Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen And now for something completely different. For a long time, it was said that "pictures don't lie". That's not so true, especially if someone gets some photo editing happening, such as the imaginative material seen here if you scroll down . Even without editing trickery, some impressive illusions can be created using lines, colors, and shading. 3-D effects are impressive. Credit: Pixabay /  uroburos Let's move on to a different kind of illusion. My wife got me interested in a television program on the truTV cable network called The Carbonaro Effect, which is a hidden camera "magic" show where Michael Carbonaro plays comedic illusion pranks on people in various settings. I do not believe there are any camera tricks involved. The individual segments are usually very brief, and I haven't seen him do the same trick twice. Carbonaro is extremely talented and personable, and very skilled in sleight-of-hand and fast talking

Let me get this straight. Someone or something takes a chunk out of a tree, it bleeds sap, an insect gets trapped in it, and the whole thing turns to amber after a few zillion years. Not hardly! Sap and resin are different things, and when an insect or other critter gets trapped in amber, it doesn't just hang out and turn into a fossil. I recommend reading " Sticky Situations " for some basics on amber . Credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures While amber has been fascinating for many years, whether for jewellery or curiosity's sake, it has been receiving a great deal of attention in recent years. An ant beetle showed no change after all those assumed Darwin years, the claim of bird wings in amber backfired, assertions of dinosaur feathers in amber are ridiculous, and more. Now there's a new discovery that baffles the evolutionary cult of death. This new item shows a tick, blood cells, and one-celled organisms that live in blood cells. That's pretty i

Every so often, paleoanthropologists at the Darwin Ranch start chewing the peyote buttons and dreaming up some wild ideas. I'll allow that the diminutive H. floresiensis is baffling for both evolutionists and creationists, but there's no excuse for presenting some nonsense as science (such as going to the island and shrinking way, way down). The latest batch of stories aren't so outlandish, but it shows the disagreement among evolutionists while they hash things out. Creationists need to commence to working on these archaic humans (they certainly were not apes, nor were they our evolutionary ancestors) and determine what happened, including how they arrived in their location after the Genesis Flood. Then there's the strange H. naledi ... Two of the most mysterious hominin fossils are in the news again, and opinions are flying every direction. Are the little people of Indonesia and South Africa just small versions of us? Wherever they came from, and whatever th

Proponents of carp-to-cardiologist evolution originally relied on Darwin's views of natural selection, a concept that he pilfered from creationist Edward Blyth and then twisted for his own ends. While some fundamentalist evolutionists erroneously conflate "survival of the fittest" natural selection with evolution, the two are not the same . When Darwinists realized that natural selection was not working to cause evolution, they started paying attention to genetics, a science begun by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him). Cropped from a graphic at Clker clipart The most common form of common-ancestor evolution is a synthesis of genetics and natural selection that relies on mutations as its driving force. But the idea of "beneficial" mutations is disputed at best, and there are no examples of mutations improving protein construction. The overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful, and a few are neutral. A recent study on a heart condition that kills peo

The origin of Earth's moon is another of those burrs under the saddle of secular scientists. Since it's anathema to even consider that there's a Creator, and since they're constrained to promote cosmic evolution (after all, there's money in it), speculations about the moon's origin keep changing. Credit: NASA / ISS / Col. Jeff Williams (usage does not imply endorsement of site's contents) Their guesses keep on changing because the facts don't fit none too good. One conjecture becomes dominant for a while, then another replaces is. Facts interfere again, so yet another is brought forward. Now they have a story that is unfit for 1950s pulp sci-fi, but is considered "science". Why pays these jaspers? Oh, right. We do. Through our tax dollars. They seem unaware that the moon is unique in many ways and specially fitted for life right here. In my lifetime there has been tremendous evolution in man’s ideas about the moon’s origin. In the 19

