Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen As discussed here several times, proponents of microbes-to-metallurgist evolution have a mighty dim view of our ancestors. Evolutionists see them as brutish creatures that had been more like ape than man, with intelligence yet to evolve. Of course, this is all based on evolutionary presuppositions and assumptions, not on evidence. (I wonder how many further assumptions were made in formulating the so-called " Paleo Diet "?) But when evolutionist try to slap leather with biblical creationists, they shoot themselves in the foot — nothing more humiliating than being shot with your own gun, but figuratively, that happens to them all the time. I'm saying that  even according to evolutionary "evidence", archaic humans such as Neanderthals showed remarkable intelligence and culture. This is a mite disconcerting to Darwinists, to say the least. De "Weinig" Toren van Babel  by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, 1563 It's been said

Some people have the notion that science is an unbiased method of interpreting the evidence, but that's not what happens. Science does not happen by scientists collecting data and then making dispassionate conclusions. They have their own beliefs, vices, ambitions, and presuppositions. Many times, they go beyond the reasonable boundaries of their disciplines and pontificate on philosophy that sounds  scientific, but fails in several areas. Especially evolution. Many of these owlhoots get the bit in their teeth and run at a gallop by working their naturalistic philosophies into their speculations. Somebody holler, "Whoa!" They need some basic lessons in philosophical thinking, especially that branch of philosophy known as logic.  From there, maybe they can humble themselves and get actual wisdom from the Creator . Some secularists seem to have been smoking the wa cky tobaccy, or is it the people who pay them? Speculations that no thing is real, we are living in a c

While we depend on the hydrologic cycle of snow melt, rain, evaporation, and so on for much of our water, there is also quite a bit of water in rocks. "Such as the rocks that show up in your brain scan, Cowboy Bob?" While those rocks are damp, I mean rocks beneath the surface. Many rocks are porous and permeable to some extent, so in the right environment, water can flow through them and even become embedded in them. Coffee isn't the only thing that percolates. Water does that as well, getting through sediments and into layers way down yonder; there's about as much water under Asia as in the Arctic Ocean. Our creator has made water accessible, even in places that seem unlikely. Image credit: Freeimages /  Damian Searles This has some bearing on the complicated process of the Genesis Flood, and especially afterward. Much of the water flowed into the oceans, but also into aquifers. Rain and rivers are essential to life on earth. But what about life in earth’

Evolutionary scientists are baffled about a study where a mutation has seemingly been reversed, and that's not supposed to happen. Selective breeding yielded carp without scales, which made it faster and easier to get them onto the dinner table . Some of the critters got out of Dodge and back into the wild. The scales grew back in their descendants. Lots of Carp 5  image credit: Freeimages /  Gölin Doorneweerd - Swijnenburg Note: this is not a picture of Polycarp , the church father and martyr Did you know that koi and goldfish are carp ? The Darwinistas were resorting to the frequent empty phrase, "evolutionary convergence", but it really shows once again that genetics is not understood as well as some people may think. At any rate, the fish is still a fish, and are still carp. Adaptation? You betcha! God created things with the ability to adapt to changing environments, which is expected by biblical creationists.  No need to applaud Darwin, he has nothing to

Every few years, the hands at the Darwin Ranch attend conferences about the origin of life. This is done because they bring along their materialistic presuppositions, ask a lot of questions, then look for materialist answers for those questions. Any success? That'll be the day! Early Earth artist's conception image credit: Don Dixon / NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center Since they have decided to leave the Creator out of the equation, they wind up with a passel of questions on how life began, it's evolvability, how it can emerge from chemistry and physics, and other details. Many questions, many scientists, many views. Creationists can sit back and watch them commence to shooting it out among themselves, and then we can pick up useful refutation material that they use on each other . They cannot get real answers because they start from atheistic presuppositions. The Origin of Life (OoL) community aspires to discover chemical evolution or abiogenesis. This is the s

