Piltdown Superman

G'day. While we have a passel of rock formations in these here United States where I live, there are many around the world that give strong evidence of the Genesis Flood. (We do seem to have the best dinosaur boneyards, though.) There's an area in the Northern Territory called Red Centre,  which has an abundance of, well, redness. The frontier town of Alice Springs can set you up if you want to do some sightseeing and as a starting point for exploring Flood geology. I'd like to go myself, you betcha. " Kings Canyon " image credit: Pixabay / walesjacqueline But this isn't advertising for 'Straya tourism. Like I said at the onset, there are many geological formation that support the Genesis Flood. Sure, uniformitarian geologists continue their old Earth assertions (evolution requires an old Earth), but much of what they say defies science and basic reasoning skills, and basically falls apart. Here is an article written from a biblical creationist poi

A common falsehood told by Darwin's Drones is that people reject evolution because they do not understand it. Often times, they proceed to "explain" it to evolution deniers and get their own pseudoscience wrong. It doesn't help matters that many evolutionists don't understand evolution themselves. They'd be far better off if they'd stop rebelling against our Creator and realize that science does not support evolution, it supports biblical creation. Charles Darwin hung his evolution hat on the peg of natural selection, a concept developed by a creationist years earlier as a preserving factor, not something to cause change. When DNA, mutations, and so on were investigated, natural selection fell out of favor, and we have neo-Darwinism, or the modern evolutionary synthesis. Natural selection is not what causes evolution, but contributes. Except that some owlhoots disunderstand natural and artificial selection, and use the fallacy of reification and gi

A great deal of science depends on consistency and predictability; we expect things to behave in certain ways and according to established patterns. In biology, cells have mitochondria or traces of it so they can survive. Monocercomonoides seems to be making its own rules, and causing a whole heap of consternation for biologists and especially Darwinists. Assembled at the Says-it sign generator Naturally, some "Just-so" stories are being fabricated, such as  Monocercomonoides having mitochondria, then losing it, surviving now through a cellular version of horse trading. Funny how these people use an alleged loss  of function as evidence of onward and upward evolution, isn't it? Not that this protist showed any sign of ever having had mitochondria, can't let that get in the way of good propaganda. Here's a thought: the Creator built it that way so it could thrive in its particular environment! But no, materialistic worldviews preclude the possibility of th

Proponents of the Big Bang point to CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) radiation from the original fireball as strong evidence for the Big Bang's validity. When CMB was discovered, the fellas won a Nobel Prize, probably because secularists like science that fits their worldviews, even though things haven't been thought out well enough. Image credit: NASA (click on the link to see a short animation of the presumed initial explosion and afterward). Even though the original Big Bang concept was an explosion (and is still referred to that way ), the whole story keeps evolving. (That's because evidence keeps interfering with the secularist mythology of origins and cosmic evolution, and they refuse to admit that evidence supports the Bible's claim that God created the universe, and did it recently.) The question has been raised, "Where are the shadows?" If the background glow was way, way out yonder, celestial bodies should cast "shadows". One of

It is an exciting time to be a biblical creationist. Evidence keeps on accumulating to confirm what we've said all along, and it is not supportive of evolution. The refutation of the"junk" DNA evolutionary idea is bothersome for them. But one item that really gets evolutionists on the prod is the fact of soft tissues in fossils. (Note that I'm deliberately using the word fossil in its more general sense ; it doesn't necessarily mean that something has been permineralized. Ian Juby discussed that word in a segment on fossilized dinosaur skin at the 20 minute 13 second mark in this video clip .) The reason for consternation on the soft tissues is that they are strong evidence that Earth was created recently, not billions of years ago, and that dinosaurs have not been extinct for millions of years. Image credit: Pixabay / agfcontact Some anti-creationists will pretend that dinosaur soft tissues are irrelevant, others try to ignore them completely, and you

