Piltdown Superman

When I'm discussing a repair with my favorite mechanic, I gleefully display my ignorance by asking questions that must seem ridiculous to him. Fortunately, we both know that I'm uninformed, and he likes to teach. I may ask if it's possible to make a repair in a certain way, and he'll tell me why it won't work. The science industry itself is in serious need of repair. Papers get published that are plagiarized, computer generated , the results cannot be reproduced, data is omitted, unethical activity, a blatantly leftist bias  that belies claims of objectivity, faulty peer review, and more. They want the spotlight for sensational results, but failures are useful information as well;  scientists need to know what will not work as well as what succeeds, see? Image cropped from Pixabay / Skitterphoto In addition, incomplete information is presented (a frequent occurrence among evolutionary scientists and their sensationalistic press pals), but there is a lack of f

Some owlhoots who profess to be Christians in the BioLogos gang (implied motto: "Jesus lied") have been riding with the hands at the Darwin Ranch in their continuing mission to slap leather with biblical creationists. For some reason, old Earth proponents (especially theistic evolutionists) elevate atheistic interpretations of science to the magisterial position over the Bible, which they claim to believe. Then atheists trumpet, "See? Even these religious people believe in evolution!", and then continue their perfervid denunciations of Christians, including their TE useful idiots. François de La Rouchefoucauld (Frankie the Rock) had several maxims, this is one of my favorites. If you study on it a spell, most people will consider someone insightful when they are in agreement. Some will respect intelligent opponents who disagree with them, but those are in the minority. Here, BioLogos uses secular sources in their attempts to refute biblical creationists, but t

One of the methods used to determine an old Earth as well as climate change is called paleoclimate research  ("paleo", meaning, "way back when"). The procedure seems quite simple, get samples from caves, cart them back to the lab, and see what happens. In their efforts to prove the conclusions the scientists had already made, serious flaws were discovered in the techniques. Image credit: Freeimages /  Frank Müller When the samples are moved away, changes begin to happen quickly, and the results are suspect. In addition, the samples vary between caves. This makes it mighty difficult to make projections about Earth's past climate, and to make projections about the future. Perhaps if they didn't presume consensus science, uniformitarianism and Earth being ancient, and also took more care in their testing? Earth was created far more recently than secularists want to admit. Widely used to infer past climates, isotope measurements from stalactites and stal

An argument from the Intelligent Design people that creationists like to use is irreducible complexity.  That is, components of an organism must be in place at the same time, or nothing would make sense, and even be harmful to the organism if they evolved piecemeal. There are many examples, including the hummingbird , bombardier beetle , and on the unseen level, the ATP synthase enzyme and the flagellum. Irreducible complexity is a strong argument for the skill of our Creator as well as a serious impediment for evolution. Image credit:  Zina Deretsky, National Science Foundation (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Darwin's defenders don't cotton to evidence for creation, so they attempt to "refute" things they dislike (such as dinosaur soft tissue and irreducible complexity) with such first water arguments as, "It's been refuted", or, "That's not true". Saying  something has been refuted does not demonstrate actual r

There are some mighty interesting critters living in the jungles of Indonesia, 'Straya, and elsewhere. (Mind you, keep your distance and don't touch unless you have someone with you that says it's okay.) There are interesting things up in the trees, and I understand that some spent so much time way up yonder, people didn't know they existed. Same kind of thing happens with nocturnal animals as well. Reminds me of the colugo . But I'm wandering again. Spotted Cuscus image credit: Matt Francey / Flickr One of these jungle tree dwellers is the cuscus. (Before someone commences to typo-pouncing, yes, it's spelled correctly.) This cute thing looks sort of like a monkey. In fact, it's a marsupial, similar to the opossum, which is the only marsupial in North America , and some folks eat possums . I don't. The cuscus is not fierce, so it has other continuance features that our Creator gave it. Cuscuses are good-natured marsupials that roam the lush jun

Creationary scientists have to keep secular scientists honest. Or at least, to point out their errors. It seems that one of the guidelines for both common-ancestor evolution and old Earth concepts is, "If it supports our view, valid". One of the icons of uniformitarian geology used to support deep time is the Milankovitch (astronomical) theory. The basic idea is that secular views of multiple ice ages in Earth's past were caused by changes in it's orbit and rotation over long periods. However, these owlhoots are assuming long ages to prove long ages, and making a passel of assumptions in the process. That's neither logical nor scientific, old son. Assembled with graphics from Clker clipart Secularists ignore a wagon-load of evidences for a young Earth (they don't fit the paradigm), preferring dubious radiometric dating methods instead. Milankovitch's work has been used in support of not only their credenda for deep time, but also to support climat

Years ago, the human genome was ineffectively sequenced. Toplofty scientists, reasoning from their molecules-to-molasses preparer evolutionary presuppositions, determined that the things they didn't understand were "junk" from our alleged evolutionary past. Using more advanced equipment and using due diligence, most of the things that were labeled as non-functional have been both embarrassing and surprising, since they do  have functions, some of them very intricate. Herein lies an example of how evolutionary thinking hinders science. If the previous sequencers had assumed instead that life was created, and what was found was there for a purpose, there would not have been so many delays in scientific advancement. Image credit:  “Dna” by renjith krishnan at FreeDigitalPhotos.net I'll allow that it's difficult to find something that is difficult to see, and further discoveries were practically hiding in plain sight. They're small, but have vital roles,

