Piltdown Superman

Bedbugs have been a nuisance for a long time. We hate them today, cowboys hated them, and archaeologists have evidence that ancient people hated the awful blood-sucking things millennia ago. Itches, pain, rashes, psychological difficulties, resistant to most pesticides — but at least these tiny critters don't seem to spread disease like malaria-bearing mosquitoes. If you're afflicted with bedbugs (it's nothing to be ashamed of, most people are likely to have the problem at some point), you may get some useful information at the US Environmental Protection Agency, click on " Bed Bugs: Get Them Out and Keep Them Out ". Image credit: CDC/ CDC-DPDx; Blaine Mathison Moving on to the purpose of this post, some scientists are claiming that there is evidence for evolution. Not hardly. Yes, they probably began drinking the blood of bats, and then varied into the version that afflicts humans. That's not evolution, Edna, that's variation and natural selection

Antibiotic resistance is a serious problem for the medical community. It has also been erroneously — and often disingenuously — used as an icon evidence for Darwinian evolution . This happened because people illogically conflated observed natural selection and unobserved evolution; bacteria remained bacteria and didn't bother to evolve into something else.  A study of well-preserved dental tartar in ancient humans revealed antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which threatened the "evidence" icon .  By the way, don't get the notion that all bacteria are bad. They were created for a purpose, and are essential for life. Interaction of a white blood cell with MRSA National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Evolutionists still cling to their cherished icon, but a new problem rode into town. Seems that a tribe in a remote part of Venezuela had visitors on missions. One was a missionary group who wanted to share the gospel and do good things for

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Evolution is a foundation for atheism as well as liberal Christianity. So it's not really a surprise when intolerant fundamentalist evolutionists want to slap leather with uncompromising biblical creationists. They want us silenced. We know they are busy with using the courts, such as the atheistic freedom from letting people think for themselves foundation wanting to sue because Eric Hovind had a recent debate in a public school . My focus today is regarding another way they try to silence us. This is done through bullying, harassment, ridicule, misrepresentation, straw man arguments (attacking a position that the other person doesn't hold, including putting words in his or her mouth), outright lies, and more. My posts and articles get circulated on Twitter under my monicker for The Question Evolution Project , and I was presented with this gem the other day:   Original screenshot here (unless he deletes it, they do that sometimes) T

Evolutionary paleontologists and anthropologists are rummaging around in their saddlebags looking for solid evidence to validate an australopithecene as part of human ancestry. "Little Foot" was given an age based on index fossils related to the strata where they found it. Standard radiometric dating methods were "unreliable". Now the dates are being revised according to cosmogenic nuclide dating. However, this method has serious flaws, and the selection of eleven samples is suspect, especially only two were in close proximity to the fossils. All of this galloping around, trying to change "facts", making assertions and whatnot will not make evolution true and negate the Creator's work. Australopithecus prometheus (StW 573)—nicknamed “Little Foot”—began in 2014 to make a bid for the attention accorded to the more well-known australopithecine Lucy. Would Little Foot, from the evolutionary point of view, finally fill the shoes of its mythological

Generally speaking, particles-to-paleontologist evolution requires long ages. Secular geologists (and some compromising Christians) accept faulty justifications for claiming that the earth is very old. Part of this is uniformitarianism (the present is the key to the past, processes that we see now are constant). But geologic explanations based on uniformitarian assumptions seem to be mostly appropriate for telling shaggy dog stories around the campfire while riding the Owlhoot Trail. That is, they're interesting stories, but don't match up with observed evidence. They tend to reject the Genesis Flood and explanations from creationist scientists who offer differing explanations of observed evidence regarding geologic history — no catastrophism allowed here, Hoss. (Despite their biases, some geologists do allow for some catastrophes in Earth history). The huge catastrophe of Genesis Flood actually fits observed data far better than the offerings of secular scientists