While it's good to examine various creatures, whether in person or from some kind of monitor, to admire their specified complexity. I'll allow that I detest mosquitoes. Although only the female wants blood (and over forty species don't bother with it), they pollinate and drink nectar, and not all carry diseases, I'm not going to examine one to see if it's harmless. I smash it. Don't be giving me that look, you know you do it too. Asian tiger mosquito image credit: CDC/ James Gathany Aside from the itching bumps from a bite and wondering if the dreadful thing carried  West Nile virus , the Zika virus , or something else nasty, some people are concerned about their effects on horses, cattle, and animals as well (see " The Ultimate Guide to Mosquito Management on the Farm "). Interestingly, their desire for human blood seems to be a comparatively "recent" development. But if God created everything "very good", how can these thi

Not too long ago, it was reported that scientists learned of something unthinkable: white blood cells working in both the brain and the immune system . Now this. Ever hear of interferon gamma? It would make for a lousy name for a horse, sounding like something from a Transformers  movie. Researchers have unbridled a long-standing belief about the immune system that involves interferon gamma, so textbooks will have to be rewritten. Image assembled from graphics at Clker clipart Interferon gamma changes from a giant robot into a yellow Camaro — I mean, this molecule has a purpose that was previously unknown. Scientists did some genetic interfering and engineered mice without this molecule (a pretty impressive bit of work). Turns out that the molecule affects social interaction as well as the immune system. What do evolutionists do? Not only do they wonder how it evolved, but they gave evolution that puny god status again: it can make decisions and foresee the future! But wait, t

One of the problems with the adoration of science and scientists is that people often take their speculations as something to write home about, even when they don't bother to do serious research. There's a story in China about an earthquake, a river drying up, a dam bursting, and Yu Xia helping the people to recover. He was called Emperor Yu the Great (or variations on the title), but since the events were to have take place quite a spell back, the flood story and even Yu himself were subjects of debate. Emperor Yu the Great by Ma Lin It appears that the flood (that the Chinese referred to as the "Great Flood") itself has been verified. Geologist David Montgomery made an off-the-cuff speculation that legends surrounding this may have been the source of the Genesis Flood. [ EDIT: I misread, he said that about the alleged Black Sea flood . My apologies. ] There are serious differences between large, local floods such as the ones at Lake Missoula , the Black Se

The hands down at the Darwin Ranch are making a pretty good living by promoting particles-to-painter evolution as a series of purposeless, random events over a heap of time, so there's no need for the Creator. Oh, and they also believe in luck. Darwin didn't pay attention to Gregor Mendel's work, which became incorporated into evolution. But are mutations random, and if so, how much? Image credit: Pixabay / blickpixel Upon further study, Darwinists are learning that mutations may be programmed  to happen. Well, that fits, since speciation and adaptation fit biblical creation models quite well. Evolutionists don't cotton to anything resembling design,  because they're trying to distance themselves from the Creator. Ironically, they attribute characteristics of an entity to evolution, making it into an idol they can worship. In the nineteenth century, biologists recognized that animals and plants possess traits that can be beneficial (e.g., increase strength

Although I'm not too fond of repeating this, it's appropriate. There was a bumper sticker here in the US, "If it ain't country, it ain't music!" When it comes to secularists, "If it ain't naturalism, it ain't science!" Not only does such a worldview limit scientific investigation, scientists are unaware that they are hindering their own work. Plus, these owlhoots refute their own selves. Graphic assembled from images at Clker clipart We can see the trickle-down effect inherent in the naturalistic system with blatant anti-creationist bigotry, such as expressed when some learned about a  creation science conference coming to Leicester, England . And horror of horrors, one of the subjects scheduled is "Creationism in the Classroom". Circle the wagons and load up the ridicule rifles since we can't defeat them with logic and science! People like this assume the worst about us: creationists share their worldview, and either

