Piltdown Superman

Some people claim to have a thorough knowledge of evolution. Amazingly, there are tinhorns who claim to know more than evolutionary (and non-evolutionary) scientists! Evolution is inconsistent and constantly changing, and needs a great deal of tweaking to keep the pseudoscience in line with scientific observations. Do evolutionary scientists themselves claim to have full understanding of evolution? Not hardly. Some will actually admit to having a lack of understanding. Yet, they persist in keeping the faith despite the evidence. Philip Ball’s opinion piece in this week’s Nature, the most popular science magazine in the world, is news not because he stated that we don’t fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, but because he urged his fellow evolutionists to admit it. On this 60th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double helix, Ball reviews a few of the recent findings that have rebuked the evolution narrative that random mutations created the biol

“In science, people argue for their ideas, in terms of the evidence that they have. There should be more opportunities to look at why some ideas are wrong, as well as what the right ideas are.” — Jonathan Osborne When discussing origins with proponents of evolution, we find that they simply repeat what they have been taught. Unfortunately, they have been taught "facts" that are conjecture, and "evidence" that is based on presuppositions and circular reasoning. Questioning evolution as a fact is effectively forbidden, and fundamentalist evolutionists strive to suppress critical thinking and examination of the evidence. Jonathan Osborne wants to do things differently. Instead of reciting facts (both real and imagined), he wants students to do something radical: Argue from the available facts instead of starting with a conclusion. Although it's a step in the right direction and interferes with evolutionary indoctrination, it's not quite enough. A pr

by Robert ("Cowboy Bob") Sorensen This article is for the creationists, and I implore you to spare ten minutes to read it. Science is on our side. Most of us are aware of th is fact. Also, our numbers are growing and atheism is on the decline [ 1 ] . It is an exciting time to be a creationist! There are many organizations that present the science and theology supporting creationism and make material available on the Web  [ 2 ] , as well as books, videos and so forth. So what are people doing with this wealth of information? Some will learn a bit, but after the entertainment value wears off, they lose interest. Others will become enthusiastic but do not continue to learn, and become intimidated when challenged by scoffers. There will be some who lose sight of the importance of the message because of their other concerns and leave it behind. Then there are the ones who are excited about the message, the science, the relevance and more, so they dig in deeper. These will lea

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen The term “Luddite” refers to a rebellious movement in the early part of the Industrial Revolution. At that time, some people were destroying machinery that was going to put them out of work because they could be replaced by unskilled, low-paid people who would run the machines  [ 1 ] . Although most people do not know the real meaning of “Luddite” today and the fear of unemployment and starvation that motivated the movement, many know the disparaging term from definition number two, “One who opposes technical or technological change” [ 2 ] . Even that meaning is being lost because the term is being used imprecisely. People who want an emotionally-charged word for their political or religious enemies will call them “Luddites” [ 3 , 4 ] . I have encountered the term dreadfully misused several time in reference to creationists. Since someone who believes in Intelligent Design or biblical (Six Day) creation is tagged with this term, it seems fitting to t

NOAA To journey to the ocean floor, special equipment must be used because the tremendous pressure can crush a submarine like an eggshell. Yet, there are living things there. Even more amazing, they live in  darkness around hydrothermal vents that exude great temperatures and toxic gasses. The existence of such creatures (and the symbiosis of many) defies evolutionary explanations. Some locations on earth seem just too extreme to support life. One such extreme environment is vents at the bottom of the ocean that spew out superheated water and toxic chemicals. Yet even here we find an abundance of living things, well designed for life at the extreme. An ugly gash slices across the earth’s surface, zigzagging 49,700 miles (80,000 km) around the globe. Superheated water gushes out of underwater fissures, spewing clouds of toxic chemicals. Temperatures can reach 700°F (400°C), and pressures can exceed 10,000 pounds per square inch. Surely this should be the most desolate s