Geologists believing in long ages and uniformitarianism cling to the notion that there were several ice ages in Earth's history, while creationary geologists believe there was only one Ice Age. Seems like most of the time an  or the  Ice Age is discussed, it is the "last" one. According to secular belief systems, the last ice age was devastating to forests in Scandinavia, and trees didn't get their ownselves planted there again until somewhere about 9,000 Darwin years ago. Credit: Pixabay / manolofranco Fossil evidence is deflating that view. Further, secular geologists are unable to present a plausible model for the cause nor completion of an ice age. Creation science models involving the Genesis Flood are far more plausible. Of course, secularists won't cognate on those because they affirm rather than deny God the Creator, and also indicate a young earth. Ice ages within the uniformitarian paradigm are very cold, much colder than today. So, according to

Many people believe that it is a good thing to talk to plants. (If you hear them answering, that may be a problem.) It's good for you to get outside (watching out for ticks and dangerous critters, of course), but most of us don't realize that there's a passel of communication happening. Image made with assembled graphics from Clker clipart We looked at an internal tree-mail system a spell back, but the story has grown quite a bit. Trees are sending helpful information to each other and getting cooperation, and sending requests to local fungi to provide them with nutrients. The system is actually quite intricate, and defies evolution because every aspect must be in place and fully operational from the beginning. This tree-mail system is yet another example of the design and provision of our Creator. Stresses constantly threaten to destroy the forest’s surface harmony, and yet modern scientific research is revealing how marvelously the Creator has equipped His woo

A long-standing question of ethics and morality is the use of deception in the pursuit of science. Deceiving test subjects has occurred many times in psychology and sociology, and it presents a dilemma: if people know in advance they are being deceived, they are likely to react in a different manner than if they believe what they are experiencing is true, but it is  dishonesty, so is it right? Background image courtesy of Why?Outreach Keep in mind that secular psychologists have their basis in evolutionary thinking, which is in turn based on atheistic materialism. They have no consistent basis for morality, which is often predicated on whatever is expedient at the time, or the end justifies the means. Biblical Christianity (especially with a creationary bent) need not apply for employment here. Research in psychology has jumped the corral fence and is heading off at full gallop into Orwellian territory. Desires to implement mental manipulation techniques are on their minds. In a

We frequently see the fallacy of reification , where something abstract is given traits belonging to a person or entity. This sort of thing is done frequently and often for humorous purposes, like when Basement Cat gives me an evil look. No, she can't do that. Or saying that the beach is calling for me. No, ain't happening, sorry. Science says...no, it doesn't, but maybe some scientists say. See? Figures of speech using reification abound in stories and casual talk, but when used in an argument or scientific paper, reification is a fallacy. Proponents of scum-to-skeptic evolution are using the fallacy more and more frequently, indicating that evolution chooses, selects, decides, and so on. It's not infrequent to see an evolutionist making evolution into a puny god.  Pantheon of gods in  The Triumph of Civilization by Jacques Réattu, 1793 Evolution has always been a religious idea from way back, including Greek and Hindu religions. What we have now is mo

It's time for a post that's really down to earth. For the most part, we put plants in soil, whether on farms, in gardens, potted plants in the home, and so on. Most folks know that plants need soil so they can grow, but we forget that it's little things in life that matter. Or, little living things. Microbes. There's a great deal of life underfoot. Credit: Freeimages /  Dieter Joel Jagnow People tend to get all het up about bacteria, thinking that it makes people sick. Fact is, there are many bacteria that are beneficial to us. They live in us, and in the soil as well, which is good for the plants. Bacteria in dirt has its own communities, like so many other living things. They adjust to environmental conditions and often work together. There is a symbiosis with bacteria, other living things, and the environment that defies Darwinism and shows the ingenuity of the Creator. I remember making mud pies as a child for my mom—she didn’t like them too much.1 Pie maki

For molecules-to-misotheist evolution to work, it needs huge amounts of time. Secularists ignore evidence that shows the earth is young, and make excuses for tremendous flaws in radiometric dating (see " Would Evidence for Radiometric Dating Stand Up in a Court of Law? " for more on the subject, including several links). I reckon they must feel that bad science is better than admitting that evidence fails to produce an old earth, so they keep on with radiometric dating. Assembled with graphics from Openclipart More specifically, radio carbon dating deals with organic matter and the amount of carbon contained therein. Carbon-14 should not be found in certain items after 57,000 Darwin years, so certain things that have been dated at millions of years should not contain any carbon. But they do. Sure, evolutionists circle the wagons to protect their prize pig, making excuses such as "contamination". Such excuses do not withstand scrutiny and change the fact that

