Piltdown Superman

It's getting to become a common thing, just press play to hear approval for things that are passed off as "science". We've seen many times some amazingly unscientific speculations presented to the world as scientific advances, especially in areas related to origins. The Darwinism supporters in the press are all-fired joyful about sharing it with the world, often embellishing the "discoveries".  If people had a mind to, they could examine these speculations and see that there is no actual science  involved, just expensive words given with authority. To hear Darwinistas tell it, the consensus is that evolution is true, and scientists are all in agreement. Not hardly! I reckon they're getting more and more desperate to avoid facing evidence for the Creator, don't you? A scientist examines Earth animals, and has a guess as to what aliens would look like Evolution treated like an entity with the ability to learn  Evolution is like a computer

Proselytizers of microbes-to-monkey evolution are known to point out that humans and chimpanzees have some things in common, even citing spurious data about genetic similarities . EDIT: The preceding link is now out of date and in dispute. See " A Fresh Look at Human-Chimp DNA Similarity " (which was published the same day as this post) and " New Study Indicates Chimp DNA is 88% Similar to Human DNA ". Further research is planned. (Of course, the seventy percent genetic similarity that we have with sea sponges often goes unmentioned.) Using assumptions, circular reasoning, and other bad arguments, resemblances are used to show that we evolved from a common ancestor. Restrain your equines, Ernie, there are some problems here. The check's in the mail. Image credit: morgueFile / lightfoot The hands at the Darwin Ranch are not known for their efficient reasoning abilities. Ignoring data and alternative explanations are common over there, and in this case,

A new gibbon fossil has Darwinoids singing the same old song: "Look! Evolution!" Not hardly. As we have seen many times before, advocates of germ-to-gibbon evolution will "see" evidence for their conjectures where none exists, as well as giving credit to the puny god of evolution for any kind of change in an organism. Image credit: Pixabay / skeeze Now there's a newly discovered gibbon fossil that some people think may shake the family tree. Actually, it's a case of, big deal, since the usual "convergent evolution" and other convenient evidence-free machinations for evolution are invoked. More than that, the fossil is probably just another extinct variation on gibbons, does not give information about ancestral relationships, or anything useful other than being something shiny for evolutionary biologists to play with. The fossil Pliobates cataloniae could upset the accepted evolutionary concept of our remote family tree, or at least the s

There's a false claim by anti-creationists that the term living fossil  was invented by creationists. Even if that were true, such a claim would be meaningless. But the fact is, it goes back to Charles Darwin his own self, and other non-creationists use it as well. You savvy? A "living fossil" is something that exists today and is essentially unchanged from those found in fossils alleged to be millions or billions of years old. Chambered nautilus image credit: USFWS Sure, evolutionists have excuses for that. One is that it didn't need  to evolve. Right. Even though they claim that other creatures faced genetic mutations and environmental pressures that brought about evolution, but many things were unaffected? On one had, evolution is an irresistible force, but on the other hand, it doesn't happen. That's a policeman's exit (cop out). It seems that some people will come up with almost any excuse to deny the obvious: life was created recently, and evid

Secular cosmologists have been hanging their hats on the Big Bang for decades. Since accumulating data are recalcitrant, they keep changing the models and speculations. One of the main points is what is termed dark matter.  According to cosmic evolution tales, this is the stuff that comprises most of the universe, but it has not been observed or detected in any way, but we're supposed to believe it on their say-so, what with them being scientists and all. Such a concept is plumb loco to my reckoning. Image credit: NASA , ESA, M. J. Jee and H. Ford et al. (Johns Hopkins Univ) (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)  Governments have been spending mucho dinero on searching for something that only exists on paper, which is based on atheistic origin mythology. In actuality, there was no Big Bang and the universe was created recently. Why do you think astronomers and cosmologists keep getting surprised by discoveries? Evidence supports recent creation, old son. Ast