What is the most ironclad kind of fact known to man? To many, it's a fact based on science. "I don't reckon you should dispute that, pilgrim, it's a scientific fact!" Of course, a claim , consensus , or theory is not the same as a fact, but people put a lot of stock in something when you preface it with, "Scientists say..." Then it's promoted to "fact" status in the eyes of a passel of people. Many think that science is the ultimate source of truth, and they forget (or do not even know) that many indisputable science facts have been discarded over the years. Take a look at phlogiston , f'rinstance. For that matter, the "scientific method" itself (whichever "scientific method" you choose) evolves . Pay attention to the news from creation science ministries, and even from the secular science press. You keep getting news about something that has changed that had previously been established. Evolutionary "

Some Christians seem to get mighty frightened by the pronouncements of secular scientists, so they tamper with the Bible. Especially when it comes to Genesis. Christians began ceding science to secularists, and it accelerated when Darwin, Lyell, and their ilk were convincing people that their views of long ages and origins were right. Wouldn't want people to say mean things about us Bible believers, would we? No, we need to appear "enlightened", and do scriptural gymnastics so the Bible doesn't say what it means. Then you get odd views like the Framework Hypothesis, the Day-Age Theory, the Gap Theory, and so on. Triangulum Galaxy image credit: NASA/Swift Science Team/Stefan Immler Some people act like distant starlight is a smoking gun to discredit all of creation science, so they let the secularists lead their minds and spirits into the corral where they won't bother anyone. But scientists are not infallible, and some investigation shows that the dominant

Thousands of creatures are identified each year. Some of these are known species that have been reclassified, and the majority of new discoveries are insects, but there are also mammals being found. Some are actively sought, but many are discovered by accident by people who recognize that they're seeing something special. These findings show that the world is a big place, and there is a great deal yet to explore. But also, they reveal that God designed a great deal of diversity. This is of great interest to creationists. High in the Andes, a furry member of the raccoon family has lived quietly for centuries without detection. It is the first carnivore discovered in the Americas in more than three decades. Will it be the last? Why do creationists care? “They stopped me in my tracks,” recalls biologist Kristofer Helgen about his surprise when opening a drawer full of mysterious, reddish-brown furs. Though housed in the Field Museum for more than 50 years, this species had

Most people have probably seen the classic evolution on parade pictures in one form or another. It starts with a monkey, then something slightly larger that is less monkey and more human, repeated several times, until you have the modern human. It starts from evolutionary presuppositions that have things getting larger as they became more advanced, and your alleged ancestors grew a mite bigger and were classified into groups. Body size and structure had a lot to do with the classifications. Of course, evolutionists conveniently neglect to tell you that "archaic" people were sometimes quite a bit bigger and stronger than modern people. Those changes are environmental, not evolutionary. Years ago, I noticed someone who looked like he belonged in a textbook on evolution. His facial structure and jaw looked "primitive". For that matter, I've seen, conversed with, gawked at, watched pictures, whatever, of people that have a wide range of sizes, but they'

In a series of comments on a post in a group, remarks were made to the effect that proponents of molecules-to-mechanic evolution have creative reality, and do not want to be confused with facts. We can see the truth of that, especially when those facts interfere with their preconceptions. Some Darwinist owlhoots make strong pronouncements of scientific facts that are nothing but conjecture. Unfortunately, people do not examine the material carefully, and think that an aspect of evolution has been proved. A recent study on horizontal gene transfer made such bold pronouncements, but hidden in the text is an admission that there is nothing there to hang your hat on. Further analysis shows that the research is fundamentally flawed. Y'all can't make assertions pretending that evolution is true and that the Creator isn't there, old son. As the genomes of many new creatures rapidly fill the public DNA sequence databases, the problems for the grand evolutionary story are

Some scoffers claim that the Genesis account of the Noachian Flood are simply copies of other flood stories that were embellished by ancient Hebrew writers. Such views show not only an anti-biblical bias, but also poor reasoning and lack of knowledge of historical documents. For that matter, the Epic of Gilgamesh (one of the ancient flood accounts supposedly the true source of flood legends) is markedly different from the Genesis Flood account. Even a casual reading shows that the Epic  is mostly fantasy , with lots of polytheism and unbelievable material that probably wouldn't interest monotheistic Hebrews. When the flood account is inserted into the story, that part of it has a different tone, and shows similarities to the real Flood narrative in Genesis. For that matter, there are global flood legends around the world that have some remarkable similarities where the earth is covered by water and only eight special people survived. Pixabay / stux There is another account

