Piltdown Superman

The Evo Sith will argue from their worldview, we get that. Many are committed to naturalism, and reject any possibility that they are accountable to our Creator. Recent creation? Global Genesis Flood? Easier to teach a sidewinder to herd cats than to get many of these folks to even consider the possibilities. When they rely on evolutionary thinking, it shouldn't come as a surprise that they hide cards and deal from the bottom of the deck to not only promote their own careers, but to convince people that their paradigm is pristine and proper. It's survival of the fittest, isn't it? We shouldn't be surprised at all the storytelling and outright bad science used in the promotion of evolutionism, nor should be be surprised when fraud is involved. (Many people say that Piltdown Man was a "hoax", but I insist it was a fraud, and fooled many people for about 40 years.) But aren't scientists above such unconscionable acts? Not hardly! They're sinful hu

Advocates of molecules-to-machinist evolution can cook up some mighty convincing stories about why and how evolution happened, but they leave out important information and talk about what happened in the distant past without any real evidence. What they come up with are comparable to Kipling's Just So Stories . They sound good, but do not have plausible mechanisms or explanations. And yet, true believers accept them by faith. Regular readers know that I have featured material by Dr. David Coppedge's " Creation-Evolution Headlines " on this site many times. (Here's another: he has some personal anecdotes in an interesting article called " Secret Animal Hideouts ".) Bob Enyart interviewed Dr. Coppedge on Real Science Radio, and they discussed several evolutionary stories, and touched on biomimetics, design, and more. You can listen to or download the podcast by clicking on " crev.info headlines on RSR with David Coppedge ". The picture bel

Every once in a while, biblical creationists will be told something like, "Even if you disproved evolution, I would still be an atheist because evolution is not all that important to me". The indoctrination was strong in this one. Similarly, some will say that they do not need evolution because they have other reasons to reject the Creator. (Interestingly, they betray themselves by coming to creation science sites, groups, Pages, and so forth to tell us that they do not care.) But they must care, because there are only two possibilities to answer the question of origins. One tinhorn stated that atheists reach their conclusions because they thought things out, and Christians do not do this. His claim was a logical fallacy. In reality, atheists are driven by emotion and faith commitments to their disbelief, and if they had bothered to use critical thinking, they would realize that their worldview is irrational and incoherent, lacking the intelligibility that is only fou

The hands at the Darwin Ranch have been holed up down at Horsethief Canyon , telling tales around the campfire. This one's a doozy. A study was undertaken involving the differences between the brains of humans and chimpanzees, and they reached the conclusion that humans evolved the ability to evolve. Of course, no mention was made of how neuroplasticity in human infants was planned by our Creator. Image credit: MR LIGHTMAN at FreeDigitalPhotos.net Infant chimps develop more rapidly than human infants — and then their genetic makeup hollers, "Whoa!" Humans continue to develop and the changes are influenced by environment as well as genetics. But we are designed to develop further than our alleged evolutionary cousins. While the study was good while it stayed with operational, observable science, when the owlhoots began to make pronouncements about what happened in the distant past, that stuff left science and entered the realm of campfire stories. Chimpanzees,

Microbes-to-man evolutionists stack the deck with a passel of their favorite cards when it comes to reasoning about origins. Of course, they presume that evolution is a given. Add in the excuse that something in the genome is not understood, so they assume that it's leftover from our evolutionary past. When the cards are dealt, they think they have a winning hand. Not hardly! We were created, not evolved, and the evidence supports this fact. This is your brain on evolution. Image credit: Pixabay / derjoker The tale of evolving from a common ancestor to an egg layer to a placental mammal is problematic in the first place, then they assume that there must be traces of our egg-layer ancestry in our DNA. There was a study a while back that where some hands at the Darwin Ranch thought they found vitellogenins in our DNA; a pseudogene remnant. To the credit of the main evolutionary community, that was doubtful and not widespread. (The theistic evolution science-and-Scripture-twis

