Piltdown Superman

The owlhoots at the Darwin Ranch have realized that they don't have to play the cards they're dealt, such as doing a  force-fit of recalcitrant data into their worldview . A part of this involves  fundamentally flawed radiometric dating methods giving results they don't like; there are wildly varying results, so just keep drawing until you get the card you want, and keep it up your sleeve until needed. Adapted from images obtained from Clker clipart Rock containing footprints was dated, the date was accepted and published. Uh, oh! Those footprints are identical to those of the sandpiper. Time to retest the rock. They obtained an acceptable result, but the footprints were still problematic, what with dinosaur-to-bird evolution and such, and there are more difficulties involved. And it's not an isolated case. If they were able to be honest about the data, evolutionists would stop being evolutionists and admit that science supports recent creation. Using well-kno

Darwin's ideas, loved by many as a "scientific" justification for denying the Creator, are not beautiful by any means. Survival of the fittest, nature red in tooth and claw, evolution as justification for racism , murderous tyrants in the 20th century ,  abortion — no beauty in evolution, Pilgrim. Image credit: Freeimages / Eline van den Berg While there is subjective beauty, such as seeing a piece of artwork that some consider beautiful but I think it would be good for target practice, there are other areas that are not quite so subjective. Darwinistas try to make beauty a utilitarian thing (everything must have an evolutionary function, you know), beauty itself actually defies evolution and testifies of the Creator, who put it here for our  benefit. Creation contains an astonishing abundance and variety of beauty that constantly surprises and delights us. Every individual tree is a work of art, yet trees come in an immense variety of sizes, colors, and shapes.

It's a wondrous thing to watch unbiased, objective evolutionary scientists prove their points by using the complex scientific approach of Making Stuff Up™. Actually, they want to advance their beliefs so much, and are so unwilling to say, "Hey, this data refutes our position!", that they will find ways to say that data actually supports what they are promoting. Square peg, meet round hole. Modified from an image made at SignGenerator.org (link removed, site missing) The link below will show you how they work with the sudden appearance of marine reptiles in the fossil record, the so-called evolution of the British, measuring the differences between apes and humans, contrived "explanations" of protein evolution, butterfly wing patterns, how homosexual behavior in beetles applies to the rest of the animal kingdom, and more. Darwinists pass this stuff off as "science" in their efforts to sidewind away from the evidence that clearly supports creatio

At first, I was going to start this article with "fungi to be with", but decided that joke is in spore taste. "Not funny, Cowboy Bob!" Right, I'd better get on with it. There's a ground fungus known as Talaromyces flavus that actually "knows" how to get what it needs when it encounters iron: it essentially mines it. Original image source: Clker clipart The fungus uses acid etching and extraction techniques quite similar to those used by humans. It should be obvious that the Designer of all creation gave it this unique ability to survive. If the trait was a product of evolution, it would never happen because the fungus would be stopped in its tracks (so to speak) and die. What happens when a soil fungus runs into a hard mineral containing precious trace amounts of nutritious iron? A poorly designed fungus might go hungry and languish like a forlorn noodle, but researchers recently found ways that a soil fungus conducts a miniature m

Even in upstate New York, we can see a variety of birds at the feeder on our patio. My wife likes to admire several kinds, and we have a bit of fun looking them up in books and online. She likes the two kinds of woodpeckers that drop in, and giving peanuts to the blue jays. Jays are smart, too, which fits because they're related to crows and ravens, considered among the most intelligent birds. Malicious Advice Mallard is at it again. In some ways, evolutionists and creationists agree about some elements of speciation. We disagree when it comes to how such varieties came about, and from where. There's no evidence that they came from a common ancestor, and the South American origin story is based on Darwinian presuppositions. We have our presuppositions, too, and believe that speciation of birds that were on Noah's Ark during the Genesis Flood is a better explanation of scientific evidence. This involves the study of baraminology or biblical kinds, terms held in deri

