santa Claus.

That this is proposed in England, the home of Saint Darwin and coincidentally a country with single payer government healthcare and where homeschooling is practically illegal, is hardly surprising. It's more important than ever that people realize what's at stake.


Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:


Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Time for civil debate

The erudite Casey Luskin, Head of Logic at the Discovery Institute, makes the case in the Washington Examiner for the Darwin-worshippers to restore civility to the debate in the intelligent design controversy.

In today’s highly charged political climate, scientific debates over controversial subjects such as climate change and evolution increasingly substitute such overblown rhetoric for careful analysis.

We commonly see one side depicting the other as not only wrong, but as unreasonable, irrational, or immoral. As a result, two terms are presently in vogue to describe those who question scientific ideas: “Skeptic” and “Denier.”

In place of rhetorically charged labels like denier, I suggest using more civil terms like “critic” or “skeptic,” even when describing one's opponents. ID proponents are critics of Darwinian evolution.

[...]

Once the rhetoric is toned down, perhaps we can have a real discussion about the evidence and find out which side’s skepticism is most convincing in this intriguing debate.

Quite right. Just because their heads are filled with a Nazi-inspiring dogma which causes school shootings and allows them to euthanise seniors and abort babies and behave as they like without moral consequence doesn't give the Darwin-worshipping herd any right to remove civility from an important public debate at the razor's edge of scientific discovery.

Discover why there really is a controvery about Intelligent Design!

Dinosaurs disowned

After decades of inisisting that the fossil record provides "overwhelming evidence" for evolution the darwinists are now quietly confessing that the fossil record isn't all it's cracked up to be. They've gone back to look at the bones and found that maybe a third of the dinosaur species they'd been luring kids with didn't exist after all.

Their demise comes after a three-horned dinosaur, Torosaurus, was assigned to the dustbin of history last month at the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology meeting in the United Kingdom, the loss in recent years of quite a few duck-billed hadrosaurs and the probable disappearance of Nanotyrannus, a supposedly miniature Tyrannosaurus rex.

These dinosaurs were not separate species, as some paleontologists claim, but different growth stages of previously named dinosaurs, according to a new study.

Good job for me that I don't care how the tyrannosaur died because next year they'll probably be telling us that the tyrannosaur never existed. As I've always told my students; don't take a paleontologist at face value until he can tell you how many types of dinosaurs there actually were, and they've never managed to settle on a number yet.

Find out why there's an intelligent design controversy!

PZ Myers challenged to show cat robot

Atheist professor of Darwin and loudmouth Jesus desecrator PZ Myers is insulting Dinesh D'Souza's excellent arguments for an afterlife in his normal loud and disjointed way. Of course he doesn't address the substance of any of Professor D'Souza's masterful logic but instead resorts to the basest crudities like talking about defiling himself over Ann Coulter. But he's made one big mistake by making a verfiable claim to have "built a robot and included in its circuitry some code that inclined it to avoid colliding with cats".
I challenge him now to show us this robot and the computer pro-gram he wrote to make it avoid cats. It should be a simple matter. If he can't do this it casts the truthfulness of his other statements in a very poor light.
That a man like this is busy filling students' heads with Darwin worship is sad but I suppose inevitable given the state of modern academia.

Ida sinks, Darwinists unapologetic

Remember all the noise generated by the Darwinianist propaganda engine back in the spring when the press unskeptically parroted the claims about Ida, supposedly The Fossil Which Proved Evolution?

Scientists Hail Stunning Fossil

and

Missing link fossil on display

Well now the backpedalling has started and it turns out that the Fossil Which Proved Evolution turned out - quelle surprise (we Canadians have by law to be able to write in French) - to be just another dead monkey after all.

''The suggestion that Ida [was]... specifically related to the higher primates, namely monkeys apes and humans, was actually a minority view from the start. So it came as a surprise to many of us who are studying primate palaeontology," said Dr Seiffert, from Stony Brook University in New York, US.

Yes, right, it was a minority view right from the start. Which is why we heard so many of supposedly common doubts back when Ida was being hailed as the most important fossil of all time. Piltdown Man, anyone?
As Casey Luskin, the principle bone expert at the Discovery Institute in Seattle observes:

It only took a few months for Ida to go from celebrity-status “missing link” to just another extinct lower primate. As Nature is now reporting...

"Ida is as far away from the human lineage as you can get and still be considered a primate," says Christopher Beard, a palaeoanthropologist at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Incredibly, professional Darwinists are even trying to frantically retrofit Ida's demotion into their worldview as yet another triumph for materialistic atheism:

Isn't Science wonderful? Unlike some other ways of knowing, science can self-correct.

Oh yes such humble and gracious apologies. Self correcting after getting it massively wrong. After making it legitimate for people to keep dangerous chimps as pets, how much more damage will this Darwinian delusion do before the elite come to their senses?

Find out why there's an Origins controversy!

Darwinism sinks lower in public mind

Despite the ongoing indoctrination and hero worship being foisted on the British people at the moment about that old racist and noted kitten-drowner Charles Darwin, people are still waking up to the glaring flaws in his outmoded theory and demanding a more even approach in the science classroom.

Some 54 per cent of Britons want biology teachers to discuss 'alternative perspectives' on human origins alongside traditional explanations of evolution.

They also want children to be told about intelligent design, the idea that aspects of the universe are too complex to be explained by science and natural selection.