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen I disremember how I came across this 2012 article, " Should Humanity Take Religion On Interstellar Space Voyage? ", but thought it had some things that needed addressing. It's obviously written from a secularist perspective, and the token Christian that they interviewed certainly did not express an understanding of the Bible. He said we have to leave behind Earth-based religions. I reckon he doesn't know about religion, history — and people. Modified image from Pixabay / falco and clip art from Clker It's one thing to leave behind our political views or other things that we select, but the Christian faith is who we are, it's not like choosing a hat or something. A Christian has been changed by God (2 Cor. 5:17) and is adopted as one of his children (John 1:12, Rom. 8:15, Heb. 12:7). Several astronauts are Christians, including James Irwin , Jack Lousma , Rick Husband and Michael Anderson (who perished in the 2003 Columbia  di

Although many people deny it, people live according to their worldviews. In the issues of the age of the Earth, origin and development of life, cosmic evolution, ice ages, and other historical science matters, we have seen time and again that preconceptions influence the interpretation of data. "Science" is not a monolith of absolute truth remaining uncompromised by the assertions of dispassionate scientists. Hungarian 1990 mastodon stamp scan from my collection, modified with the oil painting tool. The Ice Age raises many questions, Manfred. Did it happen? How did it happen? How many were there? How long did it last? When it comes to the Ice Age, secular scientists are unable to saddle the data with their conjectures and models, especially the idea of multiple ice ages over long periods of time. Then they'll challenge biblical creationists to explain the Ice Age. Since scientists interpret data according to their worldviews, creationists find that recent creation

Back in the early days of photography, subjects were told to " watch the birdie ". Nowadays, that endangered expression merely means that a picture is about to be taken. What do birdies watch? For that matter, another idiom is "get a bird's-eye view", which usually means way up high, getting the perspective of a bird in flight or on top of a tree. Look at it this way... Image credit (cropped): Northern Cardinal  / FreeImages / Maria Corcacas Of course, Darwinists will come up with unsupportable conjectures on the evolution of sight and the ability to see color (birds see more colors, and other things, than we do), but those are guesses passed along as science. The birdie is watching far more than people realize, and their bird's-eye view was designed by our Creator. When you see a hawk soaring high overhead, have you wondered what the view looks like from up there? Well, the bird’s-eye view involves much more than the panoramic view we see from an

Even though none of the theories of solar system formation actually work, cosmologists tend to favor the nebular hypothesis,  where everything formed from the same hot gas. It swirled, the sun and planets formed — and questions are raised. One of the most obvious problems is the way some of the planets act: Uranus is tipped on its side, effectively rolling in its orbit, and Venus has a retrograde rotation (goes in the opposite direction as the other planets). There are more problems and questions, but the public is given the sanitized version that sounds true, even though there's no evidence for cosmic evolution. Recent discoveries are mighty unfriendly to the concept. Solar nebula image credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Studies of other solar systems get cosmologists and astronomers a mite consternated, since things they've found are way out of whack and not conducive to life. Our solar system has a right friendly sun, the moon is unique

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a coffee fruit. Or bananas. Whatever. They bother a lot of people, but don't seem to do a lot of harm. (Our Basement Cat eats the things if she can catch them.) They do lay eggs in our stuff, though. These monstrous, huge aviators (1/8 inch, 3-4 mm) not only thwart efforts to force them to evolve , they're full of fascinating information — and possible inspirations for applications. Fruit fly liking a coffee fruit / Image credit: USDA-ARS (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Although larger flying insects are studied, scientists are discovering just how they were intricately created; they defy evolution. (Not that fungus-to-fruit fly evolutionists will admit that they defy evolution, of course.) Their flight stabilizers are controlled by a kind of multiprocessor in their tiny brains, their biological clocks are being studied to possibly benefit human health, and more. It's a-pear-ant that you should read the

