Piltdown Superman

As stated before, scientists who ride for the biblical creation brand are like their counterparts in the secular science industry. Not only are they educated and credentialed, but are not always in lockstep when it comes to scientific models. Heavily modified from an image at Pixabay by Jeff Jacobs One major difference between the camps is that biblical creationists believe that the Bible is true, but models will come and go. Secularists have been dishonest for money and prestige. There are a few scientific models for the Genesis Flood among creationists, but the two best known are Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and the Hydroplate Theory . Some people passionately promote the Hydroplate Theory and consider it superior to Catastrophic Plate Tectonics. However, most creationists find serious flaws with it. If it is superior, then it would be the best of the worst — sort of like the nebular hypothesis  for the formation of the solar system is bad, but the others fail even more. Mo

While I want to cut some slack to evolutionists who are locked into their paradigms and do not think creatively, the secular science industry is infested with science deniers. The atheistic naturalism narrative is more important than facts and real science. Assembled with components from Clker clipart More and more fossils are referred to in terms of exceptional preservation, revealing evolution-defying details (like the fully-formed complex trilobite eyes ). Although there were indications that some fossils were not fully permineralized ( such as the use of octopus ink ), young earth evidence stormed the gates of evolutionism. All sorts of rescuing devices were utilized beyond reason; some things don't deteriorate (apparently if it is Darwin's will). Although there are soft tissues and such cropping up frequently (such in this recent duckbilled dinosaur dig ), they are preserved through the "exceptional conditions" that must have been common.  Now, thought

Imagine if you will a butterfly doing butterfly stuff on a nice sunny day. Suddenly, a cloudburst! Those drops of rain are mighty huge when compared to a butterfly. You might expect that it would be pummeled to the ground along with many others of its type. Not happening, Hoss. Banded Orange Heliconian image credit: Pixnio / ulleo With extreme magnification, it has been revealed that the Master Engineer has designed those delicate wings to take the punishment. Many factors must be in place so the insect can survive, but the best you'll get from Darwinists is along the lines of invoking the Stuff Happens Law . That's not science. Okay, I admit most folks have probably not thought to ask this creation question. But a bigger question gets answered when we examine the fantastic butterfly features that counter the force of falling raindrops. Butterfly wings are quite thin. How do these tiny creatures cope with raindrops that land at 22 miles per hour [35.41 KPH]? Cornell

Biblical creationists must deal with questions about natural evils, including parasites and the diseases they transmit. The details of such things are very involved and many professing Christians are unable to provide adequate explanations. Evolutionists are also challenged. Blackfly, Simulium damnosum, transmits river blindness Credit:  CDC/ Dr. Jesse Hobbs (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Scoffers ask, "If there is a loving God, how could have have made such things?" These people are actually indulging in prejudicial conjecture and straw man arguments (in this case, the false " fixity of species " view). Not only are they disparaging the Creator's skill and integrity, but arguing from the worldview of atheistic naturalism. That is, if they honestly want an answer from a biblical creationist, they must allow us to argue from our  worldview. Indeed, this is not an argument from science, but is actually theological and philosophical in n

Heraclitus was one of the good ol' boys of ancient southern Greece. He drove a car with a Confederate battle flag painted on the roof and yelled "whee-OOH!" a lot. Yeah, I know, it's usually pronounced CLY-tus, not CLEE-tus, but that's less conducive to word play. Anyway, why were (and are) Western people enamored with ancient Greek philosophers? Although nobody knows what Heraclitus looked like, here is a painting of him attributed to Johannes Moreelse from ca. 1625  I'll allow that some of the ancient philosophies are interesting. For that matter, Socrates had a fascinating method. The Ptolemaic system of geocentrism (Earth does not move, everything orbits us) was favored by the scientific community and the Roman Catholic Church . Greek philosophy influenced some of the Church Fathers, and can be see in the writings of Augustine. (When Augustine's work had a revival of sorts, things he had right were used but other things had to be corrected .)

There are some people who may have impressive academic credentials, but they lack the sense that God gave a goose. Is it untrue that institutions of higher learning are supposed to equip students to face the challenges of the future and to contribute to their fields? Credit: Pexels / Polina Tankilevitch Today's schools are indoctrination centers for profit. If the university gets the money (the most important part) and the student can correctly answer test questions and write a dissertation, they win the prize. Yes, this child is cynical. Today's institutions have "safe spaces" and try to protect hurt feelings instead of spurring students to meet and deal with confrontations and challenges. If any become scientists, I reckon they'll be mediocre at best but excel in promoting evolutionism. More than once I have encountered people who have claimed to be scientists who  did not exhibit much skill in the use of logic. One on social media who was pronounced in