One of the failures of evolution is where to place viruses on Darwin's fictitious Tree of Life. They are living things. No, they are not living things. But they have DNA. So, where do they belong in the alleged "descent from a common ancestor" motif? Pandora by Dante Gabriel Rossetti, 1879 To make matters worse, some large versions of the virus have been discovered. Are Pandoraviruses dangerous? After all, many viruses cause illnesses. But not all viruses do, even though the Pandoraviruses are more complex than their kid brothers. , They cannot be traced to any cell so (wait for the story)  they probably belong to a separate tree of life.  Yeah, sure. If anything, they've devolved , so like their namesake Pandora, they're a box of trouble for evolutionists. But when people insist on evolution and deny creation, science yields many troubles for them. Viruses in many ways are an enigma to biologists. Debate has raged for years as to whether viruses can even

Secular cosmologists and astronomers are chomping at the bit to find a planet like Earth among the extra-solar planets. They get all agitated when something is found in the "habitable zone", but just because a planet is in this zone doesn't mean all that much because there is a heap of other factors to consider . Derived from materials available at openclipart They keep dreaming big, but it seems more like stubborn rebellion against the reality that Earth was created and set in a special place, and not the product of the Big Bang and cosmic evolution. The Kepler spacecraft has found 2,325 exoplanets so far, but there’s still no place like Earth. Live Science chose to frame the news optimistically. Its headline reads, “9 New Habitable Zone Planets! Huge Haul of Worlds Found By Space Telescope.” Exclamation point, even. But it takes more than being in the zone to qualify as an Earth twin. Two other news sites show a sad face at the news: 1st Alien Earth Still El

Mockers sometimes say that the Bible is false because it contains miraculous events — especially that Noah thing. Oh, and Jesus rising from the dead. Can't have miracles because naturalistic presuppositions preclude such things. Then they may say something along the lines of, "But we  have science, and DNA proves evolution is true and the Bible is wrong!" Noah gives Thanks for Deliverance by Domenico Morelli, 1901 Nice arbitrary assertions, but they're worthless. DNA mutates, as any evolutionist that won his spurs knows. But at current rates of mutation extrapolated backward, t he human race can only be thousands of years old . What really gets Darwinists on the prod is when creationist scientists use data and confirm the Bible. A new study supports what biblical creationists have been saying all along. Yippie ky yay, secularists! Evolutionary teachings hold that all mankind arose from a population of ape-like ancestors from which chimpanzees also evolved. Bu

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen You're likely to hear people refer to themselves as skeptics, but they are probably using the word in its common form (needing evidence before accepting a truth claim) instead of identifying with the ancient Greek school of philosophy . Some apply the word skepticism to religious or supernatural views related to the irrational philosophy of agnosticism , while others could be termed hyper-skeptics, rejecting any and all evidence for God, creation, and so forth. (Kinda puts a burr under my saddle when they question little (if any) "evidence" for evolution while rejecting evidence for creation.) Charles Darwin is in a tree near my apartment. Being skeptical can be healthy. When someone makes a claim that a bit on the fantastic side, I reckon it's a good thing to want some evidence instead of being gullible. F'rinstance, here's Papa Darwin in a tree. Evolution be praised, blessed be! I proved my claim by putting a picture next t

A question from Christians and skeptics alike is whether or not Noah had insects on the Ark. It's a fair question. Some of us would rather he had left some things off, but even the most irritating insects serve a purpose in the grand scheme of things, including "services" that we may have never heard of. Image credit: Morguefile / shanblan Did Noah bring insects on the Ark? The answer is a most definite maybe.  There are arguments both pro and con based in Hebrew language, biblical usage, and so on. But it's admittedly educated speculation, and nobody needs to throw down on someone else over it. Creationists have postulated models for how insects and animals may have conducted themselves on the ark. Many can survive without the protection of the Ark, but others probably needed shelter. In Genesis 6:19–20, God commanded Noah to take representatives “of every living thing of all flesh,” including those “of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind

Evolutionary cosmologists have differing stories about the origin of the universe, stars, planets, and whatnot. That's because none of them actually account for the data and don't know what happened in the distant past for a certain fact. Although they erroneously claim that they see stars forming , they don't worry overmuch that their views defy the laws of physics. There are favored versions and alternatives, so when you see a fiction-as-fact documentary, remember that they're only presenting opinions. Nice artwork. Image credit: NASA . (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents.) With universe and star formations, since they're having a fine time of it, may as well throw in more anti-science stories about the naturalistic formation of the planets as well. Sure, make it all worse. If you sit and cognate on it a spell, you'll realize that there are serious problems with the swirling hot gasses compressing into various kinds of planets scenario. T

The lack of transitional forms that Darwin predicted must be making fish-to-farrier evolutionists climb the walls , which might explain their seeing what ain't there with a newly-found cave angelfish from Thailand. It can move around on land a mite (so do some catfish), so there's speculation that this critter can give clues about the transition from fish to land animals. Of course, it would be mighty helpful if they didn't simply argue from their presuppositions, and if there was a shred of fossil evidence. But when scientists say something, Darwinistas run with it and proclaim it as scientific fact. Not hardly! Keep in mind the way these people think: they're opposed to admitting that life was created no matter what the evidence shows, and they also say that loss of features  are evidence of upward  evolution . Scientists recently discovered another bizarre fish. This one has a pelvic girdle. Is it the missing link evolutionists have been searching for? The s

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen All right, I give up. I've been caught and have to admit that I've been deceiving all y'all for over five years, using thousands of articles and posts here and other places of my own and where I guest post. The evidence is conclusive (click for larger): It would be ridiculous for me to try to withstand such logic and morality, since I am but dust and ashes, and he has the Mighty Atheist™ intellect. There is no need to cite more than the first sentence of this post's introduction , or examine the abundant material offered at the link. So, this is my last post. This site and The Question Evolution Project will be shut down, and I will cease my guest activities on other sites. Now we'll wait for Haywire the Stalker to cherry-pick these sentences and find other ways to misrepresent me again. And why not? He's an evolutionist and a professing atheist (except for when he claims to be an agnostic), so he is acting in a manner consiste

Based on naturalistic presuppositions (especially fish-to-philosopher evolution), scientists are attempting to account for morality. This is frustrating for them because not only is there no consensus on this, but there is also not a shred of evidence to support the conjectures of secularists. Image from SignGenerator.org  (link removed, site missing) These owlhoots believe that belief in God is an invention of man, but if that's the case, what right do they have to complain about people being religious, since we've evolved that way? Try as they might to deny the Creator that they know exists (Romans 1:18-23), atheists and evolutionists cannot avoid the fact that God is the source of morality. If you study on it, you'll realize that they are tacitly testifying to what Scripture says, that God has given us not only knowledge that he exists, but that he has put a sense of morality within us. I make no apology for saying this: your opinion on this issue doesn’t matter

Because of hunting and such (a variation on natural selection), tusks are fading. Amazingly, Darwinists are claiming that this is  evidence of evolution.  Not hardly! Groucho Marx said something ir-r elephant to this topic: Actually, there is. Elephants are losing their tusks to some extent. Image credit: cropped from Freeimages / fabrizio colombo Evolution is the acquiring new traits through added genetic information. Evidence does not support evolution, but what is observed supports what is to be expected from the biblical account. Elephants’ tusks are getting shorter—with an increasing proportion of the elephant population even being completely tuskless—and it’s widely being heralded as ‘evolution’ and ‘Darwinism in action’. Outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins refers to the phenomenon in his book, The Greatest Show on Earth—the evidence for evolution, in the chapter titled “Before our very eyes”. The speed of the change has surprised many. Dawkins points out in that cha

