Piltdown Superman

Advocates of fish-to-philosopher evolution often point out the similarities between humans and animals, such as having DNA, blood cells, limbs, eyes, and such. We have so much in common, we must have evolved from a common ancestor, so we are just another type of animal, right? Not hardly!  Credit: CSIRO / North Sullivan Photography ( CC by 3.0 ) Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents We have a great deal in common with animals, I'll allow, but there are vast differences. Not just physically, either. Consider what we do and what animals cannot begin to accomplish. Imagine if you will: "Cap'n! Number One Chimp has been hit by a pulsar blast!" "Get him into sickbay immediately and call the medical supervisor." Not happening, not ever. Nor will animals learn to write and ignore the rules of capitalization in titles like I chose to do. Materialists cannot accept the fact that we were made in God's image, and critters have not evolv

Many sciences are infested with the bedbugs of evolutionary thinking, including anthropology and archaeology. People who work in these fields assume deep time and evolution for the interpretation of data. Those of use who presuppose the truth of the biblical timeline watch as they are frequently surprised by their discoveries.  De "Weinig" Toren van Babel  by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, 1563 When discoveries are made that conflict with the current dogma, they send a telegram to the hands at the Darwin Ranch near Deception Pass and have them get to work on the problem. ( In fact, they are having a retreat at Biden's Eye, famous for its red color at this time of year, to discuss the problems.)  Darwin's disciples fudge the data by redating this, that, and the other thing to accommodate new findings. Or they let the ancient aliens folks with their evolutionary thinking saddle it up and gallop away with the facts. Humans were not stupid creatures who hadn't yet

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen It seems that the the simplest approach to intelligent design is to say that a painting had a painter, a building had a builder, and so on. Moving from there, we can show the specified complexities of various living things as well as the in the cosmos, the amazing design of the DNA molecule, irreducible complexity, and more. An ornithopter design by  Leonardo da Vinci , ca. 1489 The Intelligent Design movement is not something that has membership and issue identification cards. There are individual organizations like the Discovery Center that are specifically designed to refute various forms unguided evolution, as well as individuals who also promote ID. Darwin's dishonest gadflies, in their febrile efforts to reject God, say that the ID Movement is creation science in disguise. That is clearly false, as any schoolchild who can read their material might tell you. They have theistic evolutionists, old-earth creationists, some young-earth creationist

People who like space exploration, and even those who are uninterested, are likely to have heard about the New Horizons spacecraft and its visit way out yonder. Arguably the biggest news came from the flyby of Pluto. The results were surprising to both creationists and secular scientists. Things keep getting worse for proponents of cosmic evolution. Credits: NASA / JHUAPL / SwRI (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) If you think back on your basic solar system knowledge, you might rightly recollect that the first four planets are called terrestrial, skip the asteroid belt, then we find the gas giants like Jupiter and the next three. After that comes a lot of rubble, Barney, called trans-Neptunian (or Kuiper belt) objects. Pluto and its system are way out there. While secularists have a whole heap of problems dealing with evidence that the solar system is young , they are also struggling with various speculations on how it formed. (My own guess is that our Crea

Faces are useful and, at times, fun. We can communicate with them in subtle ways, especially people who have been together for a long time. If you stop and study on it, animals do not have much variety in expressions; that squirrel I chased off the patio had the same expression he had before, but I know he was both alarmed and angry. Original image credit: Unsplash /  Francesco Ungaro Frame enhancement: PhotoFunia As expected, some Darwinists started with the assumption of evolution, then tried to reckon how we evolved faces from those of our alleged ancestors. There are many factors involved, what with muscles, functions, and all that make the matter difficult. Researchers made assertions but only paid lip service to evidence. Seems to me that this is along the lines of the absurd believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds, since there are numerous changes that must be in place, but evolutionists have no mechanisms. Let's face it, we are not related to apes, but were separat

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Although science is a tool for interpreting observable evidence, people treat it like an entity, such as in the expression "science says". Scientists say, not science, but we can work with this later. Science is used by fallible humans who have biases and make mistakes, sometimes clinging to bad ideas despite evidence. Made with PhotoFunia For example, the phlogiston theor y of combustion was disproved but it took a while before it was put out to pasture. Ignaz Semmelweis demonstrated that medical people needed to wash their hands before touching patients, but his evidence was rejected for many years . The views of Charles Darwin gained acceptance despite contrary evidence, which includes deep time in geology and also cosmic evolution. Evolution is the girlfriend of ill-repute of Science. They go to parties together, and Science uses Evolution to impress people. However, Evolution is unfaithful and even invites her brother Scientism over for

The standard story told by adherents of universal common ancestor evolution about the rise of multicellular organisms is that sponges clumped together and took a notion to evolve. We may wonder how such knowledge was obtained. Don't you know who they are? They're evolutionists, so they're right. Credit: NOAA /  G.P. Schmahl (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Darwinists are mighty fond of passing along speculations that fit the evolutionary narrative as if they were actual science, now they want to move it up a notch. Some researchers disagreed with the whole clumpy sponge idea, so they had some guesswork of their own: stem cells. That's right, multicellular organisms came from stem cells. However, stem cells are very complex and evolutionists cannot account for their  origins. Of course not. The most logical explanation is what biblical creationists have been telling us all along. One of the problems inherent in the evolutionary dogma is going

Like cattle rustlers who refuse to admit that they got lost riding the wrong trail in the dark, Darwin's disciples keep claiming that they have evidence for evolution where none exists. It is both pathetic and amusing when they deny their own belief system and claim that loss of traits  shows onward and upward evolution. Cropped from Wikimedia Commons /  Francesco Veronesi ( CC by-SA 2.0 ) One of the most giggle-worthy examples of this is the use of troglomorphism , the loss of sight and pigmentation in cave animals (see this article, Part 1 and Part 2 ). Another example is a flightless bird called the white-throated rail. "Are these people for rail, Cowboy Bob?" Don't do that. Supposedly, flight evolved several times in different ways, even though evolutionists really have no idea how it happened. Stuff happens — it's a law, you know. Instead of the hallucinations of the Darwinian elite, observations actually work against evolution and support spec

In several places, I have written about how unbelievers often demand that we prove to them that God exists. Apologists can see that this insistence is actually a justification for their rebellion against the God that they already know exists (Romans 1:18-23), and irrationally requiring scientific, material evidence for God . Credit: Freeimages / Maxime Perron Caissy For the most part, the people that comment at The Question Evolution Project are antagonistic and hard-hearted, rejecting any attempt to answer their questions. Once in a while, we (and Bible-believing Christians) encounter people who have saddled up to ride the long trail to seeking truth. If they get up on the hill for the bigger picture, they can see that there is a wagon train-load of evidence for God's existence as well as his character. He is our Creator and has made himself known. We do not need to spend time trying to present evidence to mockers and those who define "reality" through mater

The Darwinian death cult keeps on getting stranger, quite possibly because their efforts to deny the Creator are downright irrational. We are bombarded with the canard, " It evolved " without models or evidence when reading articles, watching documentaries, and so forth. Not only is evolution assumed in order to provide evidence for it (the fallacy of begging the question), but Darwin's dark dream is often presented as an irrevocable force: things must evolve. Except when they don't. These are the same tinhorns who brought you you, as "science", that parasite manipulation just may have influenced human intelligence. Yes, really. There are many living fossils (an organism was fossilized many evolutionary years ago and its living counterpart is essentially unchanged), so the lack of evolution is evosplained with the unscientific excuse of "stasis" : it didn't feel the need to evolve. Some addlepated evolutionists actually use lack of chan