Piltdown Superman

Maybe the main reason the owlhoots at the Darwin Ranch cheat at cards and at science is because they believe their own philosophies: competition, survival of the fittest, and that sort of thing. The strong survive, one critter gets to eat, the other one starves, the survivors propagate the species. People believe these things because they trust what "scientists say" — even without evidence, and even when scientists are wrong. Scarlet Tanager image credit: Morguefile / AcrylicArtist (Rodney Campbell) There are times when we see animals fighting over what they consider their stash, even though there's enough food available for everybody. But there are other times when they will help each other out. Sometimes it's a one-on-one thing, gotta watch out for your own kind and so forth, but there are also baffling instances of symbiosis, inter-species assistance where both parties benefit. Such things refute Darwin's idea, and show that the Creator has design plan

Proponents of long ages and the extinction of dinosaurs millions of years ago assert their beliefs as if all scientists in the field are in agreement, and that ancient doom was a done deal. This involves arguing from their assumptions of deep time, and disregarding historical records and possible modern sightings of dinosaurs  (they don't like these because it threatens their "millions of years" paradigm). If you cognate on it, you'll see that many of the pictures and descriptions of dragons fit mighty well with what we expect dinosaurs to look and act like. Seems to me that it's even more so with the oldest records and artwork. Image credit: St George and the Dragon  by Paolo Uccello, 1470 Why would George slew his ownself a dragon? Because it needed killing. Oldest stories of this go back to about the tenth or eleventh century. Some of the records told how they could be mean things. In the biblical creationist model, dragons (remember, the word dinosaur  

Scientists like to get inside organisms to see what makes them go, but where do they draw the line? It's acceptable to donate human cadavers for medical research, but to take a living human embryo and watch it develop in a dish before killing it? According to evolutionary thinking, humans are equated with animals, and we are not specially created by God in his image.  This "meme" is making a point, not a joke. Interestingly, secularists are inconsistent with their ideas. There are protests against experimentation on animals (which led to the development of insulin to help millions of people with diabetes ), but there are millions of human abortions each year , partly from the "it's just a blob of tissues" idea. Scientists are wanting to extend the limit on life in a dish for a human embryo. Is it ethical? Is it moral? Not for those of us who believe that life is a gift of God and begins at conception. Indeed, taking the reasoning to its logical conc

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Shock, horror, outrage, and a host of other reactions when a 3-year-old boy climbed into an enclosure with silverback gorillas. Harimbe, the male, dragged the child through the water and stood over him, and zoo officials decided the best course of action was to shoot the animal. Expert Jack Hanna is certain that shooting it was the correct course of action , since the gorilla was showing signs of agitation. Silverback gorilla image credit: Freeimages / Chad Littlejohn Instead of being thankful that a human child was saved from a powerful wild animal, there has been a great deal of outrage and finger-pointing as to who is to blame: the parents , the zoo, and so forth. Read the news reports and watch for emotionally-laden terminology and provocative wording .  Some animal "rights" people want the parents held responsible  for the gorilla's death . (Trophy hunters  Rebecca Francis ,  Melissa Bachman , and  Walter Palmer  received death threa

The article featured below this introduction was almost skipped, since "living fossils" and evolutionary excuses have been done here a few times already. However, it turns out that it's worth examining, since it's not a list of inconveniences to evolutionists. No, it's much more. Image credit: Pixabay/ Kylienne Although some anti-creationists have claimed that we came up with the term living fossil,  it was Darwin's invention. The purpose is to identify annoying critters that didn't follow evolutionary rules, refusing to evolve after millions of imaginary Darwin years. They're doing fine (thanks for asking), and their fossilized counterparts are essentially unchanged. Evolutionists come up with rescuing devices such as stasis  (it didn't have to evolve, so it didn't). But this fundamentally flawed thinking pattern has also led to other concepts that do not exist in nature, the lab, or anywhere except the imaginations of evolutionists. T