Although there are many advocates of goo-to-gigantosaurus evolution that deny the inconvenient truth that soft tissues exist in fossilized bones, the evidence just keeps on accumulating. Various rescuing devices have been presented, but they involve many assumptions, circular reasoning, and some dishonesty. They have enough problems dealing with 65 million evolutionary years, but things got worse. Assembled from Redkid.net sign generator An interesting development is that molecular analysis of fossilized bones found in Poland show what evolutionists do not  want to find. Worse, the rescuing device they rustled up was self-refuting. Seems like a lot of effort to deny the evidence of recent creation, doesn't it? Those who have difficulty accepting reports of collagen (a type of protein) preserved in supposedly 80-million-year-old dinosaur bones will scratch their heads with new vigor over a recent report. Supposedly 247-million-year-old fossils from Poland show signs of exc

There are several fossil forests, and one in particular was discovered a spell back a few hours' drive from my neck of the woods. Geologists and botanists reckoned that, since they were very old in Darwin years, a few simple trees would be all that existed. More evidence shows that they were riding up the wrong trail again. Assembled at  Sign Generator Their problems lie in using uniformitarian ("the present is the key to the past", slow and gradual processes) assumptions, and those assumptions keep on failing. In fact, a form of catastrophism is used now and then when it's convenient. In the case of this forest, they're closing in on the truth (the Genesis Flood), but are still tied up in their worldview. There are many reports of fossil ‘forests’ across the earth that display vertical tree remnants. Vertical tree stumps and trunks are assumed to be in situ, which seems to be the definition of a fossil forest. Evolutionists think that the first forests w

An earlier post discussed how evolutionists have limited understanding of human nature . We supposedly evolved, then sat around for a huge amount of time before showing any signs of the ambition we exhibit today. Similarly, those jaspers collecting our tax dollars are dodging the questions about how  and why  farming developed. Image credit: Morguefile / Jusben  (modified) According to the hands down at the Darwin Ranch, not only were we ignoring technology and cities, but we hadn't bothered to do agriculture, either. It just suddenly appeared in history, even though farming types moved around, interbred, and so forth. If you study on it, even their concept of late-blooming agricultural skills is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview. The biblical creationist worldview makes much more sense, in that we did not  evolve but were created recently, and were intelligent from the get-go. That old Earth stuff really interferes with historical science, old son. If intellige

At the risk of being Captain Obvious, we get a heap of blessings from the sun. Living things depend on its energy for various reasons, we get warmth, time and seasons (Genesis 1:14-15), and other benefits. Without it, this planet would be a lifeless ball of ice hurtling through space. But you knew all that. Aside from thankful but deluded people who worship it, thoughtful folks have wondered what powers the sun. The Sun , Edvard Munch, 1916 Is it powered by gravitational collapse? Nuclear fusion? A combination of both? In 1979, a couple of astronomers presented a paper where they thought they had evidence that the sun is indeed shrinking. Some creationists stampeded to present that idea because it fit with a younger universe paradigm, but secular and more cautious creationists realized that this idea should be filed under, "Don't go there, girlfriend". Still, where is the evidence for nuclear fusion? Why, neutrinos, of course. But why are only a third of the elusi

Let's start by over-stating some basics. First, we depend on oxygen to survive. Down around sea level, the pressure is fine and we can get what we need. You go up the mountains, the air is thinner. Death Valley is below sea level, so don't be in a great hurry to go from there to Denver, the "Mile High City". (Baseball players don't always cotton to playing up there .) Mountain climbers need to take extra precautions, as do pilots. (For that matter, your big ol' jet airliner trip was in a pressurized cabin.) Fighter pilots have oxygen masks. Taking your dog with you on a bombing mission can be bad news if you're both unprepared; going up too high too fast, or just too high at all, can be disastrous. Whitney Smith, the 53rd Wing honorary commander US Air Force photo / Sara Vidoni (Usage does not imply endorsement of this site or its contents by the US DoD.) So how is it that birds can easily fly at altitudes that would be lethal to humans? Evolutio

