Piltdown Superman

Did you know that computers, legislation, automobiles, bicycles, airplanes, and so on can evolve? Sure, no problem! It is legitimate to use the word evolve  in these situations, but the problem is, evolve  has many definitions. (One definition is so vague, it's almost useless: change over time.) But Darwinistas play fast 'n' loose with the definitions. Yours truly in front of a MiG-21 at the Kalamazoo, Michigan air museum, about 1998. One tinhorn laid down some pictures of similarities in the development of airplanes, correctly used the term evolution,  and then conflated that  use of the word with biological evolution.  This involved arbitrary assertions, personal preferences, and a bit of emotional manipulation by claiming that biological evolution cannot be denied by "reasonable" people. Well, no, we'd better believe it, don't want people thinking we're not reasonable, do we? Never mind that his  explanation is not the only one! The better ex

If you saddle up and ride in some mountainous areas, you may come across a notch where water is flowing between parts of the range. Ever see one form? Me, neither. Nobody has. Old Earth advocates will tell you that the water carved it out, but that doesn't square with the geologic evidence. For one thing, simple physics tells us that water flows around  barriers instead of up and over them. Glen Helen Gorge image credit: NASA / Eric Christian 's Field Journal (use of image does not imply endorsement). One tale they tell is that the river was there already, and the range uplifted, so the water carved out the gap. That may be remotely plausible if there was just one instance, but that explanation doesn't hold water when it happens a heap of times. Then there's the lack of scree (rock debris) that should be there if it took millions of years to happen. It didn't happen that way, old son. Uniformitarian reasoning fails here, too. The most rational explanation to

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Hat tip to Doug McBurney for giving some inspiration for this article. The atoms-to-acrobat evolutionists at the Darwin Ranch have the view that people were stupid way back when. It's consistent with their philosophy, since we supposedly came from minerals, fish, animals, and up the ladder to where we are today. So, we're wired to be the best, right? Image credit: Pixabay / Cornfreak We're created in God's image but are in rebellion against him, so we're a mix of good and bad. Technological and medical advances, taming animals, the ability to compose music, write literature, and do all sorts of things that are not possible for animals to accomplish. We can also do something else that is unlike animals: self-destruct, whether individually, culturally, or destroy millions of our fellow beings in a short time. Also unlike animals, we can celebrate our downward spiral. We've made same-sex marriage not only legal, but want people

On one hand secularists are searching for signals from intelligent life forms in outer space (which does not seem to be an intelligent use of time and money as far as I reckon). And on the other hand, the numbers game that there must be life out yonder is getting worse all the time because the right combination of conditions have to be in place. Image credit: NASA (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) They look for the habitable zone, where a planet is the right distance from a star so it doesn't freeze or burn. In addition, the planet has to be the right size and composition. Does the planet have a magnetic field to help protect it from the solar wind? Stars tend to be unstable, and the planet can't have that, either. There was speculation that κ 1 Ceti was comparable to our own sun because it's young in evolutionary years, but it's as unstable as a feral misotheist. If our sun was that obstreperous long ago, there would be no life here. These peop

Ever watch that television show Scorpion? It has a heap of "Yeah, sure!" moments, but it does have some high levels of suspense. When I watched " Chernobyl Intentions ", I didn't realize a couple of things: the disaster happened thirty years ago today , and the episode of is based on current events. The part of radiation being a scary thing, yeah, I've known that for years. Image credit: NASA image created by Jesse Allen , using EO-1. Use does not imply endorsement. Chernobyl is in Kiev, Ukraine, near the Belarus border. On April 26, 1986, technicians of the Soviet Union-controlled area caused reactor four to explode. This killed several people at the time, released huge amounts of radiation, and displaced over 350,000 people to date . The most radioactive area has highly restricted access, and is expected to be uninhabitable for many years. People who get their information about radiation from movies and such may be expecting mutations and people