Purveyors of fish-to-florist evolution and their compadres  in secular geology maintain that the fossil record is orderly, showing progressions from simple life forms to more complex. As we have seen many times, many fossils are recalcitrant to that notion. Take flowers, for example. Credit: StockSnap / Jeffrey Betts It has been uncomfortably acknowledged that pollen has been found in "older" rock layers — where it shouldn't be according to evolutionary paradigms. They cannot explain the origin of flowering plants, nor the puzzle of why they are in Early Cretaceous layers. Since biblical creation science Flood models are better explanations of many things that thwart evolutionists, let's see if creationist speculations are more reasonable. A new study published in Nature Ecology & Evolution has claimed that flowering plants, the most common type of plant on Earth, first appeared in small numbers in rocks of the Early Cretaceous. Fossils indicate that th

Coming to you from a haunted abandoned military hospital in Germany. I will leave and stop haunting it later. Unfortunately, muck-to-materialist evolution philosophies are still haunting the halls of academia and secular science.  One glaring example is the use of phylogenetics . Made at Add Letters , then modified Phylogenetics is —  "Was phylogenetics named after Philo Beddoe, Cowboy Bob?" No, that was a character in a couple of Clint Eastwood movies. Moving on... Phylogenetics is a part of phylogeny, which is the assumed evolutionary history of living things. People who follow the origins controversy have probably heard of phylogenetic trees that illustrate how organisms diverged from a LUCA, Last Universal Common Ancestor.  Some evolutionists admit that not only is evolution historical science  (not empirical science), but that philogenetics involves selecting data that fit their worldview and ignoring others. This is circular reasoning and preferences to s

Volcanic activity on Venus has been suspected for a while,  which may dislodge Earth from its position as the only planet  that is currently active.  There are moons  showing volcanic activity and others that are suspect. While Venusian volcanism does not threaten old cosmos paradigms, this and other factors make secularists mighty uncomfortable. Credits: NASA , JPL-Caltech, ESA, Venus Express: VIRTIS, USRA, LPI The evidence is indirect. Scientists saw indications of prior activity, but it's hotter than the hubs of Hades. Space probes from the former Soviet Union landed there, but they didn't last long . It involves models based on images from more recent spacecraft. Some researchers are saying that the lava flows are several years old — not several million or billion Darwin years old. A big problem for secularists is that this indicates plate tectonics on Venus. Creationists agree with their secular counterparts that plate tectonics exists, but they do not have an ex

These denizens of Arctic and sub-Arctic waters are showing that another evolutionary prediction regarding how they are supposed to bond is false. They are also known to spend time with others who are not so close in genetic terms. Cropped from  Unsplash / Mendar Bouchali The predictions of Darwinists would have them being with their kinfolk most of all, but our Creator gave variety to his creatures who are not subject to the speculations of secularists. Mayhaps if they'd take off their Darwin spectacles and conduct observations  on these interesting and social mammals without faulty presuppositions, they could do better science work. Beluga whales don’t select their friends according to what Darwinists would expect, a new Florida Atlantic University study shows. The research findings are taken from ten Arctic beluga whale ranges, including Alaska’s Yakutat Bay, Cook Inlet, Norton Sound, Canada’s Husky Lakes, Russia’s Gulf of Anadyr, and a small population by Norway’s Svalb

In the previous post on this subject , we saw how Darwin devotee David MacMillan was caught overtly misrepresenting creationist Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson. Instead of admitting and learning, MacMillan doubled down. Acting like atheists many of us have seen, he continued to devastate his credibility. Credits: Original Image from Freeimages / Carol Lam , added clipart from Clker Although fish-to-philosopher evolution is not falsifiable in and of itself and has made few significant predictions, somehow MacMillan requires them from creationists.  However, despite the dishonesty of atheists and evolutionists, creationists have indeed made predictions, some of which are discussed here , and many others here . MacMillan made false statements about Jeanson's predictions,  used ad hominem  attacks, indulged in moving the goalposts , and insisted that he was in the right while Jeanson was wrong. Even though MacMillan made demonstrably false statements, he turned the volume to eleven and rej

We have seen that SETI is committed, using materialistic and evolutionary presuppositions, to finding signs of alien intelligence in the universe using radio signals. Although universal common descent evolution is shambolic, somehow finding ET phoning from home would validate evolution. Credits: Modified from Clker Clipart and an image from NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Atheistic naturalism has metastasized throughout many sciences and in academia, and evolutionists have even created their own pseudoscience called astrobiology .  (How they can call something a science when nothing actually exists to study is beyond me.)  Some secularists hold to the  bizarre belief of  panspermia ,  where life was seeded on Earth, one way or another, from outer space.  You people want evidence of a higher intelligence from beyond this here planet of ours? Take a look at DNA. Our Creator made that, and it's clear evidence of his superior intelligence. Mean

Regular readers know that biblical creationists encourage people to think for themselves instead of accepting any pronouncement as scientific fact. As we have seen many times, observed evidence is interpreted according to worldviews. Further, many "explanations" are actually just-so stories. Image credit: Freeimages /  Edwin Pijpe Paleontologists and other scientists commence to doing some interesting research, but contaminate it with their naturalistic narrative. It's almost like watching Adrian Monk say, " Here's what happened ". Secularists are not telling us what happened, nothing actually scientific and verifiable, but historical fictions instead. The article linked below has discussions about narratives regarding insects in amber, huge penguins of the past, and others. In their zeal to promote Darwinism and reject Creation, some of them even contradict themselves. Look at the fossil evidence presented here, and ask if the Darwinian stories to