Back in 2010, an atheopath on Twitter made a comment along the lines of, "Creatures are born atheist". I challenged him that his statement is an unprovable assumption. (Telling the truth gained me a stalker for a few years.) Shortly after, we learned that children are born believing in God ! This supports what the Bible teaches. But like any totalitarian knows, gotta get 'em while they're young and get that brainwashing going! Even though dust-to-Dawkins evolution is untrue, unprovable, untestable, unrepeatable, is a hindrance  to science, is ignored in biological sciences, well hey, it must  be taught, children must  believe in evolution. Why? My answer is that these Darwinista owlhoots want more recruits in their rebellion against the Creator, so they are getting more aggressive and Machiavellian in their tactics, including "reeducation". Interesting that the atheistic Soviet Union not only imprisoned, tortured, and executed Christians, but sent them t

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This is not going to be a long, complicated article. Y'all probably need a break from the heavy stuff, and I don't mind one myself. A reader of The Question Evolution Project sent me a link to a one-minute video (which linked to a non-science article) about how scientists want to tamper with the DNA and chickens, help them get in touch with their inner dinosaur, and possibly bringing back a modified form of dinosaurs. Echoes of Jurassic Park , I suppose. (When we're done here, let's all meet at Kentucky Fried Rex for chow.) One serious question to consider is: why bring back things that were extinct? I reckon it depends on the motivation . Assembled and modified with Clker clipart graphics What caught my attention is how scientists are assuming evolution  in order to do this process, and ignoring the other scientists who reject  dinosaur-to-bird evolution. How many times have we seen where evolutionary thinking has actually hindered s

Materialists are physicalists: physical properties are all that matter, and when you die, you're worm food. No soul, no afterlife, no rewards or punishment, nothing. (Atheists have a message of hope? Not hardly!) Christians and others believe that we have a mind or soul that is independent of the body, and some materialists suggest that it may be real, but they can't find where it resides (see " The Quantum Soul? "). The mind is not the brain, but the mind  uses  the brain as its conduit, if you will. Some extremely impressive technology supports this belief. Image credit: Pixabay / GDJ Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a neurological disease that destroys voluntary muscle movement, but often leaves the mind intact. A woman with ALS was fitted with a computer interface that gives her some remarkable abilities to communicate and some motion, which is caused by thinking  about the motion. She can also pray without thinking about muscle movements. All of thi

Regular readers know that I keep emphasizing that scientists are not the dispassionate automatons that many people think. They are not running around, gathering facts, then following where the evidence leads. Rather, they are human, having their preconceptions as well as good and bad character traits. It's been more obvious lately (or has the trend increased?) that the secular science industry has a definite leftist penchant (see references 7,8,9 at this link ). It gets worse. Image credit: Pixabay /  Gerd Altmann The scientific establishment also has some intrinsic moral problems, and needs to borrow a moral compass . Moral concerns of scientists would definitely be improved by biblical Christianity , especially since left-learning science institutions are increasingly activistic for the murder of unborn humans in the womb. If you study on it a spell, you'll see it's not all that surprising, since they deny God the Creator (therefore, denying that we are created in

The hands at the Darwin Ranch have come up with another "theory' about the extinction of the dinosaurs. Why would they do a thing like that? Because none of the theories that have been passed around present adequate explanations of data. Also, someone needed money, so she wrote a book. Years ago, I was giving presentations about creation science and evidence against evolution. One thing I forcefully stated was that evolutionists present layers of "theories", but they are flawed all the way down to the foundation. In this case, a cosmologist invokes dark matter. This stuff is a rescuing device for the Big Bang, and has never been demonstrated to exist (so they keep making excuses for its absence instead of admitting it's paralogical). The spurious theory also involves the fictitious Oort Cloud, another rescuing device for the fact that comets would have been exhausted in an old universe. What stymies this child is how such pedagese not only gets accepted for

If y'all have ever been way down south in Dixie (southern United States) or watched movies and such, you may have noticed cypress trees in wet areas like swamps and riverbanks. They like those areas, but they can be found in drier climes. Some got more moisture than they bargained for. Image credit: Pixabay / skeeze Back in 2004, Ivan the hurricane included in its list of changes the exposure of cypress stumps. These were submerged off the Alabama coast, and did not  show signs of great age. Cutting into them will get you sap and the cypress tree smell. What happened to have them submerged and youthful? The Genesis Flood model of creation scientists gives the best answer. Sixty feet (18 m) beneath the green waves of the Gulf of Mexico, about 15 miles (24 km) off the Alabama coast, lie the remnants of an ancient forest of giant cypress trees.1 For hundreds of yards (meters), the stumps follow the lazy meanders of what appears to be an ancient river channel that flows down f