Remember when particles-to-peddler evolutionists said that certain parts of DNA were "junk", and that was thoroughly refuted ? Further research keeps showing inconvenient genome truths refuting evolution, such as the " epigenetics switch ". The hands at the Darwin Ranch down at Deception Pass were embarrassed, and it's getting worse. Image credit: Freeimages / Rainer Berg The more scientists learn about the genome, the more complicated it gets — including epigenetics. It seems that our functional chemistry can be changed, but the base pairs comprising the DNA code are unaltered. Changes happen through epigenetic switches and cellular machinery, and the whole thing is far more complex than ever imagined. This further refutes evolution and affirms the brilliant design work of our Creator. In complete contradiction to evolutionary predictions, the language systems in the genome continue to reveal nothing but unimaginable complexity. As a news story on a re

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Christians who take the Bible seriously have been alarmed at the increase in "seeker driven" churches, false religions, compromise, and outright apostasy in the church. A good part of this is because too many Christians are unaware that Genesis is the foundation for all major Christian doctrines , and have disdain for the authority of the Word of God. Christianity held to a recent creation and global Flood throughout most of church history, including the Reformers . It wasn't until naturalistic philosophies of science seemed plausible, and Christians were buffaloed into compromising. Who wants to be considered stupid in the light of "science"? The compromisers were foolish, as evolution is based on many frauds and bad reasoning, and we need to show it for what it is (Eph. 5:11-13).  Compromises included various ways to force millions or billions of Darwin years into the Bible, and the worst of the lot is theistic evolution.  (For

At the beginning of creation, everything was  מאד טוב, very good   (Gen. 1:31) . There was no death, suffering, mental illness, disease, deformities, and so on. Creationists have speculated that, when we hear about people with amazing abilities here and there, Adam and Eve would have been created with those all at the same time. Pretty good for someone who was taken from the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7) and the woman from the side of the man (Gen. 2:21), I think. But when Adam sinned, everything started going downhill (Rom. 5:12, Rom. 8:22).  Image credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures We were created in God's image, and amoeba-to-anthropologist upward evolution had no say in the matter.  There are some amazing abilities in the human body that scientists are studying — and enhancing, in some cases. They're using their intelligently-designed brains to find out the whats and whys. Perhaps some of our abilities, even in our biology, are glimpses into the perfect past. So

Those things called living fossils are animals, fish, plants and so on that were thought to be extinct for millions of Darwin years, and are discovered to be doing right well, thanks. They also look pretty much the way their fossilized ancestors looked. When some owlhoot evolutionists are questioned about why the things didn't evolve over all that time, they often give the ridiculous stock answer, "They didn't have to". This flies in the face of the way evolution is portrayed, as an inexorable force that has intelligence to select and modify. Raging Horn at Osprey Reef, northeast of Queensland, Australia Image credit: Richard Ling via Wikimedia Commons ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ) So, they reckon we'll buy the story about no changes, no "environmental pressures", no "need to evolve" over all that time? No. The excuse may seem reasonable for one or two, but it's mighty poor in light of the many living fossils that have been found. The real exp

We frequently hear from secular astronomers about star formation in molecular clouds. No kidding? How long does it take? Oh, tens of millions of years if you accept deep-time cogitating. Fact is, nobody has ever seen a star form. That doesn't stop the cosmic evolutionists from stating their opinions as fact, thought. One creationist astronomer has the essential attitude of, "So what? Even if stars did form, they're using existing materials, and stars are not all that complex anyway". Seems reasonable to me. Circinus Molecular Cloud Complex image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / UCLA The years have not been kind to star formation proponents. They still have to find ways to defy the laws of physics, and give some kind of plausibility for their uniformitarian ideas. Why is this so difficult? Because science does not support the Big Bang, deep time, or cosmic evolution. Instead, science supports recent creation. In almost any standard university astrophysics text you

When presented with materials used to promote amoeba-to-atheist evolution, people tend to be all impressed with the brilliance of scientists (especially when they use expensive words meant for experts in their particular fields). Using a bit of critical thinking and spotting logical fallacies , you can see that things served up seem mighty tasty, but have no real nutritional value for the mind. Generated at GlassGiant A journal article about bilateral evolution seems impressive, but is saturated with fallacies, and it turns out to be nothing more than speculation. If someone is going to present conjecture, fine, but they should at least admit that it does not have any foundation in observable science. We all examine evidence and argue from our presuppositions, but at least biblical creationists let you know where they're coming from. Evolutionists tend to present their naturalistic viewpoints as proven science — after all, science is  a philosophy of interpreting data.

