L.A., CALIFORNIA. Most of us have heard of the merging branch theory of evolution that fails to sufficiently hide the fact that evolution should be able to be consistently traced in an unbroken succession to previous forms. Evolutionists try to hide it because they have never found evidence for it in even a single animal species. The "tangled branches" model is a modified version of Ernst Haeckel's "tree of life", or "evolutionary tree". The latter version takes Darwin's theory, modeled as a tree, and tangles the branches, supposedly making it impossible to trace how the branch relates to the trunk. This represents that groups that split off often remerge, so that it is difficult to trace the lineage. This is known as "reticulate evolution", meaning that the evolution spreads out in an interwoven network. Of course, the difficulty that evolutionists ran into with this analogy is that no matter how tangled up the branches are, you can sti...

There are many fallacies in claiming that God does not exist. One of these is the claim that God only exists in the gaps in science. Is this true? Inversely, are atheists immune to filling the gaps with the unfounded claim that God does not exist? It is true that many religious people have used “God of the gaps” excuses for not exploring further, but only because they feared the retaliation of their church, not because they genuinely felt they were not allowed to go further by God. Being religious does not automatically mean that the person is going to ever resort to a God of the gaps excuse. I have yet to hear of a single modern example of this from religious scientists because churches are no longer allowed to torture people and burn them at the stake. Burden of Proof Applies Both Ways Atheists certainly are not immune to this fallacy. The very claim that “evolution did it” is itself a “God of the gaps” argument that gets used by evolution communicators ad nauseum. The fact that th...

Warning: The following subject matter may be considered objectionable to some readers. Many sexual themes are discussed and a commonly accepted claim regarding homosexuality is refuted. Every effort has been made in this blog post to treat gay men and women with respect as equals to heterosexuals while opposing the viewpoint that they are controlled by a "gay gene". Whether gay couples can love each other the same way as heterosexual couples or whether they deserve the same rights in marriage as heterosexual couples is not at question here. The reader will find no intentional insults, derogatory remarks or condemnation here. Only the facts. Notes: In this article, no distinction is made between "homosexual" and "gay". Such distinction, based on the "'homo' means 'man'" argument is misguided and has no bearing upon a mature discussion. (In fact, "homo" does not mean "man", but means "self", im...