It's a war zone. No, not a military campaign. This war is going on inside you on the microscopic level. Your immune system identifies threats and discerns how to deal with an intruder (or just ignore it), and the system replaces its working parts, has search and destroy missions, passive barriers, and much more. Camp Lejeune, North Carolina - Marines with Bravo Company, 2nd Combat Engineer Battalion Photo by Lance Cpl. David Hersey Image use does not imply endorsement of any of this site's contents by the US Department of Defense Advocates of molecules-to-Marine evolution have hindered the understanding of biology. We have two lines of defense, and the first line was pretty much ignored as something inherited by our alleged evolutionary forebears. The second line of defense got most of the attention because they assumed it evolved (without anything other than "evolution did it"). A lot of information was undiscovered, and now scientists are realizing that ou

The first thing taught in Darwinian catechism is that evolution is a given. Second is that Earth is billions of years old. When evidence is presented that threatens either assumption, evolutionists tend to get on the prod and try to dismiss the evidence (you may like " Fear and Loathing of Dinosaur Research by Evolutionists ", " Dinosaur Soft Tissues and Evolutionist Science Deniers ", and " Soft Tissue Time Paradox " by ICR's Dr. Vernon Cupps). Dinosaur soft tissues have them mighty angry because the evidence strongly refutes not only the idea that dinosaurs have been extinct for tens of millions of years, but that the planet is as old as they want it to be for evolution to happen. The real  evidence, without evolutionary trappings, shows that everything was created recently, and did not evolve in the Darwin way. Image credit: Pixabay / agfcontact (modified) Someone sneered on one of my posts, "What next, dinosaur DNA?" Pay attentio

When we point out that evolution is actually an ancient religious view, uninformed Darwinistas tend to get a mite irritated and tell us, with incontrovertible logic, "That's not true!" This is often accompanied by assorted insults. If they had a mind to do some homework, they'd learn that evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, and beyond that. For that matter, when anti-creationists want to claim that we believe in Bronze Age fairy tales, they'd be upset to learn that forms of evolution have been the subject of fantasies and legends in many ancient cultures. To equate the Bible and biblical creation with fairy tales, magic, and other ideas is not only ignorant, but disingenuous. I've been told to read Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, maybe I'd learn something. First, which version? It's been revised several times. Second, it's been larg

The popular conception of scientists is that they are driven by facts and reason, and have everyone's best interests at heart. Also, scientists are above regular people, uncorrupted by greed and avarice, so they're morally above us as well. If you study on it, you'll see that this Scientism view makes them non-human. But they're not automatons. It occurs to me that one reason people may be looking up to scientists is something lef t behind f rom the days of class distinctions. Ed jamakation was not freely available to all, only the elite few. (If someone was wealthy, they were somehow "better" than the poor, who were also created in God's image.) So, a scientist was a bette r , elite person who had money for education, so you have jolly well listen. These days, degrees are much more freely available, and the criteria for granting them are much lower. Everyone has a worldview, even though most don't sit down and cognate on it, "Here's my

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Have you ever had the experience where you reckoned someone as hostile, or even an enemy, and it turned out that the person actually had your best interests at heart? Of course, people may not cotton to being coddling, so they speak their minds or simply take direct action — especially when something is important. 1873 Winchester rifle / Image credit: Ricce / Wikimedia Commons / CC by 3.0 Here's an excerpt from Owen Wister's 1902 classic, The Virginian: A Horseman of the Plains: But all the while I was wondering about the Virginian: eating with him, sleeping with him (only not so sound as he did), and riding beside him often for many hours. Experiments in conversation I did make -- and failed. One day particularly while, after a sudden storm of hail had chilled the earth numb and white like winter in fifteen minutes, we sat drying and warming ourselves by a fire that we built, I touched upon that theme of equality on which I knew him to hold

Why do evolutionists see things that are not there? Like a social media relationship status, "It's complicated". Scientists are not driven by facts alone, but by their presuppositions and other things. Since they assume that particles-to-paleoanthropologist evolution is "settled science", they frequently get a hankering to present evidence for evolution when none exists. If they were being scientific about science, these mistakes should be few and far between. Dreadful evidence for evolution is exhibited like a prize pig at the county fair, but there's really nothing to show to the judges. There are many articles about alleged transitional forms, but it seems to take someone who can take a step back and seriously examine what is trotted out, and then see that there's nothing to pay any mind to after all. Why did Piltdown Man fool the evolutionary community for over 40 years, and why are Darwinistas still chasing down bad leads? A bit of psycholog