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen There are several major paradigms active in the world today that have many adherents and are also in conflict one another. Some try to have a kind of synthesis of views, while others have no interest. There is a unified focus, but I don't reckon that participants are aware of the grand scheme. I don't see a kind of shoot-out at the OK Corral of philosophy, though. There have been several philosophical eras over the years that had odd names as far as I'm concerned. Doesn't modern  mean today?  Not when it comes to labeling. The last three are premodernism, modernism, and postmodernism. (Some are saying that postmodernism is already morphing into something else, but there's no title yet as far as I can tell.) One of the main characteristics of postmodernism is that people believe that there are no absolutes . Forget presenting truth to postmoderns, they've asserted that there are no absolutes (a self-refuting claim) and that truth is re

The speculations about life on Barsoom   Malacandra Mars are very old, which has given rise to fantasy and science fiction stories about it. For a spell, scientists seem to have said, "There ain't no life on that one, old son", because they realized that the temperatures and atmosphere were not conducive to life. But it remained a curiosity, which increased with the adoration of evolutionism by secularists, which in turn fueled efforts to find evidence of life out there, thataway. Since abiogenesis is an absurd concept on Earth, there must be some way to find excuses to disbelieve in the Creator in the far reaches of space. Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech Evolutionary scientists are not above cherry-picking data and setting up tests in such a way as they validate evolution. Although gamma-ray bursts that should extinguish life were given a bit of a nod, conditions on Mars were set up in a lab and (Mr. Gordons should like this) the survivability of amino acids un

Proponents of bacteria-to-bat evolution have a high percentage for assertions, conflation, and conjectures. When it comes to actually providing evidence for their claims, their batting average that's lower than a snake's belly in a wagon wheel rut. The evolution of the bat is a noteworthy failure as far as evidence is concerned. Indeed, the evidence shows that bats (along with other critters, plants, humans, and so forth) were all created, not products of evolution. Flying fox (fruit bat) image credit: Morguefile / kconnors The idea is that bats supposedly evolved from some kind of rodent. Maybe it's because bats look kinda sorta like rodents, except the limbs are all wrong. Also, there's no evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Imagine that, a bat is just a bat. There are many specialized systems in place for the bat's flying ability, echolocation, variety, and more. No, these helpful creatures were designed by their Creator, and that's w

Ever notice that some people get a mite irritable when they don't get enough sleep? We need it to process events, and possibly help get some things locked down in memory. It's important to people and critters, and the need for sleep doesn't just apply to mammals. (I feel sorry for Basement Cat when she's had a bad dream, mewing in her sleep and then waking up looking afraid and confused.) We need REM sleep to get dreams, as well as the other kind. People and animals deprived of sleep can get a bit mentally disturbed. Sleep is a gift of God, who set an example for us by resting (Exodus 20:11). It looks like the bearded dragon goes into REM sleep stages as well. Bearded dragon image modified from Morguefile / cooee A simple study on electrical impulses in the brains of bearded dragons led to a study their sleep patterns, and it looks as if they do some dreaming as well. Unfortunately, some evolutionist jasper (who seems to be hallucinating from sleep deprivation) de

A tragic account from 1994 was brought to a close in 2015 with advances in forensic science. Patricia Tamosaitis disappeared from a kayaking trip down the Snow Hole Rapids on the Salmon River in Idaho. She was presumed drowned, and her body was never recovered. Kayaking on rapids near Washington, DC. Image source: Freeimages / Joshua Davis . Two years after the tragedy, a skull was found, and later still, a humerus bone. An expert anthropologist stated that it did not belong to Patricia Tamosaitis, but rather, to a Native American youth who had died 20 years previously. Forensic science showed that it was indeed the remains of Patricia. This raises some serious questions about anthropology, including the fact that an expert could be so terribly wrong about remains that were not all that old. Then we have the questions about anthropology errors for remains that have been dated to be many evolutionary years old regarding our assumed ancestors and "relatives". To read the

Every once in a while, some tinhorn makes the declaration that scientists know dinosaurs were killed of by a big rock from space crashing to Earth, setting up a sequence of events that laid them low. There are several problems with that story. One is that secular scientists are not in agreement about that scenario, nor are they in agreement that dinosaurs evolved into birds. So don't let someone try to fool you with those claims, since they're leaving out some mighty important information. Image assembled from components at  Clker  clipart. Since the data don't fit, scientists have to keep revising their dinosaur die-out tales . Not all dinosaurs died 65 million evolutionist years ago, some survived along with birds and mammals, or birds lost their teeth and grew beaks when the evolved, some stories go. In other words, storytelling disguised as science. Some secular scientists admit that the stories are ridiculous, but their counter-proposals aren't a heap of a