Old universe advocates are getting a mite consternated about the rings and moons of Saturn, and cannot account for their apparent youth. They are proposing some very interesting ideas to deal with the idea that those celestial objects may be younger than the dinosaurs according to Darwinist years. But speculation is not the same as science, even if people have degrees and lab coats. NASA / JPL-Caltech / Space Science Institute (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Their excuses are, to borrow from Chris Rosebrough, ad hoc ergo poppycock.  There are too many maybes and no actual evidence to back up their speculations, which are based on their deep-time assumptions. Why are we paying these people? They should realize that their conjectures are becoming increasingly outlandish, and admit that evidence shows that the Bible is right: everything was created recently, without the use of cosmic or any other kind of evolution. Stunning admissions show that secular astron

Have you ever been around a hummingbird after seeing a Star Wars  movie? Funny that their buzzy flying has a sound like a lightsaber. I almost expect to hear the bird say, "You should not have come back..." By the way, I've said this before, and I'll say it again: if you don't want to poison the cute little things, clean your hummingbird feeders often , you savvy? Good. Image credit: Anna's Hummingbird by Alan Vernon, ( CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ) These winged little marvels have been studied for biomimetics (where humans observe something in nature, claim it happened by accident, then try to intelligently design an application) for miniature flying robots . As if drones peeking in windows weren't bad enough. (For me, it's, "Mr. Drone, say hello and goodbye to Samuel Colt!" Privacy concerns , you know. But I digress.) The hummingbird frustrates bacteria-to-bird evolution. In fact, it frustrates other-bird-to-hummingbird evolution because it

When Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and others insist that intellectual and scientific progress are only possible through belief in evolution, they are actually promoting the dumbing down of Western civilization. (Sure, look what atheism and social Darwinism have done for the culture and technology of North Korea, for example.) Several Darwinistas have been not only insisting on using natural selection as the means of evolution, but point at alleged "vestigial structures" as evidence of onward and upward evolution. Researchers in Sweden are showing blatant stupidity — and getting their "research" published. Not only are they uninformed about the differences between Salmonella and cheetahs, they "prove" natural selection by making things unfit. Then they ignore other evidence and explanations that they should have examined, even from a naturalistic standpoint. Worse for these tinhorns is that their conclusions actually support the work of the Creator

Way up yonder in the Norway area is the archipelago known as Svarlbard , and the largest island is Spitsbergen. Interesting geology, and the ocean-influenced climate is not as cold in winder, and not as warm in summer compared to other polar areas. Still, it's plenty cold. A fossilized forest was found on Spitsbergen. Time to do some digging. Image credit: Pixabay / MartinFuchs Old Earth paleontologists are having a bit of difficulty giving adequate explanations for what is found, especially since the trees are extinct. But that doesn't stop them from projecting their ideas into the distant past, even though they have no data to support their views. However, the Genesis Flood model gives a far better explanation for observed data, and for theories about what went on in the relatively recent past. After all, the world is not billions of years old; the evidence indicates only thousands of years. The discovery of ancient trees fossilized in what looks like a forest is al

Evolutionists have a habit of making assertions about the past from limited information about things not fully understood. When it comes to genetics, they're in a world of hurt. One of the hallmarks in scum-to-sculptor evolution is bad logic, and they often resort to affirming the consequent.  Basically, it goes like this: 1. If p, then q. 2. We have q. 3. Therefore, p. Seems simple enough, but it leaves out the possibility of other explanations. As Jason Lisle illustrates : 1. If it's snowing, it must be cold outside. 2. It's cold outside. 3. Therefore, it's snowing out. Not hardly! Let's use this in a way that Darwinists do it: 1. If evolution is true, then DNA will be found in living organisms. 2. DNA is found in living organisms. 3. Therefore, evolution is true. Made through the Chalkboard Message Generator at Add Letters This leaves out pertinent data, which is something these owlhoots will do frequently. Take ERVs (Endogenous RetroVirus