It may come as a shock, but various forms of electric current are present in many living things, including people. Various critters have a sensing ability called electroreception, which is present in certain kinds of fish. Darwinists assert (without evidence) that electroreception and the ability to generate current evolved different times. Although that's far-fetched enough, it gets worse for them because some species have direct current, and others have alternating current! Watt will they come up with to explain it? Image credit: morgueFile / DuBoix Let's take a little diversion. Imagine two cowboys meeting on the trail: "What's in them saddlebags, Bob?" "Batteries, Clem. When I camp out, I like to jam on my electric guitar. Want to hear my rendition of 'Purple Haze'?" "I've heard you play. Do you take requests?" "Yup!" "How 'bout them military songs? I'd like you to play 'Down by the River

There are many speculations put forward as to why dinosaurs became extinct, and some are rather outlandish . The most common idea is that an asteroid fell to Earth and caused them to head for the last roundup, but it doesn't have a lot of explaining power. Others have suggested that volcanoes had something to do with the dino die-out. Lately, some geology work prompted a new idea: both asteroids and volcanoes. Scan of Bulgaria stamp from my collection, with added clip art from Clker While uniformitarian assumptions and the circular reasoning in radiometric dating are unreliable, they do give relative dates to work from. Some Genesis Flood geology models postulate that, since the rain was supplemented by the fountains of the deep being broken up (Genesis 7:11), an asteroid impact may have been a part of the great global Flood. Rapid fossilization, plate tectonics, volcanic activity, the Ice Age, change in climate — the whole shootin' match supports creation science model

Funny how when people think they have things all figured out, things change and there's not so much understood after all. The predictability factor in cosmic and biological evolution does not inspire confidence. Sure, you'll find assertive tinhorn evolutionists who will believe in various forms of evolution despite  the evidence, but don't pay them no nevermind. The fact remains that fundamental beliefs in science keep getting overturned; consensus science isn't good science. Physics in particular has been taking a beating as of late. Moon rock from Apollo 14. Image credit: NASA/Sean Smith Analysis of zircon in moon rocks is being reconsidered, which has implications for the age of the Earth and, therefore, evolution. The study of subatomic particles called kaons  may change the Big Bang cosmogony (again). Dark matter and considerations of universal constants. Oh, yes, a whole passel of tinkering with things that are only theoretical, or based on evolutionary

In addition to bad science and dreadful logic, evolutionary thinking has produced "social Darwinism". This in turn has given us the evil of eugenics,  where humans have taken the evolutionary view of natural selection into their own hands. Some people have decided that other people are unfit to reproduce, or even unfit to continue living. The expression, "Who watches the watchers?" comes to mind because who decides that some people are more "fit" to exist than others? Eugenics is the "science" of making such determinations, which has often been based in racism. Such thinking is contrary to a Christian worldview that seeks to defend the defenseless, help the helpless — and even doing good to enemies. However, we  are sometimes considered enemies by academics and those looked upon as the intellectual elite. C. Richard Dawkins and others have decreed that Christian parents teaching creation science to children is child abuse . Neil deGrasse

Once again, the hands at the Darwin Ranch have come up with a scheme that allegedly answers questions about how life made the move onto land. Of course, this is based on their assumptions that life evolved in the first, place, and that life began in the oceans, not on land. Image credit: morgueFile / jdurham Evolutionary scientists are spinning a yarn about how they "solved the problem" by saying that algae made it up onto land and somehow survived. After that, evolution commenced to happening. This raises quite a few questions. One problem that they conveniently ignore is how DNA is in place and working already. Then there is the question of nutrients. After that, we see credit given to algae and evolution itself for making decisions. No, the Creator made the decisions, and that involved recent creation on land. A recent study on algae supposedly sheds light on how aquatic life became terrestrial. So the story goes, “450 million years ago, alga from the ear