Piltdown Superman

Many questions about creation, the Genesis Flood, the Ark, and other topics are to be expected. They happened a long time ago, and the Bible doesn't give us as much detail as some of us m ay think we need. There are times that questions come to mind, often during a lecture or in a conversation. It's mighty helpful to learn about logical fallacies, especially when opponents of biblical creation use them so frequently. We get a heap of them at The Question Evolution Project, and bad reasoning from the Evo Sith is common fare on many creationary sites and social media. They get really agitated when we point out the fallacies, and some get furious when they are not allowed to continue building arguments on foundations based on faulty arguments or premises . (It's possible on rare occasions to have a valid conclusion from a bad argument, but that's not a product of skillful re asoning . ) Some go riding down a trail to prove something, and this is the fallacy of the ir

One problem we have in dealing with Darwin's Drones is that they believe yarn-spinners in the science industry, then they spread that stuff as if it was genuine scientific research. It's bad enough that they believe unsubstantiated conjectures such as the Oort cloud (gotta keep the universe old, Pilgrim), but they spread tentative findings as well. The science press doesn't help matters much, what with spreading propaganda and all. The criticism that common-ancestry scientists are telling Just So Stories is appropriate, since they've engaged in Making Stuff Up® for many years. Many times, the stories have village evolutionists stampeding to their keyboards to spread the "news", and then they are forgotten. Other times, false science ends up in textbooks, where discredited material languishes for years. Now scientists are flaunting their storytelling abilities (and getting paid for not doing serious science) in their efforts to deny the Creator. Again,

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen What kind of ethics can we expect in science from people who have an evolutionary worldview, where we are not made in God's image because they believe there is no Creator God in the first place? Scientists discuss ethical boundaries, but it's difficult to want to accept those from people who do not have an absolute moral foundation and believe that we are just another animal. Chimaera image credit: Wikimedia Commons / ArthurWeasley In mythology, a Chimera (or Chimaera) was a vicious critter made of parts of several other critters. Depending on the myth, some were fire-breathing dragons of sorts. Nowadays, you can hear the word in serious scientific material. This is due to CRISPR genome editing . It's one thing to be tampering with making hybrid animals, but scientists are also adding human embryos to the mix . Since they have subjective morality, they are asking for changes in legal limits so they can experiment a bit longer on creatures t

A common lie that Darwinistas tell is along the lines of, "You don't believe in evolution because you don't understand it". Those owlhoots conveniently ignore the fact that there are many scientists who do understand evolution and have rejected it — some prominent biblical creationary scientists are former evolutionists. There was a satirical cartoon posted at The Question Evolution Project , and someone came along saying that it indicates that we don't understand evolution. Some Darwin devotees tried to explain it to us, including the catch-all expression, "Evolution is change in allele frequencies", which is too broad a definition to be useful, and that creationists accept those small changes anyway. But people like that try to deceive us by equivocating "small changes" with "descent from a common ancestor". What's interesting is that many times, creationists have to correct evolutionists on their own pseudoscience! Imag

Nice planet we have here. Why would we want to leave it? More than that, there's a great deal to show that Earth was made for life — nothing else is like it. Some folks are excited about the possibility of sending a manned vehicle to Mars, and that would require a long period of time in space. Activity on the International Space Station is helping to ascertain what long periods in microgravity can do to a person, and it's not pretty. People have done some impressive things in space travel, but we've spent most of that time still benefiting from proximity to Earth. Those planet-sized deflector shields that God set up have protected us for a few thousand years. Image credit: STS-116 / NASA Even this close to Earth, spacefarers are exposed to high levels of radiation. Wonder what will happen between here and Mars, and on Mars? Meanwhile, over Venus way, the electric field is five times that of earth. Scientists wonder why. The moon Titan as well as Venus are losing