And these doubts about Saint Charles' infallibility are spreading wider, even getting as far as the pages of World Net Daily where influential cultural commentator sums up his problem with the whole stinky edifice:

I don't believe the Earth is billions of years old. I don't believe animals have transitioned from one species to another. And I certainly don't believe that nothing created everything.

I once believed it. I don't anymore.

Why? Because I looked at the so-called "evidence." And found none.

Learn why there's an intelligent design controversy!

Popular media "getting" the problem with atheist neuroscience?

Popular media is finally waking up to the death of materialist neuroscience as 'Time' examines the placebo effect:

Exactly why the placebo and nocebo responses arise is a puzzle

The helplessness of materialists to explain the placebo effect shows that the other option - that the mind is the product of the nonmaterial soul being beamed into the person by God - is a more elegant solution.
There have been excellent books written about this by leading scholars of the subject, and are available on audio CD.

Bottom-feeding flatfish consume tax dollars

Flatfish have always been a problem for darwinists because nobody's ever seen a symmetrical fish squash itself flat. Instead they come up with just-so stories of a symmetrical fish squashing itself flat in small incremental steps over millions of years, but nobody's ever seen that either.

Charles Darwin grappled unsuccessfully with the problem. Darwin was troubled by how fish such as flounder and sole had made the seemingly improbable evolutionary leap from being symmetrical to having two eyes on the same side of their face.

According to the Times of London someone thinks he's found the "missing link" of flatfish evolution so Saint Darwin was right. Tax money well spent; looking for squashed old fish instead of finding a cure for cancer.
When will scientists accept that in reality these are not "transitional fossils" at all? They don't have one leg or half a wing like a proper transition should but instead are fully formed and perfectly complete fish. Neither regular upright fish nor flatfish but perfectly complete and designed leaning-over-in-between fish.

Meyer and Wells educate Oklahoma

Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer and Jonathan Wells took the fight to the enemy recently, giving an extended lecture on intelligent design at Oklahoma University. The darwinbots came along and shouted a bit were unable to counter any of the good gents' arguments. Darwinoids often talk about how allegedly "common" genes supposedly prove that puddles turned into people, but Professor Wells points out something they don't want to hear:

Furthermore, the similarity of HOX genes in so many animal phyla is actually a problem for neo-Darwinism: If evolutionary changes in body plans are due to changes in genes, and flies have HOX genes similar to those in a horse, why is a fly not a horse?

The darwinianists still haven't given an answer to this question which is surely like a festering wound eating away at materialistic biology's Creation Myth. The best they've managed is over at the highly offensive Pandas Thumb darwin echo-chamber where someone dismisses it out of hand as the "Egregiously stupid remark of the week" without explanation. Once again we see darwinists sink to ad hominen when they run out of logic.

ID research wins Nobel Prize

A trio of diligent Americans have won a Nobel Prize for discovering how the ends of chromosomes don't fall off when they are copied. As is explained at Uncommon Descent, this is exactly the sort of thing which ID researchers would have predicted if only they'd known about it. Certainly the discovery was only possible through the application of much intelligence and carefully designed experiment.

Every day brings the end of the Darwinianist hegemony a step closer.

Learn why there's an Intelligent Design controversy.

Athiest propaganda movie leaves critics cold

I'd not heard of Ricky Gervais before, but apparently he's big in England and he's made a movie which portrays God as a fictional "Man in the Sky" looking down at all of us who's been invented and promoted by a liar for reasons of personal gain. Worse than that is the trailers don't reveal this and pretend the movie's a romantic comedy, so the public might come along for a good time, buy a ticket and then be unwittingly exposed to atheist propaganda. But it looks like it'll fizzle at the box office anyway as critics S.T. Karnick and Kyle Smith get the word out about its true message.

Coffee! Darwin's payroll clerks mired in porn

Now we learn why the Darwin-worshippers have been getting so many of the taxpayers' dollars: the NSF were too busy looking at pornography to think clearly about allocating funds to new and promising branches of science like ID, finding a cure for atheists and the construction of more effective Prayer Amplifiers.

Time for a root and branch reform of science funding.

'Ardi' demolishes story of human evolution

Christian Today reports that the acclaimed "Ardi" fossil being held up by evolutionists of proof we gone came from monkeys does nothing of the sort. The report quot anthropologist C O Lovejoy of Kent State University as saying

The most popular reconstructions of human evolution during the past century rested on the presumption that [the] earliest hominids were related to … these living great apes (Chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas) … Ardipithecus ramidus nullifies these presumptions

Perhaps realising how weak their fossil evidence is, evolutionary psychologists are scrabbling to plug the leaking dam by wheeling out the "lusty ladies" theory of human evolution. Apparently evolution means that some women are supposed to act like hussies, which I think tells us all we need to know about those researchers.

Hyenas bury materialist neuroscience deeper

The Darwinianist orthodoxy's insistence that we're so close to chimps fails again as researchers discover that hyenas are smarter than chimps at solving rope-related problems which any human infant would solve in an instant. If humans were really just 99% the same as chimps the apes should have cinched this, and moved on to typing Shakespeare after retrieving the food prize. Just as an excellent recent book compellingly argues this shows that thought cannot be the result of simple dumb molecules bumping around. Don't expect to see this news on too many front pages, though.