Piltdown Superman

The zombie mythology has evolved over the years, especially since popular movies of cannibalistic walking dead people became popular. Older stories are that zombies are dead people who were reanimated through witchcraft, slaves to their master, and could only be set free (or killed, depending on the story) by stuffing their mouths with salt. I don't cotton to zombie stories, but from what I gather, the new version varies, and zombification is pretty much the result of a pathogen. Skip the salt, they need to be shot in the head. Whatever the myth, people were taken over and had no will of their own. That's similar to evolutionary theory, now that I study on it. People get indoctrinated in the pathogen of evolutionism, and that helps fuel their rebellion against their Creator. Their father down below, who fell because of pride (Isaiah 14.12-14, Ezekiel 28.11-19), controls their wills and encourages this prideful rebellion. We have evolution zombies walking around, spreading

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Edited November 18, 2014 and April 21, 2021 Someone is interested in giving me a reward. Atheopaths must hate it that they are fulfilling prophesy (Luke 6.22-23). The Question Evolution Project is hated by many people on Facebook. There have been some trolling attacks, often from repeat offenders using multiple fake names. Now this tinhorn is slapping leather with me. He's using the name of the Page as an individual, and sending messages, "Just wanting to let my fans know my page The Question Evolution Project has been hacked. Can you go unlike it, I'll be making another page shortly". Hacked? My account password is so strong, even I don't know it! I keep it in a password safe. The fake profile, which was later taken down. Click for larger. Not only does did he have a fake profile under that name, but also set up at least two fake Question Evolution Project Pages (ours has been there for a few years, has over 3,400 "Lik

Many years of study have been invested in the study of plant communication. Not only with each other, but within themselves. It's like having branch (heh!) offices that communicate on a molecular level. Supplies are low at the fort, so a message is sent to the commander to send more on the next stagecoach. Actually, it resembles a kind of intranet with e-mail (tree mail?), but without spam.  Assembled from components at Clker.com Scientists hacked in and blocked the communication, and found out that yes indeed, the communication is not just idle chatter. Although evolutionists give credit for evolution, that is a catch-all claim that cannot be supported, Instead, this shows the work of the Creator and his provision for even "simple" things like plants. How do roots respond to what the top of the plant experiences? With an elaborate communication system resembling email. The authors of a paper in Science Magazine don’t use the words email or intranet, but th

Some people insist that the geologic column and belief in "deep time" are essential for people in geology-related fields to do real science work. I reckon this to be a uniformitarian version of the evolution mantra, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". Not hardly. Neither assumption is true. Yes, geologists use the geologic column, with its inaccurate assumptions of long ages , as a means of classification and reference. If they used the Great Flood of Genesis as a reference point, they would be more accurate in their work. One of the most basic techniques is to observe the rocks in the field and plot the different kinds of rocks on a map. This would be the easiest, cheapest and most fundamental method of geological exploration. We also use magnetic methods, either on the ground or airborne. Other methods include aerial photography, seismic exploration, drill cores, gravity anomalies, and electrical methods. Plus we sample rocks

Evolutionary scientists are proposing an answer to why we see more trees with leaves than evergreens and so forth. It seems that examination of leaf fossils of the K-T boundary gave them the idea that a meteorite impact 65 or so million years ago was responsible. The resulting climate change caused the extinction of the dinosaurs and also gave the faster-growing seasonal plants an edge in the changing conditions over the slower-growing plants. Also, it was said that survival of the fittest does not apply, and some species had built-in properties that helped them survive. Wait, isn't that what creationists say about adaptation to change? Found this big boy near my parking space. The scientists established a series of conjectures about changes in trees that have me stumped. For one thing, catastrophic processes are invoked by the alleged changes of the meteorite impact, and this does not fit uniformitarianism. But then, some evolutionary geologists back off from their dogma a

Once again, we see several things happening at once. DNA is full of surprises, evidence shows the hand of the Creator's work, evolutionary scientists are surprised instead of seeing fulfilled predictions , and so on. As we keep saying, it's a great time to be a creationist, and I reckon it's only going to keep getting better. DNA studies are showing codes within the code; what was considered a redundancy (maybe like a back-up plan) turns out to have even more function. Evolutionary scientists need a bit more caution and humility before declaring things "junk" or giving them some other write-off because they don't fit into their evolutionary presuppositions. Discoveries of DNA sequence that contain different languages, each one with multiple purposes, are utterly defying evolutionary predictions. What was once hailed as redundant code is proving to be key in protein production. Proteins are made of strings of amino acids encoded in the protein-coding

