Piltdown Superman

There are all sorts of critters that baffled early Europeans, probably prompting perplexed exclamations of wonder. Some of them were quite a bit different from what they had seen elsewhere such as the kangaroo and the platypus . Others were a mite confusing because they resembled animals that they knew. One of these is the wombat. Credit: Pixabay / Vic M People thought it was a kind of badger because of its appearance and burrowing habits. Their burrows are far from simple. It also had mannerisms similar to that of a bear. To add to their confusion, the wombat is a marsupial while the badger is a mammal. While they seem cute and people try to make them into pets, the wild side comes out and they get dumped to fend for themselves — which is very cruel. To protect Darwin, disciples invoke the non-explanation of convergence  because they have no plausible model of its evolution. In reality, the wombat is an example of the Master Designer's work. Well equipped with powerful c

Because we are human, we naturally see things from a human-centered perspective. Culture, learning, and even personal preferences can have a part in this. You may have seen movies where someone is leaning against an object, saying, "We'll never find it", but he was touching the object the posse comitatus was seeking. He had the wrong perspective while looking for the thing. Credit: National Library of Medicine / Open-i ( CC by 2.0 ) Reading the article featured below brought Basement Cat to mind. Some people dislike cats because they are bad people. No, actually, it's often because they operate from a human perspective, expecting cats to act similar to miniature people with fur and four legs. If you have problems with it, you can't treat it like you would a wayward child; Jackson Galaxy will tell you this . The same with other animals. If y'all want to get along with a beast, you have to take it on its terms, not on your own, you savvy? Our presu

Quite a few people have seen living things that give off their own light. It can be a mite disconcerting sometimes, but a wide variety of organisms do this, including fish, algae, fungi, insects, and others. It is called bioluminescence, and is extremely challenging for adherents of microbes-to-miner evolution to explain. The mechanism is extremely efficient, and evolutionists claim that it happened over forty times. They have no idea how ,   but " stuff happens " is somehow a valid evolutionary explanation. Scientists are studying fireflies for biomimetics applications (as usual, refusing to give credit to the Creator). The diversity of bioluminescent critters is baffling to evolutionists, as is the specified complexity of the mechanism: everything has to be in place and working at the same time, else nothing works or makes sense. Another puzzler for them is that some self-glowing has no apparent purpose; perhaps the Master Engineer put some in place for our appreciati

It is a mite distressing that some people believe the earth is flat, and some of them are professing Christians and even creationists. This is ironic because not only was the idea started to make the Bible look foolish, but it has been soundly refuted both scientifically and theologically . (The president of the Flat Earth Society is a Darwinist, by the way.) One of the strangest claims that some flat earthers make is that moonlight removes heat and cools things. Sea View by Moonlight , Ivan Aivazovsky, 1878 This idea should be subject to verification or refutation scientifically. Some owlhoots have made a pretense at proving their claim, but their efforts are woefully inadequate. Like faulty evidence for evolution ( including "junk" DNA ), people doing what passes for research argue from their presuppositions, find a bit of data they think is confirmation, and think their work is done. Experiments and research must be done as completely as possible. Neutral or ne

There is a popular cold cut product in these here United States that is popular for lunches. While it is not my first choice, baloney  (Brits call it polony ) is okay when it is fried up. The stuff is made of scraps of beef, pork, chicken, or whatever, then seasoned, cooked, and packaged. The word is also an exclamation of disbelief. Cropped from Pixabay / Erad Ever have someone describe something you said or wrote as baloney?  Seems like when people say it with enthusiasm, some bark it out like three short words. Apparently it has been mostly replaced by something more profane involving cattle.) Mayhaps the ingredients of the sausage food product inspired the exclamation. Biblical creationists who keep up with material on the origins controversy tend to develop an eye for faulty science. It is mighty helpful to learn to spot logical fallacies , watch for arbitrary assertions, just-so stories without substance, piles upon piles of unsubstantiated conjectures, and that sort

The  continuous environmental tracking (CET) model that is being developed by the Institute for Creation Research is getting extremely interesting. Darwin's concept of externally-driven changes is being refuted, and CET shows not only validity, but can be used to predict changes in organisms. Credit: Unsplash / Ivan Timov People using an engineering perspective desire to have their products able to respond and react to changes and design them accordingly. The Master Engineer has equipped living things to respond in both short-term and long-term situations — including equipping progeny to adapt for changing environments.  Tomatoes respond with their anticipatory logic and respond to threats (at the speed of plant, of course) and essentially circle the wagons. Honey bees deprived of nutrition have anticipatory responses all the way down to the molecular level. Sea urchins equip their offspring to deal with changing temperatures. These changes (and others in the linked artic