The famous "geologic(al) column" that is presented as evidence for uniformitarianism and evolution has several problems. The first one is that the sequences do not exist except in textbooks and the imaginations of Evolution's True Believers ®. The layers are out of order. A second problem is the circular reasoning used to date the layers by use of index fossils (we know how old a layer is because of the fossils in it, and we know how old a fossil is because of the layer in which it was found).  A further problem for evolutionary geologists and paleontologists are the missing layers, totally disrupting the expected sequences. These are not minor aberrations in small areas that can be dismissed. Instead, they cover large areas and involve alleged millions of years. The frequent flatness add to the annoyance. To make matters worse for uniformitarianism, these gaps support  Noachian Flood models postulated by creationists. ‘Flat gaps’, generally known as paraconfor

PD/Modified  We already know that atheists have a problem with sexual harassment , and the majority of evolutionists are atheists, so it should not be a surprise that anthropologists doing fieldwork experience it as well. Should we fault them, though? If we have animals in our ancestry, we should be able to act like animals. Right? After all, they believe that evolution is the source of morality, so they are only exhibiting the logical result of their worldview.  A shocking percentage of male anthropologists sexually abuse their female students, a new report says.  Science Insider broke the story: “ Survey Finds Sexual Harassment in Anthropology. ”  Previously afraid to speak up out of fear for their careers, women responded to an anonymous survey that shows sexual abuse, up to and including rape, is rampant by their superiors: Fieldwork is a rite of passage for anthropologists. It gives the initiate firsthand knowledge of a culture, along with a feeling of camaraderie w

Bioluminescence, the ability of various organisms to "glow in the dark" because of their unique biology, is extremely puzzling to evolutionary scientists. NOAA  How such an ability allegedly evolved is frustrating, and scientists argue in circles in their attempts to explain it. There are two significant problems — neither of which bother creationists in the least. Evolutionary researchers organize all of these basic forms onto a preconceived “tree of life” that supposedly shows how closely related each form might be to another, assuming all creatures share common ancestry. Evolutionists expect one creature to have evolved bioluminescence and then to have passed that trait along to its descendants. However, the researchers do not find this or any other evolutionary pattern. Instead, bioluminescence is scattered willy-nilly among dozens of totally different life forms. The study authors, publishing in the  Annual Review of Marine Science , wrote, “The distribution o

Lovers of sensationalism have run rampant by claiming, "The Higgs Boson particle has been confirmed! The Big Bang really happened! There is no God! " Not so fast, Nigel! There is a great deal of incorrect reporting and bad assumptions related to this. (They also show their ignorance of quantum field theory.) How about some education for a reality check? Scientists announced last week [March 16, 2013] that they likely confirmed the existence of a particle called the Higgs boson. One media outlet said this of the Higgs boson: "It helps solve one of the most fundamental riddles of the universe: how the Big Bang created something out of nothing 13.7 billion years ago."  But is this really true?  As noted in one of our online articles, there is a tendency for people to intuitively think of subatomic particles as being like wee-little marbles. However, a branch of physics called quantum field theory views particles as being "ripples" in qua

Cosmologists and Cosmogonists have their theories on the origins and workings of the solar system and the universe. Secular versions rely on presuppositions that the universe is very old. The theories do not hold up under scrutiny — moons like Io and Enceladas manage to make matters worse. Enceladas spouts off. Image Credit: NASA/JPL/SSI Theories and computer models fail to explain the activities and the heat of these moons. They should be cold rocks after all of that alleged time. Instead, they put on shows of their own. None of this is a problem for biblical creationists, by the way. Planetary origin theories come across as popular and charismatic, till some little moon pops off and says, “Yoo-hoo! Remember me?” Io, Io; It’s Not So Long Ago Jupiter’s volcanic moon Io is a pain in the astronomical dating game.  Imagine if similar-sized Earth’s moon were carrying on like that; it would be a fireworks show every night, keeping scientists awake wondering how it stays active