Some people need to get over the "Ewww Factor" to appreciate some critters for what they are, and how they're designed. I'm fascinated by certain reptiles, spiders, and so on (especially when dangerous ones are on television or behind glass). My wife gets the heebie-jeebies, though. So, if you can put bad feelings on hold and admire a creature for it's own sake, we're gonna have a ball! Image credit (cropped): Pixabay /  debbiedejager I'll allow that this post is difficult to write, but that's simply because I have to cowboy up and avoid using scatological humor. It ain't easy. The topic is the dung beetle (Egyptians worshiped the things, the artifacts are called scarabs ). These little critters are on almost every continent, and love poo. Not only are they coprophagous (they eat it), but lay eggs and live in it, spread it around, and actually perform a vital function on the prairie. And the Serengeti Plains. And... (The stercoraceous materi

It has been rightly said that there is no such thing as one side having facts, and the other side having a different set of facts, all being filed away and waiting for action. Everyone has access to the same facts, and it is the interpretation  of facts based on our worldviews that makes the difference. This is readily apparent in the origins debate, but it has applications in other areas. Morguefile /  Grafixar One side of a debate may think that what they consider supportive facts are actually items that both sides are in agreement on. Some owlhoot may use the definition of evolution as "change over time", then give examples of change, as support for his position. However, that same definition and examples are likely to be things with which biblical creationists agree with him. There are interpreted facts that are out of the agreement zone that prompt the most useful discussions. We at CMI have spent many hours writing and speaking on scientific and theological is

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This article is going to take an eldritch direction, but will be somewhat prosaic at first. Scientists are not dispassionate and absolutely objective, despite what some may expect from them. They are human, and subject to the same pleonexia and other worldly desires as other people. Scientists also argue from their worldviews. We understand that because everyone thin k s and argues that way, whether aware of it or not. Generally speaking, secular scientists take a materialist (no God) view about life. However, they contradict their own presuppositions by searching for the physical location of free will , which is intangible by its nature. One scientist believes in the soul on a quantum level , and is close to Christian truth by saying that the soul is independent from the brain. Secularists also struggle with the concepts of ethics and morality , even trying to justify their incoherent beliefs with evolution . The only way to understand and explain the neces

Most folks know about young sunflowers following the sun across the sky, which has been a bit of a mystery until lately . Other plants have sensory mechanisms as well to improve their survival opportunities, gotta get the most of that sunlight, don'tcha know. Image credit: National Institute of Health , usage does not imply endorsement of this site Further research shows that plant sensors are far more intricate that just pointing a plant toward the light. They even activate "switches" that control the plant's behavior. This is yet another example of the purposeful engineering of the Master Engineer, and makes Darwinism even less plausible than it is now. Plants’ amazing sensor systems enable them to adapt in response to multiple environmental cues. Since plants can’t get up and move around, they have to grow, develop, and thrive where they are. One of the key factors in a plant’s life cycle is processing sunlight in the form of duration (day length), light

Adherents of molecules-to-man evolution are passionate about their beliefs, and many are intolerant of those who reject this position, whether for scientific or theological grounds, or both. They are not content to allow the study of origins to be an academic discussion, preferring to vilify their opponents. They engage in stalking, misrepresentation, libel, censure, dreadful logic, outright persecution , and more. This kind of behavior is typical of atheists, but it is distressing that professing Christians corinthianize with said atheists in maligning people that should  be their brethren in Christ. Naturally, atheists approve of this behavior, since it advances their naturalistic worldview and Christophobic agenda. Basil of Caesarea icon from  Wikimedia Commons The most egregious attacks seem to come from theistic evolutionists (who disingenuously call themselves "evolutionary creationists"). They have a man-centered low view of Scripture, preferring to allego

If y'all want to saddle up and see some interesting scenery, there are quite a few natural bridges and stone arches in the Western United States. Other places have them, but they seem to be more plenteous out West. A while ago, I posted about how these landforms have been crumbling , though folks say they've been sitting there for millions of Darwin years. Turret Arch image credit: Pixabay / skeeze So, the first flaw in the "deep time" view is that these structures are not so sturdy after all. Another flaw in that view is how, if uniformitarian explanations are true, we cannot see these structures being formed today, and we see them at high elevation. Some of the uniformitarian explanations have some amount of truth, but the Genesis Flood (about 4,300 years ago) model has the best explanation for the facts. Earth is young like Scripture indicates, and scientific evidence continues to affirm this truth. Freestanding rock arches and large natural bridges are ob

The public has a strange love affair with science, adoring scientists on one hand, but having increasing suspicion of scientists and scientific establishments on the other hand. I suspicion that one reason for distrust is that scientists have a tendency to conduct incomplete research and then announce conclusions. This has been occurring with increasing frequency, especially in the profitable scum-to-psychologist evolutionary field. Image credit: Freeimages / max brown Psychologists were doing a study on brain activity and spirituality using an MRI and Mormons (why they selected that religious group isn't clear, that's the first question raised). The study lacked a control group, and had results that could also be explained by other stimuli than spiritual good feelings. It's discouraging when you'd expect this kind of experimentation from inexperienced children, but it was conducted by supposed experts. This also helps illustrate the flawed view that spiritualit