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Every once in a while, a proponent of molecules-to-man evolution will ask, "What evidence will it take for you to change your mind and accept evolution?" On the surface, that seems to be a reasonable question, and people asking it are often sincere. Unfortunately, there are some problems at its base. There is an erroneous belief that a question by itself is not fallacious. Loaded terminology and the complex question are two examples, often intertwined, of an illogical question. Seems to me that the question of what it would take to make a creationist believe in evolution contains an unargued philosophical bias . To get past the expensive words, it basically means that we all have a worldview, and there are certain things that we take as "givens" or established truths that don't need explanation or investigation. The biases in the "what would it take" question are that materialism is true, evolution is a fact, and there'

Do evolutionary scientists have ego problems? I've encountered a few that were not above abuse (and even libel) when called out on their faulty reasoning or shown where scientific evidence does not support the falsehoods that they are gleefully teaching. Wouldn't you reckon that, since they've made so many pronouncements that have been shown to be false, they'd learn a bit of humility? Especially when they declare things in the human genome to be "junk" DNA , and are proven wrong. Again. Image assembled from components at  Clker  clipart DNA is comprised of four bases that are abbreviated A, C, G, and T. When Darwinists examined DNA, they did not understand much of their limited samples, so they declared it to be "junk". Sure, makes perfect sense to examine a little and write it off, right? Not hardly! I reckon that a scientist that did halfhearted work and made assertions would be run out of Dodge for lousy work, especially when "junk&q

Although Darwin's Drones tell biblical creationists the falsehood that the origin of life is unrelated to evolution , evolutionary scientists spend a heap of time trying to figure out how it happened through naturalistic processes. I reckon that they're getting a mite agitated in their efforts to deny the Creator, since their efforts continually lack science. Sure, they (and creationists) use science in the present to attempt to interpret evidence and infer about what went on in the past, but both approaches are equally philosophical as well as scientific. Credit: Image*After There are some logical problems at work here, not the least of which is that science itself is a philosophy on how to interpret data. Moving on from there, we see that evolutionary scientists are looking at the past, and not using their tools according to their own philosophies. No human was there to see the origin of life, and there is only one eyewitness, but they don't want to acknowledge Go

If you study on it, you may see that there are various things in nature that may hint at God having a sense of humor, things that he put here for the sake of baffling proponents of particles-to-petunia evolution. Some of these things are extremely simple, but have profound significance that should be humbling to the most arrogant of evolutionists. Sunflowers In The Garden At Petit Gennevilliers , Gustave Caillebotte , 1885 Sure, scientists have come up for a mighty expensive word for the way sunflowers follow the sun, and maybe you could learn it and impress your friends (unless they find it pretentious, there's always that chance). But still, sunflowers have no muscles, no brains, nothing to explain how they follow the sun across the sky. Worse yet for creation deniers, when sunflowers are rotated, the eventually set themselves to rights and track the sun again. Something as commonly observable as sunflowers following the sun is difficult to explain. Even children can

There are many critters that give advocates of microbes-to-marine biologist evolution conniption fits, since they refuse to cooperate with evolutionary ideas. Instead of giving credit where it belongs, to the Creator, they put the machinery of the Evolutionary Excuse Factory® into high gear. Sometimes, they even resort to metaphysical evolutionism, giving their puny god credit for having intelligence and foresight. Not that this has a bit to do with actual science, of course. Suppose a marine biologist went to a Transformers movie, had some peyote buttons , then had a nightmare where his world and the movie world met. He or she might dream up the mimic octopuses. However, such a creature really does exist, and it's an excellent example of the intricate design work of God. Evolutionary ideas, whether using mutations, natural selection, or any combination of ideas, will not suffice. This creature can mimic other creatures in a big hurry, and it has its own "database"