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen   At The Question Evolution Project on Fazebook and in other places, we see atheists and other anti-creationists complain that we do not share material from unbiased sources. Then they trot out links to sites that promote evolution and atheism. Apparently, they consider "unbiased" to mean "not creationist". Who is biased? People who have read this site have probably seen my remarks that people who want to convince others of their viewpoint are biased. Not only are biblical creationists biased, but we are also quite open that we want to convince people that muck-to-misotheist evolution is false and that the evidence supports special creation and the worldwide Genesis Flood. Evolutionists are biased just like anyone else. Someone posted my article on the Roku streaming device  in a Fazebook group. I mentioned that Roku carries the NRA channel, and someone hysterically typed that nobody should read the article because it was "

Atheists and evolutionists bucked and kicked at the news that soft tissues were found in fossils. Some even accused creationists of lying or at least misunderstanding the reports. It was not our problem that they were the ones who were uninformed or in denial. Worse for them, the more soft tissues and other fascinating instances of preservation were found. Once again, there was mandatory overtime at the Darwin Ranch where help was needed at the excuse mill to save deep time dogma. Rescuing devices were utilized to no avail; the facts were not made to ride off into the sunset. (Who does  that, anyway? You can't see where you're going none too well.) Sometimes the preservation is on a large scale, and other times very delicate features have been preserved. Sorry Hoss, they cannot  last millions of years, nor can things be buried slowly. Excellent preservation (indeed, as are fossils themselves) are testimony to the Genesis Flood and the young earth. The first question ou

Secular geologists do that thing they do, which is to interpret data from their presuppositions. Since no scientist is unbiased, such approaches are expected. Unfortunately, they reject data that conflicts with their views. Uniformitarian geologists made up a sea level curve that is not supported by the data. Ocean , Vartan Mahokian, 1918-1920 The Institute for Creation Research compiled a great deal of data from three continents, then wanted to see if maps and sedimentary data support their hypothesis that the sedimentary patterns were generated by the Genesis Flood. Evolutionary geologists compiled a global sea level curve from the Cambrian system to the present using assumed environmental interpretations and deep time. They infer global sea level was lower during deposition of the Permian system because they believe that many sedimentary layers, like the Permian Coconino Sandstone, were deposited across dry land. For this reason, they show a lowering of sea level during th

People have been wondering for ages if there is intelligent life around other stars. One of the most common speculations is that since there are so many stars out yonder, there must be  creatures living on them. The more scientists learn, the hope of finding alien life dwindles.  Credit: RGBStock / Phil Edon The main impetus for finding extraterrestrials is based on evolution. Secularists presume evolution must have happened, but they cannot explain the origin of life on Earth without the Creator. First of all, the number of planets is a guess. A few thousand have been found, but things get complicated. They have to be in the habitable (or "Goldilicks") zone where everything is just right as far as size and distance from the stars. Several planets have been considered. However, the stars they orbit tend to be mighty ornery cusses and the planets are of the wrong composition. Gas giants are out of the question. Many factors come together that require exoplanets to be

Julian Huxley was a propagandist for Darwinism, and he published something in 1952 that should have been immediately dismissed. Huxley, and later Carl Sagan, claimed that the "Samurai Crab" (heikegani) is an example of evolution in action, and people ate up this concept — but not the crabs. Samurai statue image credit: Pixabay/ Samuele Schirò In their efforts to dismiss our Creator, Huxley and Sagan claimed that natural selection was at work because superstitious Japanese fisherman threw the heikegani back into the water because they resembled samurai warriors. The samurai became the military ruling class and rose to prominence during medieval times. So, the crabs with the resemblance to samurai warriors were thrown back and kept reproducing. People accepted this dishonest propaganda. I believe that is is partially based on authority because Huxley and Sagan were scientists. Being a scientists does not make someone right, pilgrim, but it impresses people who are unwi