Betcha never heard of the Salt Range over yonder in Pakistan. Me, neither, until I read the article linked below. Although it is not expensive now, it was valuable way back in the old days. This area of plentiful salt deposits had some Darwinist geologists ready to slap leather with each other over the equivalent of Precambrian rabbits. Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Khalid Mahmood "Why did you mention Precambrian rabbits, Cowboy Bob?" Oh, you know. Evolutionists have said that if a rabbit was found in the Precambrian layer (which only exists in textbooks and imaginations, not reality), it would falsify evolution. According to their belief system, the fossil record is orderly, from simple to complex, and a rabbit would be too complex to be found in the Precambrian layer. But evolution is malleable — pliable — flexible — so it has no real explanatory value . If evolution were actual science instead of a materialistic philosophy, it would have been abandoned long ago. No

Classification systems are useful, but they can also be misleading. According to biological systems, we are animals. Darwinists parade this prize pony around the corral every chance they get, despising the fact that despite some similarities, humans were created separately and are distinctly different from critters. According to some of them, we may as well act the part. If you think this poetry is bad, check out the evolutionary "science" However, the tenets of evolutionary dogma are conflicting, and many of the lab-coated priests rely on the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™. Quite a few of them have no idea what they're doing, disunderstanding both science and evolutionism. Two standards, no waiting. Thinking people should be insulted when confronted with these things in the name of science. Since we are related to apes, should we act like them when solving disputes? Some say yes, but that would mean not only screaming, but cannibalism, gang ra

Many but not all Darwinists believe that birds evolved into dinosaurs. That concept is an assertion based on evolutionary presuppositions, not empirical science, old son. But the hands at the Darwin Ranch are all a-twitter over the discovery of soft dinosaur eggs. Fossilized dinosaur eggs at Indroda Fossil Park Image credit: Wikimedia Commons /  S. Ballal  ( CC by-SA 3.0 ) Since there is no evidence for dinosaur evolution (faith-based assertions are not evidence), their alleged history can be easily rewritten . Apparently different dinosaurs laid different kinds of eggs. A new discovery shows that some eggs were not like those of birds, and another egg discovered in Antarctica causes further difficulties. Also, the discoveries support claims of biblical creation science. Despite forcing the hands at the Darwin Ranch to put in overtime at the excuse mill, all they can come up with is the louche  explanation akin to "it evolved"  several times. Not hardly! A pair of ne

In Part 1 of this three-part series , we saw that theistic evolutionists took Nathaniel T. Jeanson, author of Replacing Darwin, to task. These TEs are clearly more devoted to their promotion of minerals-to- mooncalf evolution. Instead of admitting their folly, one doubles down on his dishonesty. Weasels illustration by John W. Audubon , ca. 1846 To be intellectually honest in a debate or when attempting to refute the position that someone else has taken, it is necessary to have an accurate working knowledge of an opponent's position. This helps to prevent unintentional misrepresentation. Unfortunately, people misrepresent others deliberately when they want to promote a certain worldview — especially among evolutionists and atheists. As I keep saying, ignoring the subject under discussion to attack the person or address something else does not exactly make you look good, you savvy that? Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes The screenshot above is fr

One of the tenets of particles-to-pathologist evolution is that it has no purpose, despite the way its adherents treat Evolution and Natural Selection as if they were entities that could make decisions. Some treat them as intangible forces. Then random mutations are added. It appears that this was mostly made at Atom Smasher However, it appears that mutations are not quite as random as we've been led to believe. Oh, sure, Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ are uninformed about the mythology they promote, but there are evolutionists who are actually spreading misinformation — random doesn't exactly mean random. Digging deeper, most mutations are harmful or neutral. Neutral mutations are so small that the gibbering god of Natural Selection overlooks them. Also the accumulation of mutations on a small level cannot lead to upward evolution. Lateral changes, yeah, that happens. Darwinoids are deceptive and dealing from the bottom of the deck. Anything to deny the Creator, you kn

Sailors reported seeing mermaids, but those were written off as not only having been at sea too long, but they may very well have seen manatees , also called sea cows. If you think about them a mite, you can see that they are actually intricately designed by the Master Engineer. Credit: Unsplash / Maegan Luckiesh Although they are gray, sometimes you'll see green algae growing on them. Seems a bit odd that sailors would mistake manatees for humans since they are rather large and spend most of their time submerged. Being mammals, they need to surface for air every few minutes. They are solitary for the most part. They eat plants, and were created to have a copious number of extremely sensitive whiskers for this task. Since they are sensitive to conditions, when algae go red tide , manatees are quick to get out of Dodge. Because the naturalism narrative is more important then reason, Darwin's acolytes tell us they evolved despite being considered related to the hyrax and