Seems like the hands at the Darwin Ranch would get discouraged and find more rewarding (as well as useful) employment, what with all the bad news that's been carted in lately. They're unable to let bad evolutionary stories alone because new findings get publicity mighty quick like, and those of us with a creationary persuasion won't let them get away with it. Especially those of us with unregistered assault keyboards. Largest sea sponge found, "about the size of a minivan" Credit: NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research , 2015 Hohonu Moana Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents Time to commence rewriting the textbooks and adjusting the evolutionary timelines again, since the new fossils are recalcitrant and quite a bit out of sequence according to evolutionary mythology. Colony of sea sponges was found and given an evolutionary date after  an "extinction event", but it had thrived  Uncooperative fish showed up in the fossil rec

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Every once in a while, Christians are accosted by unbelievers who demand "proof" (or evidence) of the miracles that Bible believers affirm. On this site, as well as on many of those which are linked, a reader will find copious evidence demonstrating the paucity of particles-to-pastor evolution, and presenting scientific evidence affirming biblical creation. What about the events that happened about 4,000 years after creation that involve Jesus? Background image: Pixabay /   Gerd Altmann Before I commence to telling about evidence for Jesus, I need to lead y'all on a side trail for a few moments. Whether discussing creation, evolution, the life of Jesus, or other things that we are unable to observe in the here and now, we are using historical science — a useful term that is not exclusive to creationists [ 1 ]. Historical science attempts to use data in the present in an effort to determine past events, while operational science is what is

A new entry for the "What is  That?"  file is a strange creature with the Latin name  Saccorhytus coronarius . Ugly thing, but it probably didn't know it or care, what with being exceptionally tiny and all. For that matter, it didn't seem good for anything except eating, since it was mostly mouth. The disgusting part (well, to me) is that it had no anus, so it would excrete from the same place that it ate. Reminds me of certain anti-creationists, but never mind about that now. Saccorhytus coronarius credit: Wikimedia Commons /  Apokryltaros  ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) Mighty fine work for the palenotologists go commence to studying the thing and finding all sorts of details. Saccy had various bumps and things, and some spikes. Evolutionists are thinking that this may have had the precursors to gills. Fish evolved from it, and we evolved from fish according to their mythology. Further, since it showed up in Cambrian rock, evolutionary scientists are also saying that there

Outer space is a big place. But you are bright people and knew that already. Science fiction aficionados have produced many stories that involve going faster than light, but Uncle Albert Einstein spoiled that idea. Some wrote stories and just ignored the problem (similar to the way some evolutionists ignore inconvenient fossils ), moving at many times the speed of light. When the universe got bigger (well, better measurements and such), moving at such speeds would still take a mighty long time to reach other stars. So, they lassoed the concept of warp drive. Credit:  NASA/ESA (modified), usage does not imply endorsement of site contents W arp drive has several names (including subspace ), and did not originate with Star Trek, but Mr. Roddenberry's humanistic programs sure did make it popular. Naturally, fans will attempt to explain such things in their favorite shows and make them seem somewhat realistic, but they can only do so much with a concept that is extremely spec

Let me wish you a happy Cosmonautics Day . Oh, wait. This is about debunking evolution and affirming creation science. Still, the first human in space was a noteworthy event. In our last exciting episode , we saw that the hands at the Darwin Ranch are busy forging excuses for more soft tissues . When unbelievable, science-denying rescuing devices are ineffective, they use an emergency exit: ignore the difficulties. Excellent preservation of a Cretaceous  Confuciusornis confuses evolutionists, so they ignore the fact that the detail cannot happen  in their paradigm. Instead, they talk about bird evolution. But they have nothing there, either. The same kind of thing happened with the  Eoconfuciusornis discovery, another excellent and detailed fossil. Just ignore the problems. Oh, by the way, they're still scrapping over the amber and dinosaur tail thing, too. Settle down, Earth is not as old as you want to believe. It was created much more recently. Unrepentant over extrem