The Darwin Ranch over at Deception Pass has some gloomy faces these days. Not only do they have to deal with dem dry bones fouling up their human evolution timeline , but the "tree of life" that Papa Darwin tried to grow is rotting. The more scientists learn about life, the more God's creation is obstreperous regarding man's origin mythologies.  If you want the truth, it's revealed in God's Word, and not in the ever-changing speculations of people who want to deny his creative work. Image based on that old fraud Haeckel 's tree of life. Some of the recalcitrant data include organisms having holes in the wrong place and at the wrong time, critters with big pointy nasty teeth, and genetic similarities that don't fit the tree of fiction. You can read about those and more by clicking on " More Holes in Evolutionary Theory ". 

When there's news that can be even be remotely construed to support Darwinism, the science press rides like a cavalry charge to spread their propaganda , but when the evidence piles up against evolution, they hole up in the bunkhouse playing cards instead of saying, "Hey, here's things the Darwinoids got wrong!" Nope, no money in that. Case in point, the false evolutionary parade is getting mighty blurry because various bones are being redated. According to their own methods, the whole thing just doesn't work. May as well give it up and admit that the evidence refutes evolution, and supports what biblical creationists have been saying for years. Textbooks around the world contain the well-known illustration of walking apes transitioning into a modern human. I recently heard a college student, raised in a Christian home, say these pictures convinced her of evolution. She probably represents countless others swayed by this simplistic icon. But those willing

Finding dinosaur tracks has become somewhat commonplace (saddle up or take a hike at Prehistoric Trailways National Monument in New Mexico , for instance), but they're found in several parts of the world. Some dinosaur footprints are unremarkable, like they're going to and from the general store for supplies or something. Others, however, look like they're fleeing something. Image credit: Bob Wick / Bureau of Land Management Dinosaur tracks in Lake Quarry, Australia , had paleontologists giving weird cognations that the critters were fleeing a predator, but that does not hold up under examination. Same kind of thing happens with the dinosaur tracks on the Isle of Skye — relevant information is ignored, facts are pushed into an evolutionary worldview, and the best explanation of the Genesis Flood is rejected out of hand. Sorry, but uniformitarianism fails again. The Earth is far younger than you and Papa Darwin want it to be. On Scotland’s Isle of Skye, researcher

When someone claims to not have a philosophy of life (worldview from presuppositions and axioms), just ask a few questions. Yo u 'll find out that y es, they do have a worldview. Everybody has one, even if they haven't written it down in a journal or something. A big part of that worldview is the question of right and wrong . An atheist or evolutionist cannot give a coherent reason for saying that torturing children for fun is wrong, but the Bible-believing Christian has a consistent foundation to oppose it. The atheopath who goes haywire with trolling and bullying biblical creationists on teh interwebs because creationists are "evil" and "liars" — that ornery cu ss cannot say why his actions are "good" and creationists are bad, except for his opinion, culture, and relativism — a justification for "morality" that goes up in smoke. Image generated at fodey.com Secular scientists and their sycophantic press make proclamations a

Interesting that there's a whole heap of fossils in the Jehol Group (northeast China), and that seems to be the biggest source of alleged bird-to-dinosaur transitional forms. Lots of nice sedimentary rock to find things in, and then they commence to re-dating the layers when the fossils don't fit their paradigms. Have you noticed that Darwinistas don't let the facts get in the way of a one-sided propaganda rant? Those owlhoots don't just cherry-pick the data, they move entire cherry trees of data! Re-dating, a flock of fake fossils ( notably, Archaeoraptor ), secular scientists who think the whole dino-to-bird thing is garbage, evidence that interferes with their own theories — yep, the future is bleak for evolutionists. So, they deal from the bottom of the deck so they can claim they have the winning hand. Ain't happening. Creation still wins. In recent years the Jehol Group of China has provided evidence of catastrophic burial that contradicts curren