Birds return to haunt Darwinistas

The origin of birds has always had the Darwin-worshipping tax burdens in a flap. Casey Luskin, Head Of Fossils at the Discovery Institute, talks about this in the latest episode of his podcast and reveals how many so-called "feathered dinosaurs" in fact look a lot like flightless birds. They even have teeth and clawed forearms, just like flightless birds do today. It's becoming crystal clear that there's a fuzzy and blurred line between "feathered dinosaurs" and flightless birds; try explaining that with your evolution, darwin-boy!

Darwinista in gun rampage!

It's so characteristic of the darwinianists disallowing civil debate of important scientific questions that it is again left to the fine Christian gentleman and scholar Salvador Cordova to take last week's tragic school shootings and assign the blame squarely to darwinism, with perhaps some responsibility also laid at the door of liberal politicrats.
However much you might try to hide under a pile of neatly sorted laundry it's becoming harder to escape the conclusion that a combination of tax-funded evolution and neuroscience drives people to acquire firearms and kill their neighbours in a frenzied attempt to ensure the "survival of the fittest".


Find out why there's a controversy?

Darwinoids "solve evolutionary bird puzzle" again

It seems we can hardly move nowadays for announcements of the Most Impressive Fossil Most Proving Evolution Ever, a sure sign that the old guard darwinian elite know that their castle's crumbling so they've got to rush out the 2-by-4s to prop it up. Latest is yet another "transitional" fossil which they're hanging the "bird evolution" just so story onto.

"Haplocheirus is a transitional fossil," Jonah Choiniere from George Washington University told the BBC.

Oh please, not that old flabblebabble again. Climb down from the drapes, you idiot! The pattern looks better without you in the middle of it. It shows none of the features of a transitional fossil; it's not half-pig half-monkey, it's not half-squid half-horse or half-bird half-dog, it's not a transition of any kind and he knows it as well as you and I. But then here comes the laughline:

"Previously we thought the Alvarezsauridae were primitive, flightless birds. This discovery shows they're not and that the similarities between them evolved in parallel."

I'll translate that from darwinist for you; it means "we were wrong about it before, and this proves evolution is true". I'd like to see them take that standard of evidence to the police station; here in Canada they'd get laughed at by the desk sergeant and maybe even have to explain why they'd been wasting police time. But for some reason the government forces teachers to cram this stuff down kids' throats in schools on the taxpayer dime and while not allowing promising alternative theories to be taught on a level footing, all policed by secret "Human Rights Commission" courts .

Coffee!! Dinosaurs were blondes or redheads? Who cares?

Not content with inflicting evolutionary psychology on us, the tax-funded tenured darwinists in their ivory towers are making up new stories for themselves. This time they're pretending to know what color dinosaurs were. First they're saying that a Sinosauropteryx - discovered in communist China - was coveniently red. Hmmm, think about it! They "know" this because red looks different under a magnifying glass than other colors, which is ridiculous because colors don't have shapes, but I guess common sense is why I'm not a professor of dinosaurs.

And now they've even made an animation of another one, as if they'd sent a cameraman back in time. Does anyone else find it just a little too convenient that this other dinosaur they're selling to the public is called Anchiornis huxleyi, after Saint Darwin's biggest number 1 buddy and inventor of eugenics, Huxley? Well color me unimpressed; it's just a critter with feathers, like lots of other critters. It's a dinosaur - claws and teeth and a bony tail - so how they use that as "evidence for evolution" is beyond me. These are the same people who claim that Archaeoptryx (clearly a bird, with feathered wings) is a "transitional fossil"!!

Look, I don't know what color a tyrannosaur was, and I don't know why the trilobite died out and I don't care about those things because we don't know, never really will and it's not going to alter the price of bread one way or another. Okay, so we can see what color an animal is now; that's science. Pretending to know what color an animal was which has been dead for ages isn't science. The last time I saw a dead animal it was a raccoon which had been hit by a car and was all decayed and smelly, not beautiful at all and the last thing I wanted to do was stick around to describe what color its nose was.