Advances in science and technology should have helped evolutionary science, but instead, they have benefited biblical creation science instead. Howls of outrage from the hands at the Darwin Ranch echoed all over Deception Pass when dinosaur soft tissues were discovered. Now the gang has to put in overtime at the excuse foundry because more soft tissues are being discovered. Things got worse. Evolutionists force themselves to deny science in order to maintain their narratives. Scientists have shown that soft tissues, proteins, blood cells and the like cannot  last for so many zillion Darwin years. Excuses are forged, but the facts are right there in front of them. The most painful fact (for them) is that scientific evidence does not support long ages or evolution, but it does  support special creation. Evolutionists are science deniers. A lready in 2017, secular scientists have described some stunning original biochemicals in fossil bones. Two new finds reignite vigorous debate

We've examined the heart, eye, brain, appendix — may as well add the spleen to this organ recital. Ever heard the expression about venting one's spleen? Way back in the old days, it was considered the source of anger , so expressing rage was "venting" the spleen. (Anti-creationists do this frequently when presented with the truth of creation and refutation of scum-to-sculptor evolution.) Odd how that "medical" view of the spleen persisted for quite a spell, but all we have left of that now is a strange phrase. In reality, though, the spleen is quite important. Credit: National Institutes of Health Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents This smallish organ is not something people tend to hear about all that often. Perhaps it's because if it has to be removed, it's not a death sentence. The spleen is quite important in filtering blood and doing other functions that our Creator saw fit to have installed in mammals. The spleen! . .

The concept of minerals-to-millwright evolution has grown quite a bit. Yes, it certainly gruesome. "Not funny, Cowboy Bob!" Well, sorta. Anyway, the situation for science itself, especially historical science like evolution, is quite grave. One way for a researcher to give the impression that research has credibility is to give references to other research. Unfortunately, this give an impression of life for something that should have remained buried. Image from Clker clipart New papers are being presented, reviewed, and passed that perpetuate myths. They reference outdated and even bad research that has gone before, keeping the mythology alive — it makes de facto zombies. Part of the problem is in academic and research environments that require publishing. In addition, there are many papers to be reviewed that include numerous references, and those can go without scrutiny. It also helps the unscrupulous gain personal advantages.These factors can help perpetuate e

Those who believe in baryon-to-bird evolution are adept at telling stories around the campfire and making assertions, but dreadful at providing actual scientific explanations or believable models. Many "explanations" can be summed up as, "EvolutionDidIt". The group — actually, the order — to which parrots belong even stumps the storytellers. Credit: Morguefile / pdell Darwinists want to find the nearest common ancestor of parrots, but can only throw around a few guesses. But more than that, parrots have unique features that other birds do not possess. Clearly, parrots were a specially created kind, and that is a good reason evolutionists fail in their speculations. The parrot family is one big family, say biologists. Well, technically an order, the Order Psittaciformes, comprising over 80 recognized genera and hundreds of different species . . . Their shared distinctive characteristics . . . the parrots are readily distinguishable from all other orders of

When we hear about searches for life on other planets, whether in our solar system or out there thataway in some other system, the key word is often habitable. What makes a planet habitable? A spaceship-load of conditions have to be met that imply that a planet could have usable water.  Credit: Morguefile / kconnors Today, we have similar news from two different angles. The first linked article is more in depth. Yes, I made a water joke there. Evolutionary views of where Earth's water came from have constantly failed, so the concepts that have the fewest flaws seem to become dominant when others are discredited. Notice that we got us a wet one here? Since secularists presuppose that the solar system was all hot molten stuff that became the sun and planets through accretion, there's no place for water. It had to get here somehow, so they came up with comets and things. Yes, really. But evolutionists are drying up that idea, and admitting that the water comes from Earth