If you ever find yourself out Carson City, Nevada way, you might want to consider heading a bit further west into California to see Yosemite Valley National Park . (Or if you're in California and want to get away from the big city stuff.) Saddle up a mule or a horse for a ride (or do some hiking), maybe take in some fishing, stargazing, camping, bird watching, and so forth. Better yet, you could take a Creation Vacation there . Study up on it a bit, and the article linked below can give you a good start. "Half Dome" image credit: Pixabay / Unsplash Sure is some nice scenery. We get a lot of that all over the world, what with mountans, valleys, and such. Too bad it's wrecked. That's right, what we're seeing is the result of the judgement of God on mankind from the Genesis Flood; we can't fathom how wonderful the pre-Flood world was, and it's mighty gorgeous even now. Those rocks didn't form from uniformitarian processes ("the present is

Ancient-Earth advocates don't cotton to using carbon-14 to date fossils, coal, diamonds and such because it has an upper limit of about 60,000 years according to their reckoning. Why test things that they "know" are billions of years old, since there won't be any found anyway? Arguing from their naturalistic presuppositions has hindered scientific research (such as claiming that the appendix is a "vestigial structure" leftover from our alleged evolutionary past, doing damage to people, then finding out that it's useful). What's interesting is that scientists have found carbon-14 in old materials. Some owlhoots rush to say, "Contamination!", which not only impugns the skills of the technicians, but is also very unrealistic. Scientists at the Institute for Creation Research have been doing carbon-14 studies, and are continuing their work. The results are promising, supporting the Genesis Flood model and causing consternation for unifo

Once again, the more we learn about living things, the more there is to learn. Problem is, we don't rightly know what we need to learn. Especially the human brain. Noggin neurons are communicating, and some change as the need arises. Axons find ways to make connections and follow "beacons" to do so. Another interesting aspect is that messenger RNA gets involved in axon navigation. This specified complexity is further evidence of the wisdom of our Creator, and works against evolutionary paradigms. Evolutionists should use their intelligently designed minds, you savvy? Scientists are beginning to be able to watch nerve cells reaching out and forming connections. “'A day in the life of a synapse' reveals new facets of the adult brain,” a headline on Medical Xpress teases. Yes, even cells have a list of things to do today. Synapses are the gaps between nerves where the signal turns from electrical to chemical and back again. Why would nerves make that break

Gotta admit that an article on honey didn't get my excitement meter buzzing, but when I read it, I realized that it was actually quite interesting. "Oh, look! A bee!" Yeah, I see it, too. One thing I learned is that there are about 20,000 species classified as bees, but only seven of them make honey. These bees eat nectar and pollen (performing a service by visiting a whole heap of flowers every day and helping pollinate), and they make the honey for surplus food during the off-season. Image credit: Freeimages / MMNoergaar The whole hive process should be the envy of manufacturing companies. They have many workers collecting the supplies (using efficient built-in navigation systems ), returning back to the hive, making the honey, doing construction and other hive-related activities — the expression "busy as a bee" was probably concocted before it was realized just how busy they really are. This testifies of the Creator's design and stings bacteria-

Darwin's concept of natural selection bringing on new and improved life forms from a single common ancestor has been largely abandoned in favor of evolution through mutations. The hands working at the Darwin Ranch are in no danger of losing their jobs, though, they can come up with some mighty interesting tales on how genes form in the first place. Even though Darwin's Drones think it's all settled science and take what scientists say as ironclad truth, when given some examination, the mechanisms for mutation are implausible. Experiments show that at least seven mutations are needed to make a protein-coding gene change into a different protein-coding gene. And we have a passel of genes in us. Then you have the problem of defining "beneficial" mutations, which is often subjective. Evidence does not support evolutionary conjectures, but evidence does support the biblical creation model. The evolutionary apologist Jerry Coyne describes Darwinian evolution as,