Expelled released in UK

The excellent and highly regarded science documentary film Expelled, which set off a firestorm of controversy and atheist witch-hunting in the US in 2008 because it showed how darwiniamism leads to atheism which leads to Hitler and Stalinism is to be released in the UK soon by NPN Videos; a leading distrubutor of science educational material and not at all a Christian Apologetics outlet.
Expect all the usual darwinoid bleating about how Expelled isn't a "proper" science film cogently presenting a logical and well supported theory. But Premier Christian Media have arranged a premier screening of the film at a lecture hall in London's Imperial College University, which seems pretty legitimately scientific to me and will seem so the wider population as well.


Find out about the controversy!!

Lobbing a grenade into the primate origins picture

Darwinists have been constantly asserting for 150 years that we gone come from monkeys, but even if that's true - which it isn't because there aren't any transitional fossils and nobody's ever seen a cow give birth to a cat - it begs the question "So where did monkeys come from, Dr Science?". Up until now the answer they've given has been that monkeys came from fish which decided to hop up onto the land after they somehow grew lungs without drowning, which happened somewhere at some time, we're working on that there's nothing to see here at all now, move along. I know it sounds crazy, but that's what they'd have told you, if they'd even deigned to give a mere tax-payer any answer at all instead of just evading the issue by staring at you blankly before saying something like "You really don't understand this subject at all, perhaps we should talk about some underlying concepts..." And I know this is what they do, because in my many years as a science journalist I've had to confront that sort of ideologically blinkered piffle more times than I can remember.
Well their castle is developing a severe case of cracked walls with the publishing of a New Theory on the Origin of Primates by Professor Heads at Buffalo Museum in one of their own "peer reviewed"* journals which takes issue with the existing dogma of how monkeys came to be, and exposes the prevailing materialist compfort blanket to be a heap of fail, as I believe the young people are saying nowadays:

"According to prevailing theories, primates are supposed to have originated in a geographically small area (center of origin) from where they dispersed to other regions and continents" said Heads, who also noted that widespread misrepresentation of fossil molecular clocks estimates as maximum or actual dates of origin has led to a popular theory that primates somehow crossed the globe and even rafted across oceans to reach America and Madagascar.

Excuse me while I laugh. Monkeys rafting across oceans is ridiculous, as anyone who's ever seen a monkey trying to climb into a boat will attest.

The article notes that increasing numbers of primatologists and paleontologists recognize that the fossil record cannot be used to impose strict limits on primate origins, and that some molecular clock estimates also predict divergence dates pre-dating the earliest fossils.

In other words the fossils don't tell us anything with clarity and disagree with the "molecular clock" anyway. By saying this Professor Heads is going up against some serious vested interests so expect to see some viscous attacks on his career.


* ie "ideolgically cleansed"


Find out about the ID controversy!

Bird Table Bafflegab; darwinists' latest fairy tale

The Telegraph of London tells us that the tax-funded darwin-worshipping toadycrat biologists, having nothing better to do because I guess they've cured cancer, are now telling us that it's not just random mutations that drive "evolution". No, now it's bird feeders. Seriously.

One type of warbler known as the Blackcap is increasingly wintering in England instead of the Mediterranean after being drawn here by the abundance of food in gardens, the researchers claim.
And because their migration is much shorter and their food source different, this is having a profound effect on their bodies - reducing the size of their wings and beaks.
The 'English' blackcaps have developed longer, narrower beaks better suited to the bread and nuts commonly served up on British bird tables than to the olives they would dine on in Spain.
The evolutionary change appears to have occurred over just a few decades, according to the study.
The breakaway group of birds, who still summer and breed in Germany, now account for more than 10 per cent of the whole Blackcap population.
Eventually the "innocent human activity" of feeding birds, a particularly popular British pasttime, could lead to a whole new species of bird, the scientists believe.

You couldn't make it up. Listen folks, I see lots of bird feeders here in Toronto but our birds are still birds and they're not turning into jellyfish or wolves or whatever the Darwinists pretend is happening. This doesn't pass the horse laugh of common sense but it does consume tax dollars and keep Darwinists in the public eye.


Find out about the Intelligent Design controversy!!!