As we can easily see, much of the secular press in the United States and elsewhere is biased toward leftist politics. Both of these are are in favor of abortion. It should not be surprising that much of the science reporting is also sympathetic toward killing unborn children, and evolutionary thinking is at the forefront. Evolution has been used to promote abortion , including the infamous fraud by Haeckel . It should not really be that much of a surprise, since morality cannot come from evolution (despite the claims of some adherents), morality comes from God . Evolutionists will even write abortion off not only as a result of natural selection, but even justify abortion for gender selection, which is usually to abort female babies. Seems like the ultimate punishment for the "crime" of being an unborn female. I recommend that you read " Abortion 'Science' Shows Its Deathly Bias ".   

It's amazing how people who believe in science will cling to their worldviews despite  the scientific evidence (or lack of evidence). This is common in the religion of Scientism . Evidence against Darwinian and cosmic evolution ideas keep getting roped and brought into the corral ( including the recent big claim of evidence for inflation ), and many secularists continue to make excuses while clinging to their faith. Credit for original image: NASA / ESA / S. Beckwith (STScI) and The HUDF Team The Big Bang model for the origin and development of the universe has changed many times since it was developed. After discoveries revealed flaws in the idea, other ideas were worked in; the current model is substantially different from the original, and excuse-makers in cosmology are more like actors than scientists. Millions of years from the putative beginning were wiped off the stage, missing antimatter, desperate attempts to account for lack of lithium, the idea that the univers

Purveyors of Darwin's General Theory of Evolution (and its subsequent variations) claim that all life evolved from a common ancestor. They insist that our ancestors lived in the sea, and everything developed from there. Using speculation and convoluted reasoning, they see that similarities are evidence of common ancestry, and that fins evolved into fingers. It seems they were studying on the wrong fish, and now think that clues to the fingers that I'm using to make tappity-tap on my unregistered assault keyboard came from the Spotted Gar.  Spotted Gar, US Fish and Wildlife Service This fish is mainly found in areas around the Mississippi River, and may end up on "threatened" and "endangered" lists at some point, since its numbers are shrinking. Conveniently, Darwinists have classified the Spotted Gar as "primitive". There are lots of fish in the sea, so why this particular one with a limited habitat has genetic information that evolutioni

Another passel of hassle for Darwinists is the evolution of the spider. The spider kind is diverse (including a range of sizes), from the tiny peacock spider to the jumping spider (in the "meme", above) to the goliath "bird eating" spider with a dinner-plate-sized leg span, but they still have eight legs and remarkable eyesight.  Although there are comparatively few spiders in the fossil record, paleontologists can tell that these critters as well as many others are unchanged over alleged millions of years. The reasonable conclusion is that they were created to be just what they are, not changing from or into something else. A University of California Berkley graduate student has discovered two beautiful new species of peacock spiders in southeast Queensland, Australia. The student, Madeline Girard, named the two colorful creatures "Sparklemuffin" and "Skeletorus," both of the genus Maratus. They are noted for their ornate mating dances t

When the big picture of molecules-to-musicologist is examined, it stretches credibility. Consider that everything supposedly evolved from a common ancestor, branching off the evolutionary tree in diverse ways. It may seem reasonable on the surface because evolution's proponents claim that common features show common ancestry — and that's before they get into the far-fetched tales where speculation is presented as fact. Laysan albatross, derived from photo by Michael Lusk, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Although there is disagreement in the evolutionary community, many believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds, but there is no mechanism or plausible model. Similarities among living things? Fine, why can't I fly? There are more differences than similarities. There are fascinating abilities among birds, such as the abilities of some species of albatross to drink sea water, the arctic tern traveling pole to pole every year, the high metabolism of the hummingbird and its

There was a consensus of sorts that orbital cycles of the earth were the cause of ice ages. New discoveries have had a chilling effect for secular "deep time" scientists because the prevailing uniformitarian view doesn't hold water; it's not "settled science" after all. Pixabay / tpsdave There are some other items that put a burr under secularists' saddles. First, if the prevailing models about how the earth was frozen in the distant past are shown to be unreliable, then how accurate are their methods when they predict global warming? But even worse, the data once again  fit biblical creationists' models regarding a single ice age resulting from the Genesis Flood. These findings should spur creation scientists on to further research in this area. Orbital cycles do not cause ice ages, a new study suggests. Instead, the whole world experienced an ice age at the same time. The leading secular theory for past ice ages has taken heat from a ne