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen There was a time when people would cite something, give a reference, and that was that. If there was an inaccuracy, it would be calmly pointed out and corrected. Not so much on the Internet anymore. Sometimes creationists produce quotes from evolutionists who admit doubts about their belief systems, their commitment to naturalism, flaws in their process and so on. We can almost guarantee that atheists and anti-creationists will cry, "Quote mining!" Naturally, they'll quote mine the Bible up one side and down the other, but never mind about that now. Quote mining is finding a quote or phrase and lifting it out of context for misleading purposes. It is essentially making someone say something contrary to what he or she really meant, and twisting it for your own purposes. It's similar to selective citing, and all of this is related to the straw man fallacy . Most of the time when I've seen the accusation of quote mining, it is because

Evolutionists insist on interpreting observations through their Darwin spectacles and forcing facts into their paradigms. "Nothing in biology makes sense without the guiding light of evolution", that kind of thing. That saddle's on the wrong horse, Hoss. We're told that Darwinian evolutionary theory is useful in making predictions. Is it? In some ways it's true, because there are so many things pretending to be predictions, sometimes they get a vague "prediction" right and then shout it from the rooftops. The reality of the situation is far different. Over and over, we keep hearing about how something is discovered that is not  predicted by evolutionary ideas, and even where discoveries cause evolutionists to "rethink". The scientific method according to evolutionists is quite biased and unscientific. For more about this, click on " How Explanatory Is Evolutionary Theory? " Darwinoids will also insist on using "evoluti

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  People who want to detract from the Bible's historical and divine nature have tried to wave it off as just myth. Worse, they ignore a lot of reality by saying that the Hebrews copied from the myths of other people, touched them up and then declared them to be holy writ. I read the Epic of Gilgamesh  and studied on it for a spell. (I thought "epic" meant "very long", but not necessarily ; it could mean epic "style". The Gilgamesh  epic poem is not all that long, especially since a lot of it is missing.) The part of this that is of interest to biblical creationists is the story of the global Flood in the 11th tablet. Some things about the Epic of Gilgamesh   just reared up as obviously mythology, what with gods and goddesses getting angry and fighting each other, Ishtar having snits because Gilgamesh won't giver her a tumble, references to the Anunnaki (pick your story about who they were, some people believe that the Anu

Standard evolutionary thinking will not allow for ancient people to have any great intelligence levels. After all, they evolved up from the slime through various stages including ape-like brutes and eventually to human form. Evolutionists do not know where intelligence came from except the ad hoc explanation of "EvolutionDidIt". When advanced techniques in lifestyles, architecture and so on are discovered, I reckon it's a bit disconcerting to them because their presuppositions are out of whack. Göbekli Tepe (Turkish for "Potbelly Hill") was an unimpressive site, mostly ignored for about 30 years. Then Klaus Schmidt noticed some interesting things. Now  the site is impressive, since there are examples of architecture, artwork and construction that are interesting — and mysterious. Now they have to study on how this fouled parts of their belief system. These discoveries do not fit with evolutionary assumptions, but are completely in line with biblical creatio

That story about the origin of the universe popularly known as the Big Bang has to keep evolving. (Some people get upset about that name and when people use the term "explosion", but they need to cut some slack to people who use those words because such usage is completely understandable , even if technically inaccurate.) Currently, it is considered a period of inflation. A few times, "proof" of the Big Band or inflation has been presented, only to be found seriously lacking. Credit: NASA/WMAP Science Team The "proof" of the inflation of the universe was supposedly found in cosmic microwave background radiation imprinted by so-called "gravity waves", but this was quickly put in doubt  because it was probably nothing but dust. Now it looks like data from the Planck satellite will put that proof six feet under where it belongs. It would be really something if proponents of the evolution of the universe would admit that the evidence reveals t

In the evolutionary scheme of things, origin of life ideas require absence of oxygen on a primordial earth. Abiogenesis does not work, despite the claims of proponents of the failed Miller-Urey experiment . That's because oxygen will cause such life to cash in its chips . Creationists (and some evolutionists) have known for a long time that Earth has had, and must have, oxygen from the beginning. This deals aces and eights to origin of life conjectures. It also throws a wild card into the draw for speculations about extraterrestrial atmospheres. Free oxygen is death to life trying to evolve, but it was present early on, being formed naturally from atmospheric carbon dioxide. What is life? What is the meaning of life? Astrobiologist Chris McKay says it’s a tricky question, but on Astrobiology Magazine, he offers a contrasting challenge: “in the search for life in our solar system what is needed more than a definition of life is a definition of death.” And what does it m

Anti-creationists dismiss creation scientists through prejudicial conjecture and poisoning the well, claiming that creationists' explanations are essentially, "GodDidIt, that's all". Some serious investigation of creationary materials will show that this is incorrect. While admittedly there is a grain of truth to the "GodDidIt" claim, creationary scientists do not stop there; they want to know how God did it, and more. Some evolutionary theories of the formation of the solar system, including planets, comets, satellites and so forth have occasional plausibility from a historical science perspective, but have many failings under scrutiny. Essentially, when cosmological theories break down, ad hoc explanations are rustled up and added in, but those theories should be put out to pasture. "EvolutionDidIt" or "NaturalProcessesDidIt" are unhelpful. "Starfield 3" from Sad Monkey Designs Creationists have pointed out the num