Radiometric dating is fraught with difficulties. These include conflicting results , no sign of anything resembling calibration, and especially a number of assumptions . When radioactive elements decay, they turn into a different, stable element (parent-daughter): Rubidium into strontium, potassium into argon and so on. The assumptions are: They know how much of the parent and daughter elements exist, no outside factors affected the quantities, and that the rate of change remained constant. Results from radiometric dating are varied, and the scientists can choose the results that best suit their preconceptions. But there have been problems with Carbon-14. This is primarily used on organic materials, and there should be no  detectable Carbon-14 in materials that are allegedly older than 100,000 years, such as diamonds . But it's there, and they make excuses such as "lab contamination". Carbon-14 yields results that do not fit with evolutionary time scales. When usi

The Chinese Giant Salamander really sucks. No, this is not a disparaging term. It is quite literal. This kind of salamander has incredible suction abilities, as seen in this slow-motion video: Their suction abilities are almost as powerful as rocket cars, but last only a fraction of a second. morgueFile/clconroy  Other creatures use suction-feeding techniques, but the Giant Salamander is constructed differently. As expected, evolutionists spin some fanciful tales to force-fit their philosophies into the observed facts — these "explanations" raise more questions than they purport to answer. Some rocket cars can accelerate at 5 g-forces. For comparison, respectable acceleration for a sports car amounts to half a "g," and people faint when accelerating at 5g's. But long before the rocket car was invented, fish were accelerating just as forcefully into the mouths of giant salamanders. How did these thin-skinned amphibians acquire rocket-force mouthpa

There are some people who claim that the human eye must  be the product of evolution because if it was designed, the Designer did a poor job. (Ironically, they imply that evolution itself does a poor job of designing things with such statements.) These people do not know what they are talking about. Many of them are Dawkinsites, parroting his uninformed opinions from  The Blind Watchmaker. Dilated by the Ophthalmologist Dawkins or these other people who think they can suggest better design possibilities for the human eye should check with ophthalmologists. The scientific realities and intricacies are far different than conjectures rooted in ignorance. Backwardly wired retina? One of the tired old canards on which antitheists have dined out for years is the claim that our eye is stupidly wired back to front, something no decent designer would use. E.g. the vociferous misotheist and eugenicist Clinton R. Dawkins said in his famous book, The Blind Watchmaker :   ‘A

Let's have some fun today. ApologetiX released the official video of "Monkeys for Nothing" on April 1 (appropriate for evolutionism). It is a parody of "Money for Nothing" by Dire Straits. The song is brilliant, and the video is very close to the original .

Evolutionists will tell you that the fossil record is loaded with transitional forms. This is not correct . Some things with superficial resemblances are inaccurately foisted upon the public as "proof" and "transitional forms", but such things are missing. Especially among the invertebrates. More than that, there should be millions (or more) true, undisputed transitional forms showing the relationships between animal phyla are not to be found, and scientists are in disagreement about their relationships to one another. Creatures that we think of as "simple" have some very complex features. Not only is there considerable disagreement about their relationship to each other, but there is nothing in the fossil record showing how these complex traits supposedly evolved. In fact, fossilized ancestors of many invertebrates show little if any appreciable differences from their modern counterparts. In their 2010 zoology text, evolutionists Stephen Mille

One thing that gets people flustered that need to learn more about creation science and critical thinking skills is the way that Darwin's Cheerleaders play "bait and switch" games with their words. For example, these bullies equivocate "science" into "evolution", and say things like, "If you deny evolution, then you hate science". Another bit of fast and loose wordplay is when they "prove" evolution by simply saying that something is proof, and use circular reasoning by assuming that it is true, therefore, the evidence proves evolution. Wrong. Many scientific findings get labeled with “evolution” even though neo-Darwinism has nothing to do with them. Reversible evolution:  A study on dust mites reported by Science Daily claims evolution can run backwards to previous states – a violation of an evolutionary principle called Dollo’s Law.  For one, the supposed phylogenetic analysis began and ended with dust mites,