We know full well that the nature of science is to explore through various means and increase in knowledge. Ideally, theories and models are modified if needed, or even discarded. The more we learn, the more there is to learn — but even when data conflicts with secular worldviews, the worldviews prevail. Astronomy and space exploration show this extremely well. Remember when there were seven planets in this solar system? Of course you don't, the eighth planet, Neptune, was officially noted in 1846. Pluto became the ninth planet in 1930, but with bigger and better telescopes, it was downgraded to "dwarf planet" status in 2006. Once Pluto was "visited", scientists were surprised . This is right in keeping with the way other members of our solar system were shown to be active , not acting as old as secularists expected them to be. There's a heap of evidence against the Big Bang, but it's constantly cobbled and patched together to keep going. After all,

If I had a notion to type <a href="http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/p/question-evolution-day.html"><b>Question Evolution Day</b></a>, most people would pay it no nevermind, though many would recognize it as HTML coding. In this text portion of the Weblog, it's only a curiosity and has little function. Putting it where it belongs, you see this link in bold type:  Question Evolution Day . Similarly, Samuel F.B. Morse came up with the first binary code that traveled over the "singing wires" of telegraph lines. Someone who knew that code would send messages to a a clerk who would decode them for the intended recipient. Savvy Native Americans as well as outlaws on the run would cut the lines to hinder communications so town folk couldn't call for help. Image credit: Pixabay / OpenClipartVectors (click link for large image) Languages are complex codes, and anyone with a lick of sense can understand that the words on this site, the

People in northern latitudes are usually well acquainted with snow, whether the Rocky Mountains, Washington, Michigan, New York, Alberta, Siberia, or wherever. We've seen it coming down hard and heavy, with heaps of it making things downright unsafe to head out to work, especially late in January. Turn this upside down, and areas in the southern hemisphere get snow, just ask the penguins and people in some parts of Australia, for instance (at the right time of year). To see actual crystals is something we may not stop to ponder, but individual snow flakes are quite a wonder. Image credit: FreeImages / "Lufthansa Snowflakes 1 / Harpreet Padam Studying individual snowflakes led to the field of crystallography. Scientists are puzzled as to why water molecules are programmed to have six sides, and why there are over eighty basic types of snow crystals. What does this have to do with evolution? In a way, not a whole lot, because there is no organized complexity. But an evolu

One complaint that is raised against biblical creationists is that we're wasting our time dealing with a biological theory, but evolution is much more than that. Not only does it rely on various scientific fields, it is also a philosophy of life. This is ironic, since evolution is based on death. Evolutionary thinking has given us social applications of Darwinian principles in tyrants like Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and others . This, in turn, is based on eugenics, where the unfit are disallowed to reproduce — and are eliminated. Image credit: Pixabay / Skitterphoto The social Darwinism "science" of eugenics was popular in the United States, but fell out of favor when Adolph Hitler used it in his quest for power. However, eugenics never really disappeared. Eugenics has been used under different names, and is regaining popularity again. The worst way is the evolutionary eugenics is used to justify abortion. Taking the view that God created humans in his image gives a radi

So, if a creature has no heartbeat, not breathing, is frozen solid, what is the likely medical opinion? "He's dead, Jim." Not necessarily. Some critters have been endowed by their Creator with certain ways of surviving in extreme cold. Why not? They have been enabled to adapt, else we'd have a much larger number of extinctions going on. A spell back, I posted about the "antifreeze" in the Eastern box turtle . There are also some frogs that have similar abilities. Image credit: Modified from US National Park Service The wood frog baffles atoms-to-amphibian evolutionists. Although certain times of year are just what a frog would cotton to, what with insects and all. But when the temperatures go below zero and it turns into a frogsicle, well, how does it survive? During winter in Alaska, the wood frog (Rana sylvatica) freezes so that it looks like a frog-shaped piece of ice. While frozen, the frog stops breathing, its heart stops beating, its blood