When scientists first sequenced the human genome, they were working from their evolutionary presuppositions and using inferior equipment. They also made mistakes, and there is a problem with inaccurate results from contamination. Their "junk DNA" assumptions have been debunked. Credit: CSIRO/ Garry Brown  ( CC by 3.0 ) (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Since scientists could not find a use for some parts of the genome, they called it "junk", leftover from our alleged evolutionary past. Creationists said all along that the stuff is not junk, and eventually were proved right because many functions have been discovered. Sad for Darwinists, because they need  the so-called junk to support their ideas. The usefulness of introns  has also been doubted. How about going to something simpler for testing? Yeast is good for this. The genome only has 295 introns, after all, so yeast is easier to study. Research showed that introns are also valuable. B

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen It has been said that an atheist cannot find God for the same reason that a thief cannot find a police officer. In a similar way, atheists, evolutionists, and other believers in an old earth cannot see evidence for biblical creation and the young earth because they are unwilling to look for it.  I know of some tinhorns who were ridiculing a biblical creation science conference that was going to be happening in their area. One said that  he knows what they're going to say .  Credit: Freeimages /  Will Thomas In another instance, I was included in spam mailings and responses where an owlhoot was promoting his Bible-denying articles. Someone sent him a passel of links to which he responded, "I haven’’t [sic] got time to read your twaddle". (Ironically, the sender was another biblical creation science denier, and the recipient was too bigoted to find out for himself, hence the unthinking reaction.) One of the atheopath mantras conjured up by Cl

A few days ago, I rode into town and saw that both Rusty Swingset (the ramrod at the Darwin Ranch) and my prospector friend Stormie Waters also happened to be there for supplies. We sat down in the saloon to talk about things, and we found ourselves discussing paleosols. Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Francesco Malucelli ( CC by-SA 2.5 ) Well, even though Rusty and I are supposed to know about such things (he tried to evosplain them), Stormie was the one giving us the education. Paleosols are supposedly soils that had been formed a passel of Darwin years ago and then buried by volcanic activity, sediments, and the like. They supposedly give an indication of climate a long time ago.  Paleosols were originally thought to be rare and took a long time to form, but both of those ideas are incorrect. While creation scientists need to investigate them further, there is some doubt that paleosols are buried soils in the first place. During the Genesis Flood, we see things like mudstone a

There are a few icons of old earth geology that proponents tout as conclusive evidence of great age, therefore the biblical timelines and records are wrong. One of these is counting the layers in ice cores, where each layer is assumed to be annual. Actually, the ice sheets are young and support biblical creation science Flood models. Perito Moreno Glacier, Argentina image credit: Unsplash/ Miriam Duran The dating methods used on the ice cores are fundamentally flawed, and calibration is based on circular reasoning . "Annual" layers are not necessarily annual, as there are reasons for multiple layers in one year. Also, these layers are thinner at greater depths. There is evidence that correlates with the Genesis Flood models that includes layers and residue from volcanic eruptions. Ever been to the Gamburtsev Mountains? Probably not, as they are buried under Antarctic ice sheets. That's a whole heap of weight, plus grinding and erosion. Uniformitarian geologists

Believers in old earth geology believe in uniformitarianism, where gradual processes in the present are the key to the past. As we have seen here numerous times, this belief system is far from being rock solid. Secularists can no longer use mudstones and mudrocks as evidence against creation science Flood models. Mudstone boulder image credit: NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) It has been known for several years now that the prevailing mudstone formation idea that they can only form in still waters. Instead, mudstones can form in rapidly moving water, and do it quickly. This fact supports Genesis Flood models. New research shows that these star rocks can form even more quickly than secular scientists had reckoned. One of the most common sedimentary rocks can form a hundred times faster than previously thought. In 2007, geologists learned that their theory for mudstones was incorrect. Mudstones—the most common

While you do not have to be an atheist to believe in fish-to-fool evolutionism, it helps. Some owlhoots think they can merge the Bible and evolution (giving evolution precedence), but this is folly. The religion of atheism  requires biological, chemical, cosmic, and other evolution concepts for its mythology of origins. These, in turn, require deep time, which necessitates the defenestration of logic and science. In reality, evolutionism is intended to be a replacement  for God. Original image: Pixabay/ Peter Fischer Back in 2005 at the "Dover Trial", a judge ruled that evolution is "good science" and does not conflict with religion. This remark got evolutionists on the prod. It is interesting that atheopaths believe this ruling in a backwater borough by an incompetent, coached, biased judge somehow proves that the Intelligent Design movement is creation science in disguise. The ruling has no effect on anyone else. Meanwhile, when we point out that the US Sup