Creationists keep pointing out flaws in evolution and and old Earth, and advocates of particles-to-paleontologist evolution keep getting mighty riled. (Darwin needs a long time to work his magic, so they fight to keep the time frame.) While secularists like to use their contrived and cumbersome "proofs" of deep time that collapse under their own weight, they don't cotton to the numerous evidences that, even according to their methodology, indicate that the world is much younger than they want to believe. One of these young Earth indicators is fulgurites. Fulgurites image public domain, enhanced, original by Stickpen Sounds like an insult, doesn't it? "Get out of the road, fulgurite!" Or maybe an engine part. The newest evil monster on Dr. Who. In reality, it's a fossilized lightning strike. Scientists calculated the rate of lightning strikes and determined that instead of being quite rare, if Earth were billions of Darwin years old, they'd b

Research scientist Jacob Haqq-Misra wrote an article that appeared in the Boston Globe  on September 11, 2016 about the origin of life called " A better theory of intelligent design ". (I wonder why something of this nature was in a newspaper like that instead of in a more specialized publication.) Makes it sound like something new and impressive, what with being written by a scientist and appearing in a prestigious newspaper and all. Not hardly. Turns out that it was actually a rehash of old news while slapping leather with biblical creationists and Intelligent Design proponents. The ideas of panspermia (simple life that came from outer space) has been around for a long time. Since goo-to-guru evolutionists cannot account for the origin of life (abiogenesis)  here, it must have begun out yonder.  Somehow, existing life in space hitched a ride on a meteorite or something and survived the flaming crash to Earth. Such an idea just won't work . That doesn't solve th

Advocates of atoms-to- Australopithecus  evolution are great at telling tall tales and asserting opinions as facts, followed by the sensation-seeking press giving their stories credibility. Go to a museum to see Lucy, and you won't get the whole story. However, you'll see displays with the ape having very human-looking eyes, standing upright, and more. The rest of the story about how the bones were found scattered over a wide area (which should make anyone mighty suspicious), how not all the bones are found, disputes in the scientific community — you don't hear that so much. But if you deny that this was our ancestor, some atheists get mighty riled. Australopithecus afarensis  ("Lucy") public domain image I suspicion that one of the hands at the Darwin Ranch has been into the peyote buttons or something. He had a vision of Lucy falling out of a tree, poor dear, and that might explain some of the fracture marks in the bones. Uh huh. Other evolutionists aren

When our eyes are accustomed to darkness, we are able to see a very small amount of light from quite a long way off. (Smart cowboys on sentry duty didn't smoke because the flame and the coal could easily be spotted. This is a "no brainer" for modern military personnel.) When in a dark room, people tend to look for the small bit of light that is coming in under the door or whatever. Image credit: Pixabay / Hans It has been theorized for decades that the human eye can see a single photon— "That's terrific news! Uh, what's a photon?" Without getting too physics-al with you, light has puzzled scientists since way back when. Some theorized that light has a wave nature, others said it is comprised of particles. Seems to be both. A photon is the smallest possible unit, and they suspicion that it has no mass. For those who want more details, click here . So anyway, a test has been done to show that we are able to see the tiniest known unit of ligh

It's said that people who catch fish have a story about "the one that got away". Purveyors of common-ancestor evolution go further, telling about the fish that climbed onto land , learned to breathe, and evolved into amphibians and (eventually) people — it's not the fish that got away, but the fish ancestor that never was. Evolutionists claim that certain characteristics in fish are convincing evidence for evolution, but that is not the case. Queensland lungfish image credit: Wikimedia Commons   CC BY-SA 2.5 There are several species of fish that are amphibious, having lungs and the ability to "walk". Despite what Darwinian owlhoots claim, they are still fish and not in the process of turning into something else. Meanwhile, some evolutionary scientists are claiming by tinkering with the SSH (Sonic hedgehog gene), they can get clues about how we got our legs from cartilaginous fish. What they learned is that they can cause slight changes in organisms