As many people know, hummingbirds live off sweet things like nectar and special feeders with sugar water. (Be sure to clean the feeders often so that mold doesn't form and poison them — and you should avoid cleaning with bleach.) Research was conducted about the sense of taste in hummingbirds and other critters, especially about how these birds can sense sweetness. Humans can generally taste a variety of flavors, sweet, sour, salty, umami, and bitter. Cats and other animals do not seem to have the ability to taste sweetness, but crocodiles have it. Some animals show no ability to taste anything at all. The "sense of taste" (taste receptors) are actually quite complex, and there is a great deal yet to learn about them. Pixabay / luxlioness The evidence plainly shows that the special taste apparatus of the hummingbird is the product of the Creator's design. Naturally, evolutionists were operating from their worldview and did some unwarranted philosophical wra

Operational science does not support eukaryote-to-engineer evolution — especially DNA sequencing, despite the claims of some evolutionists. Darwin's tree of life may have seemed plausible in the past, but rogue data in gene neighborhoods are not cooperating with evolutionary ideas. Scientists using presuppositions, assumptions, cherry-picked data, evidence manipulation, and other unscientific methods attempt to preserve their belief systems; they present their stories as factual, even though they are what "could have happened", and not what can be demonstrably true. Other scientists are trying to re-draw the tree of life using microRNA genes. The results are still disappointing, as things refuse to fit the expected patterns. What we do see is support for the Genesis account of creation, where everything is to reproduce "after its kind". After all, God did not command, "Go ye and turn therefore into something else over long periods of time". This

Back yonder in the nineteenth century, two scientists with mutual detestation, Cope and Marsh, were ambitiously trying to outdo each other in the "Bone Wars". That is, they spend money, time, and effort in trying to find and classify dinosaur bones. One of the most notable examples was the Brontosaurus ("thunder lizard", though much larger dinosaurs were discovered later that would have made bigger thunder when they walked than Bronto). But it had the wrong head. In 1903, the mistake was corrected and Apatosaurus ("deceptive lizard") was made.  The story goes that the Brontosaurus never existed (for fun and more information on the Bone Wars, check out this  yet-to-be-updated article at NPR ). Funny how this is one of many things that evolutionists don't do very well in getting information to the public, since the Brontosaurus took a long time to fade from the scene — the US Postal Service issued a stamp of the thing in 1989.  There are larger thing

Did you hear about the huge guinea pig fossil? They reckon that bad boy was about 2,000 pounds (907 kg). I'd like to say, "Bacon!", but the guinea pig is a rodent, not a pig. And they're not from Guinea. Darwinists have a thing they call "Cope's Rule", which is supposed to mean that things evolve to be larger (but this idea falls apart when the bad logic is exposed .) There are many large things in the fossil record , and creationists have speculations as to why they were bigger then, but critters just don't grow that big anymore. I suppose evolutionists will invoke "evolutionary stasis" or something. Back to Ultra Rodent and His Stupendous Friends. Things were larger back then, even though Cope's erroneous "rule" is not exactly seen in action. What happened to the big guys? As if living creatures don’t display enough variety in God’s creation, fossil forms bring that diversity to a whole new level. Consider the fossi

Cicadas are all over the world, but like many other living things, different kinds live in different areas. The "periodical cicadas" (also called Magicadas) are not found on a chemistry table of elements, so don't look there, Hoss. Those critters are mostly in the eastern part of North America. They're not a pest and don't seem to be much good (except as food for other things) and they make a lot of noise. Public Doman, from Insects, their way and means of living, by R. E. Snodgrass (Plate 7). "Them's good eatin' . Do you want them deep fried or stir-fry?" I'll pass right now, but you go right ahead, old son. Periodical cicadas are baffling to Darwinistas because they live underground for years, then different broods appear in huge swarms. The adults live for a month, mate, and die in unison. (Sounds like it would make for a good country music song.) How do they know? Also, they seem useless at first, but they're actually bene