People like Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Laurence Krauss and others believe that when people lack belief in evolution, they are hindering the progress of science (equivocation fallacy, "evolution" and "science"). Evolutionary thinking has consequences; it is not just a theory of biology, but a worldview with many negative results. Nobody is saying that if you believe in evolution, you're a racist. Nor can I find anyone who thinks that racism is caused by evolutionary thinking. But evolutionary thinking accelerated racism. One of those negative results is making racism scientifically acceptable. After people began waking up to how racism cannot be scientifically justified, and when it became socially unacceptable, evolutionists were distancing themselves from their own history. (Biblical creationists who stood by their Scriptural presuppositions that man is from "one blood" have been proven justified.) When I posted " More Modern Evoluti

Critics of creationists will often complain that all we do is pick at flaws in evolutionary theories, so why don't creationists round up some research? Well, busting evolutionary broncos is often quite easy because Darwin's Cheerleaders frequently fail at critical thinking, and there are numerous flaws in what is considered evidence for evolution. They get ornery when we point out those things. But more than that, anti-creationists seldom do their homework, preferring prejudicial conjecture instead. If they did scout around the Web, they would learn some starting things that interfere with their biases. Creationary scientists actually do research, write papers, have jobs in scientific fields, publish in peer-reviewed journals and more. Although the Bible is their foundation, they still conduct "real" science, including life sciences . Here is an article by Dr. Jason Lisle from the Institute for Creation Research about activities in biology, DNA, stratigraphic c

A basic fact of human nature is that people interpret what they observe according to their worldviews — we all have our starting points. These worldviews are based on presuppositions which can relate to valid and invalid axioms, experiences, biases and so forth. I have long maintained that despite the opinions of many, scientists are not dispassionate and unbiased; they have something to investigate and try to prove. Biblical creationists presuppose that the Bible is God's written Word, and interpret evidence in light of it. Evolutionary scientists presuppose that evolution, deep time, materialism (in the majority of cases), and other things are true. Creationary scientists present models and so forth based on their worldviews, just like evolutionary scientist do the same thing. Everyone has the same facts and evidence, there are no "creationist facts", and no "evolutionist facts". As I indicated, the worldviews tend to dictate how the evidence is evaluate

In the past, people in the Western world were not overly concerned about the Ebola virus because it was far away and not a matter of concern. Suddenly in late 2014, the latest outbreak has spread and the death toll is in the thousands. It has a high mortality rate. So far, there is no known cure. Fortunately, it is not something that is airborne. EDIT: Here is some of the unhelpful sensationalism , a report that maybe it is, maybe it isn't but if it isn't, it could become airborne. Transmission electron micrograph of Ebola virus. Credit: CDC Microbiologist Dr. Andrew Fabich addresses some serious questions about the Ebola virus (including how evolutionary "junk DNA" ideas have been harmful). How contagious is it? Were viruses created by God? Can I get infected? Is this bioterrorism? Are atheists doing anything more than ridiculing medical missionaries? How can we respond? Several months ago, friends of mine were planning a trip to Liberia. They were just abo

G'day. Today we travel to 'Straya and look at the dingo. This wild dog supports creationist predictions about adaptation, and also fits the Genesis Flood timeline. There is disagreement as to when it came to Australia, but the Aborigines have ancient legends saying that the dingo was brought with them. Here’s an animal that sure could use an ‘image make-over’ and public relations campaign. For many years, the dingo was best known as the wild dog of Australia—the largest carnivore on the Australian mainland — and for being the scourge of the sheep industry. A single dingo can maul up to 50 sheep in one night, killing far more than it needs for food. To read the rest, click on " The Australian dingo—a wolf in dog’s clothing ".

  by Cowboy Bob Sorensen During a discussion with the pastor about having a Question Evolution Day event in his church, he was concerned about being "labeled". Don't misunderstand, this pastor is not a fearful man. That is a natural reaction because (as I have pointed out many times), he seems to know that people often "think" with their emotions. Hanging a label on someone is a way to provoke an emotional reaction. Anti-creationists will use this fact to their advantage. I got to cogitating on this, saddled up and set out at full gallop. The URL is now outdated, this was made at Sign Generator, which is also gone now What Kind of Labels? There are many kinds of labels riding the open prairie today, and the most accurate definitions are often left behind in favor of the ones most commonly used. Being labeled is one thing, but the connotations associated with many labels are often inflammatory. I reckon that hanging a negative label on someone