We want to teach our children Bible stories in Sunday School and have them grow up to be strong believers, don't we? Sure, so we make images of Bible stories that are colorful and attractive and talk down to them. That happens quite a bit in Western churches, but there are some serious problems involved. Cartoon Noah's Ark, modified, original image credit Pixabay /  sferrario1968 One problem is talking down to kids with over-simplified versions of the events described in the Bible — they're not stupid, but can get the idea that Bible stories are not narratives, but fictional stories.  Then we have the unbiblical, or even anti-biblical, graphic illustrations of Noah's Ark that have almost nothing to do with the Bible's description. Some artists may mean well, but most illustrations fail. In addition, making cartoons is a long-established method of ridicule and misrepresentation — and we know how anti-creationists are fond of misrepresenting Genesis, God, creat

The more that trees and plants are studied, the more scientist find out that there's much more to learn. They do us a lot of good, you know. Praise should be given to the Creator, not to evolution. Did you know that coconuts float? One of those things I didn't know until recently. Okay. Did you know that structure of coconuts is being studied in a biomimetics effort to make building more sturdy during earthquakes? When you branch out with your studying, we can see that trees and other plants — well, there's a wagon train load of things we didn't know about plants. Coconut tree image credit: FreeImages /  Srinivasan M.V Trees seem to be able to grow out of some unlikely places, including what looks like solid rock. They have nutrient foraging strategies. Another function of trees is water transport, especially of snowmelt. Plants have complex chemical activities going on, including that good ol' photosynthesis. Evolutionists don't understand much about

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This article is written for biblical creationists, so it is not going to be presenting evidence refuting common-ancestor evolution and affirming creation. That will resume tomorrow. Instead, I want to try to make an impact on creationists, and help motivate you — them — us to stand for God's Word, true science, and especially biblical authority. Genesis is foundational to all major Christian doctrines , and we can't be compromising on the truth. My picture merged with name tag made at Sign Generator Let's saddle up and get to riding, there's some ground to cover. People are fond of labeling others. Now, I'll allow that some  labels are useful so you know where a person's coming from regarding discussions and that sort of thing. I reckon that we all use them in daily speech, to express our feelings (approval, disdain, or something else), and so on. I cannot advocate that we never use labels, sometimes they are useful and even acc

Charles Darwin was baffled by the complexity of the human eye, but as science has advanced, it is far more complicated and efficient than he could have dreamed. Darwinistas like to say that the eye was poorly designed, but such uninformed claims have been refuted . There are many amazing features of the eye of which we are unaware that were put in place in the beginning by our Creator. Image credit: Clker clipart There's an old expression about the eyes being the window to the soul. Maybe, but they're a window that my ophthalmologist uses to check on my diabetes and then sends his report back to the referring physician. In my line of work as a venomous snake wrangler at Pernicious Whatzit Widgits (come on, do you think I'd tell where I really  work?), my eyes are always moving here and there. Lots of muscle coordination, not to mention focus on things at varying distances, the eye is continually washing itself, it is very much like a camera. By the way, only humans

Some of us remember playing in the mud and having to get cleaned up before supper. Scientists are not playing in it, but rather, are using equipment to gather samples and study it. Doesn't sound like much fun. However, they may get some pleasure in the joy of discovery. But then again... Seabed mud image credit: US Geological Survey , use of image does not imply endorsement of contents DNA has been found in the mud that is supposedly over a million evolutionary years old. How do they know its age? Through the circular reasoning method of biostratigraphy. Now they're trying to circle the wagons and defend their long-age views with a passel of excuses and conjectures without evidence, since DNA cannot last nearly that long. If they'd drop their evolutionary assumptions, they'd realize that yet again, the evidence supports a recently-created Earth. Scientists found DNA in two undersea sediment drill cores from the Bering Sea.1 The researchers thought the chloropla