Every once in a while, a Conservative radio talk show host will compile sound clips where newscasters and pundits are using the same key words on the same story. I'm not going into political stuff here, this is just a handy example: In 2007, George W. Bush was criticized for needing gravitas, a word that doesn't exactly appear in common speech, and Rush Limbaugh showed how it was suddenly popular on that one topic . This seems to be the way things are done — including the evolutionary propaganda media. Generated at  Fodey.com . This could lead to future fun. We have enough problems when scientists make pronouncements of their opinions as if they had done rigorous research, came to valid conclusions, and can support their claims, but were only giving opinions instead. It gets worse when the biased owlhoots who are looking for sensational stories get mighty rambunctious with their stories, all the while singing in harmony. The whole thing turns into a goat rodeo. Then,

Another example of evolutionary storytelling is with the alleged evolution of birds. Our fine feathered friends (except at 4 AM on a summer day when I'm trying to sleep in, I don't cotton to that) have been puzzling for bacteria-to- bobolink evolutionists for quite a spell now. Still, they come up with some interesting stories. Not so much science though, that needs evidence and that kind of thing. Image credit: morgueFile / ARTG33K74 Naturally, the "dinosaurs evolved into birds" presupposition is invoked, and other circular reasoning. They also tend to overlook important data and still make unsustainable triumphant proclamations. They still can't change the truth: God created birds and everything else with variety and adaptability, and he did it recently. A recent press release from the National Science Foundation claims that the “big bang” of bird evolution has been mapped, revealing the history and origin of birds, feathers, flight, and song. But do t

For many years, the claim that humans and chimpanzees were extremely similar in DNA was proclaimed by the Evo Sith as a kind of secularist gospel truth. The degree of similarity varied, depending on who you talked to, sometimes as high as 98-99 percent. When this icon of evolutionism was checked and found to be lacking, the science involved seemed to be largely ignored and the "fact" was still spread around. Image assembled from clip art at Clker When creationist scientist Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins re-evaluated the data, he came up with a much smaller similarity. Then the jungle erupted with screams of simians denying the results. However, I was contacted by computer programmer Glenn Williamson who updated me on the results obtained by Dr. Tomkins. At first, I was mighty suspicious, since I get a passel of hassle from tinhorns who want to dismiss creation science material out of hand. Mr. Williamson furnished me with useful links. It turns out that the software that Tomkins

Evolutionists are finding that research is bad medicine for their fungus-to-florist notions. We've read a right fair amount of material showing how soft tissues in dinosaur bones cannot be as old as evolutionists want them to be, and there are other problems with deep time geology that don't fit the observed evidence, so they commence to storytelling to force the evidence into their story. There's another problem, too. Variety of seeds / Image credit: US Department of Agriculture Seeds have been found that they say are "remarkably preserved". Considering the detail involved, they'd best reconsider and deal with the facts: there's no way these seeds are as old as fundamentally flawed dating methods make them out to be. The Earth was created recently, and evidence keeps on affirming that fact. Hundreds of flowering plant seeds from early Cretaceous strata on two continents show exceptional preservation; how can they be 125 million years old? A pa

Have you ever watched a bee come in for a landing? Most of us don't pay it no nevermind, but keep an eye out next time and think about pilots of aircraft. It's tricky enough for them to land on a flat surface, and worse on an incline. Bees land on all sorts of inclines, and you don't see them have crash landings. Image credit: Pixabay / skeeze Scientists, many of whom believe that bees and other critters are the products of time, chance, random processes and other evolutionary fables, are looking into intelligently designing biomimetics applications for human use. The bee's brain has a guidance system that was designed by the Creator, not by evolution. That should be obvious. Landing safely is a difficult aspect of flight, because the rate of approach must be reduced to near zero at touchdown. This is hard enough on horizontal surfaces, but even more challenging as inclination increases, i.e. when landing on surfaces of different orientation. Yet honey bees ac