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen During my years on teh interweb , I've seen many things and encountered a passel of things presented as arguments — many are dreadful. Something that really burns my prairie schooner is the way anti-creationists and atheists use prejudical conjecture , and make sweeping generalizations about biblical creation. One example is the controversial Ica stones that supposedly show dinosaurs, which some creationists have used as possible evidence for dinosaurs existing with humans. Although the jury is still out regarding the authenticity of the Ica stones, scoffers boldly assert that they are fake , claim that we commonly use them as evidence for our views, and then use this assertion against biblical creation science as a whole . Although some of the stones are undoubtedly fake, such a sweeping generalization is logically fallacious. Ica stones image credit: Brattarb / Creative Commons CC BY-SA 3.0 How about the Loch Ness Monster? I'll allow tha

Darwinists tend to get a mite riled when biblical creationists use the term living fossil. Probably because it reminds them of evolution's failure. (One reason I chose "Piltdown Superman" for this site is to remind molecules-to-machinist evolutionists of the Piltdown Man fraud that fooled many scientists for about 40 years.) So, isn't it the trend these days that if someone can't handle the truth, try to get them to stifle themselves about it? The Wollemi pine is considered a living fossil Woll a mia Nobilis , WikiComm /  Fritz Geller-Grimm  ( CC BY-SA 2.5 ) Briefly stated, a living fossil is something that shows up in the fossil record, hasn't been seen, then is discovered alive and well. Embarrassing to evolutionists, and some invoke the spirit of stasis , a ridiculous attempt to say that things didn't change because they didn't have to, despite dramatic environmental changes over millions of Darwinspeak years. So, someone's offended, i

One time, people at the workplace were getting a mite talkative. I said, "Sounds like a herd of Tibetan pack animals". After they gave me a blank stare, I said, "Yak yak yak!" Yeah, I know, supposed to be spelled " yack ", but I just had to make a play on words. But have you ever considered the big, shaggy beast? Image credit: Pixabay / Simon When you look at the picture, you can see that they are related to cattle. They are used in the same way: milk, chees e (hard to find around these parts) , hides, food, pack animals, and so on, so they're important for the survival of the humans up there. In fact, yaks can interbreed with the more common kinds. But don't be looking for cowboys bringing them to Texas for beef and saddling up because they don't do well in lower temperatures. Not only did God give them the ability to adapt to the thin air, but also the cold temperatures that they prefer. There are some fascinating inner mechanisms that

Even though secular scientists have a habit of limiting their thinking based on their worldview (such as calling part of our DNA "junk" because they don't understand it, then are proved wrong), I'll allow that grabbing tissue samples from fossils on the shelf is mighty unusual. Maybe it has something to do with paleoproteomics being a new field of study, and people are looking for a chance to saddle it up. A giant beaver fossil had been on a museum's shelf for 170 years, coated with varnish, and getting dusty. Someone got the bright idea of finding a place to look for samples, and struck collagen. They want to test more in-house fossils, they're not being shelf-ish. Not-giant beaver at Prince William Forest, Virginia, image credit: US National Park Service Of course, instead of asking how collagen can last millions of Darwin years and challenging the ruling paradigm, scientists got all het up about asking how this can further understanding

"Go ahead, walk right on up there. It's safe". "I don't know..." "Look, it took millions of years to form, it's been here millions of years, it'll be here for millions. And more are forming all the time. Be adventurous." "Not hardly!" According to long-age views, various cliffs, arches, and other landforms were formed over huge amounts of time and are pretty much permanent. Except that they're not here to stay after all, since many famous landmarks around the world have been collapsing. Sure, you expect to see an ice arch collapse , but rock? Yes, it does. Some famous landmarks have interesting "before" and "after" photos. Sadly, a few have even resulted in fatalities, and sometimes people are not allowed to stand under arches and such, let alone, walk on the ones that were previous accessible. Delicate Arch, Moab, Utah, image credit NOAA / NGDC, John Lockridge , Longmont, CO Secular geologist