The owlhoots at the Darwin Ranch have realized that they don't have to play the cards they're dealt, such as doing a  force-fit of recalcitrant data into their worldview . A part of this involves  fundamentally flawed radiometric dating methods giving results they don't like; there are wildly varying results, so just keep drawing until you get the card you want, and keep it up your sleeve until needed. Adapted from images obtained from Clker clipart Rock containing footprints was dated, the date was accepted and published. Uh, oh! Those footprints are identical to those of the sandpiper. Time to retest the rock. They obtained an acceptable result, but the footprints were still problematic, what with dinosaur-to-bird evolution and such, and there are more difficulties involved. And it's not an isolated case. If they were able to be honest about the data, evolutionists would stop being evolutionists and admit that science supports recent creation. Using well-kno

Darwin's ideas, loved by many as a "scientific" justification for denying the Creator, are not beautiful by any means. Survival of the fittest, nature red in tooth and claw, evolution as justification for racism , murderous tyrants in the 20th century ,  abortion — no beauty in evolution, Pilgrim. Image credit: Freeimages / Eline van den Berg While there is subjective beauty, such as seeing a piece of artwork that some consider beautiful but I think it would be good for target practice, there are other areas that are not quite so subjective. Darwinistas try to make beauty a utilitarian thing (everything must have an evolutionary function, you know), beauty itself actually defies evolution and testifies of the Creator, who put it here for our  benefit. Creation contains an astonishing abundance and variety of beauty that constantly surprises and delights us. Every individual tree is a work of art, yet trees come in an immense variety of sizes, colors, and shapes.

It's a wondrous thing to watch unbiased, objective evolutionary scientists prove their points by using the complex scientific approach of Making Stuff Up™. Actually, they want to advance their beliefs so much, and are so unwilling to say, "Hey, this data refutes our position!", that they will find ways to say that data actually supports what they are promoting. Square peg, meet round hole. Modified from an image made at SignGenerator.org (link removed, site missing) The link below will show you how they work with the sudden appearance of marine reptiles in the fossil record, the so-called evolution of the British, measuring the differences between apes and humans, contrived "explanations" of protein evolution, butterfly wing patterns, how homosexual behavior in beetles applies to the rest of the animal kingdom, and more. Darwinists pass this stuff off as "science" in their efforts to sidewind away from the evidence that clearly supports creatio

At first, I was going to start this article with "fungi to be with", but decided that joke is in spore taste. "Not funny, Cowboy Bob!" Right, I'd better get on with it. There's a ground fungus known as Talaromyces flavus that actually "knows" how to get what it needs when it encounters iron: it essentially mines it. Original image source: Clker clipart The fungus uses acid etching and extraction techniques quite similar to those used by humans. It should be obvious that the Designer of all creation gave it this unique ability to survive. If the trait was a product of evolution, it would never happen because the fungus would be stopped in its tracks (so to speak) and die. What happens when a soil fungus runs into a hard mineral containing precious trace amounts of nutritious iron? A poorly designed fungus might go hungry and languish like a forlorn noodle, but researchers recently found ways that a soil fungus conducts a miniature m

Even in upstate New York, we can see a variety of birds at the feeder on our patio. My wife likes to admire several kinds, and we have a bit of fun looking them up in books and online. She likes the two kinds of woodpeckers that drop in, and giving peanuts to the blue jays. Jays are smart, too, which fits because they're related to crows and ravens, considered among the most intelligent birds. Malicious Advice Mallard is at it again. In some ways, evolutionists and creationists agree about some elements of speciation. We disagree when it comes to how such varieties came about, and from where. There's no evidence that they came from a common ancestor, and the South American origin story is based on Darwinian presuppositions. We have our presuppositions, too, and believe that speciation of birds that were on Noah's Ark during the Genesis Flood is a better explanation of scientific evidence. This involves the study of baraminology or biblical kinds, terms held in deri