Biblical creationists and other Christians often have to deal with prejudicial conjectures from uninformed owlhoots such as, "The Bible is full of fairy tales, and there is no support from archaeology! We believe in science,  even though there is no scientific support for our creation myth. And Genesis is the worst!" Or something like that. If these people had bothered to do a mite of research, they wouldn't cotton to making fools of themselves so quickly, would they?  Clay tablet from Ebla / Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain Although stating that there is no archaeological evidence to support Genesis is an argument from silence and therefore invalid, it's also untrue. The more archaeologists work, the more Genesis (and the rest of the Bible) is supported; Genesis is a valid historical record. You dig? With so many loud voices in our culture asserting that Genesis is a myth, one would think archaeologists have uncovered clear evidence that refutes it. On the

Some secular geologists are claiming that the Coconino Sandstone refutes Genesis Flood geology because there is no way that it could have been formed under water. Interestingly, geologists hang their hats on uniformitarian geology despite the numerous problems with their own hypotheses. So, what's going on? Coconino Sandstone (center) / Image credit: US Department of Agriculture Forestry Service The problem is that the geologists only gave superficial examinations before they came up with their myths. Once again, creationists have to do the heavy lifting and refute their refutations. When creationists suggest that a worldwide Flood deposited all the layers in the Grand Canyon, secular geologists laugh. “That can’t be,” they say, “because one of the canyon’s major layers was formed in a desert over millions of years. It’s filled with fossilized sand dunes, which are windblown deposits that have hardened into stone. You can’t deposit desert sands during a global flood!” Th

Someone left a fact-free, faith-filled comment at The Question Evolution Project regarding a post about a thigh bone in the "wrong place" that threatened evolutionary paradigms: Welcome to science. We are learning new things all the time. Mistakes can be made but it doesn't disprove the theory. Looks like this owlhoot is out of touch with his own belief system (that seems to happen a lot). Later, when I told him that evolutionists have a habid of discarding facts they don't like, he added this: Facts are not discarded. If evidence arrives that challenges theories then answers are found or theories change. That's what science is about. But just because a bone is found somewhere calling into question current theories surrounding ancient human history it just means more research needs to be done to get more accurate information. Looks like he didn't bother to read the whole thing (a common occurrence). If he had bothered, he'd realize that scientists a

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen As you can tell from the title, this here article is a continuation. To see Part 1, click here . I hope you do, so this makes more sense to you. Many times, we get comments from atheists on the prod who claim to be "former Christians" (sometimes claiming they were Christians for many years), and then proceed to show little knowledge of the Christian faith. Often, it is because atheists are notorious liars (as I have shown several times before,  especially with this one ). Often, people think  they are Christians because they were raised in a church-going home, or because they're not Mohammedans, Buddhists, or something else, so "Christian" is a kind of default position for them. (One atheist who claims to be a former Christian was raised in the Christadelphian cult ; he's not a used-to-be, he's a never-was.) But these alleged former Christians display little knowledge of the faith and the gospel message . Betcha thought

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Things were surprisingly quiet at The Question Evolution Project over Christmas. But New Year's Day and afterward, some owlhoots from the Darwin Ranch rode over, full of beans and ready to slap leather. (From the quality of their comments, they had too much firewater during their celebrations and weren't ready to deal with polite society yet.) Fortunately, their comments were helpful resources for writing this article, and I saved a heap of screenshots. One of these troublemakers had a wagon load of assertions based on his presuppositions, but was jawing about nothing rooted in fact. I'll omit his insistence on using the irrational, disingenuous redefinition of atheism  as "lack of belief" and stick with the evolutionism comments: Evolution is directly predicated on the scientific method. To state otherwise is illogical. It requires peer review and falsifiable evidence, like all scientific disciplines. It's directly predicat