Piltdown Superman

Way back when, the Sahara was not the arid pile of sand that is seen today. Instead, it was a bit on the damp side, with evidence of creatures that favored water, and even human inhabitants. Satellites show that under the sand, there used to be a huge network of rivers back then. Now, that's a puzzler. Credit: USDA / E.L. Skidmore (usage does not imply endorsement of this site) Secular scientists try to invoke the discredited Milankovitch astronomical theory to explain changes in Earth's climate, with unconvincing arguments. The better explanation is that during the Ice Age caused by the Genesis Flood, there were several conditions that brought greater rainfall. Scientists from the University of Arizona recently announced that what is now the Sahara desert was once wet and green and extended as far north as the Mediterranean Sea. The scientists examined chemical clues found within leaf waxes preserved in four marine sediment cores located off the northwestern Afric

Way back when, there was a myth that people with bigger brains were more intelligent than others. Then there's the observation where someone can pay mucho dinero for higher education, but are dreadful at simple logic. I can name some people that believe they're the brightest bulbs in the chandelier but are actually quite dim, but never mind about that now. So, how does this brain size and intelligence thing work in smaller creatures? Credit: Pixabay / DrScythe The brain of a bumblebee is about the size of a sesame seed. Does that explain the time I got stung by one that flew into the open window of my delivery truck, smacked into me, then stung me when it wasn't my fault? Those bad boys pack a punch. But I digress. These fuzzy little critters are capable of learning, and others can learn by watching their fellow travelers. Bats are masters of echolocation, but what happens in a crowd? Seems like there would be a heap of interference and collisions happening, but t

Biblical creationists often need to deal with tendentious evidences for Earth's alleged old age, including radiometric dating, ice core samples, distant starlight, and others. These have been dealt with by creationists in many places (several of which are linked on this site). Another "proof" for Earth's age is that of trees, since the Genesis Flood, about 4,500 years ago, would have ripped them up and they'd have to start over. Yet some are claimed to be substantially older. "General Sherman" sequoia credit: US National Park Service , usage does not imply endorsement of site contents Some folks say that certain trees are dated at 30,000 years, so the timeline of the Bible must be wrong. Ofttimes, people are using outdated material and incomplete material. For example, the General Sherman sequoia pictured above was thought to be in excess of 6,000 years, but has been revised down to an uncertain approximation of 2,150 years. Many believe that thes

People who deal with sewing or looms, whether on a personal or an industrial level, know that precision is required. My wife has longed for a self-threading needle, as have probably many other people. Sewing machines and looms break down and need maintenance. Sure would be mighty fine if the things performed their own maintenance, wouldn't it? Credit: Morguefile / cohdra Imagine something similar on a much smaller scale. Remember those microscopes you used in school? Not good enough. This is about an aspect of our internal self-repair, where ribosomes correct faulty RNA (which is a good friend of DNA) so we can continue living. The intricate design and specified complexity involved is another reason to reject common-ancestor evolution, and realize that the evidence supports biblical creation. What does it take to slip a tiny thread through the eye of a needle and then use that thread to accomplish a purpose? Chimpanzees and other apes can’t do this. It takes fine, precise

One of the items that the bosses at the Darwin Ranch have filed away in the locked back room under Try Not to Discuss is soft tissues from ancient critters. Although we've been hearing about those tissues for a spell, it's not such recent news as some people may think. Just that the more recent events about dinosaur soft tissues have rightly exploded since that business with Mary Schweitzer, Mark Armitage , and others. Triceratops at the Dinosaur Journey Museum credit: US Dept of Transportation / aschweigert (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Some uninformed but loyal evolutionists have tried to deny the tissue problem (even lying about it in forums and on social media), since it's a serious problem for them: dinosaur soft tissues and proteins cannot last for millions of years. That means dinosaurs have not been extinct as long as their dogma requires, and gives another indication that Earth was created much more recently than evolution requires.

There's a critter down Australia and New Guiney way that is sometimes called the spiny anteater. It's spiny, but not with sharp pointy quills like a porcupine. Also, it does eat ants somewhat, but is not closely related to anteaters. Seems gentle enough, but it's a protected wild animal, so don't be getting a notion to make a pet of one. Maybe consider a hedgehog and name it Spiny Norman, since there's a bit of resemblance. Anyway, the subject is the echidna (I kid you not, it's pronounced ee-KID-nuh), and is baffling to evolutionists, like its cousin the platypus . Credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainImages The classification for yon beastie is a monotreme. It's a mammal, but lays eggs. Yes, really. Read up on its alleged evolution and you get a whole whack of storytelling but no actual scientific evidence. Then they deny the Creator and resort to the nonsensical "convergent evolution" tale. Because of its unique characteristics and those of th

The Big Bang and cosmic evolution have many things going for them — on paper. Start with some assumptions, do some calculations, make impressive pronouncements, let the sycophantic science media get the bit in their teeth and gallop to the public . But do not, under any circumstances, let actual science interfere with grandstanding. Evidence is bad medicine for speculations in secular cosmogony and cosmology. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech Since observed evidence causes problems for secular cosmogony concepts, secular scientists come up with rescuing devices. Dark matter, dark energy, dark other things that have never been observed but look good for calculations abound, and "explain" why spiral galaxies hold their shape after assumed zillions of years. These things have not been observed, only inferred according to presupposition s (see " Dark Matter Remains Missing "). Another rescuing device is to come up with new physics, and even find a new theory of gravity t

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen There seems to be a fine line between rejecting material because someone dislikes the source (the genetic fallacy ), and using caution because the source is questionable. Some owlhoots fallaciously balk at learning science from creationists because creationists do not support materialistic presuppositions. Other times, material from individuals is questioned because they lack the proper credentials. Image credit: digitalart at FreeDigitalPhotos.net Readers of this Weblog and The Question Evolution Project may notice that several creationary mavericks are absent from the corral that I choose for reliable resources. I'll allow that sometimes I'm a mite skittish when atheopaths are looking for excuses to discredit individuals or organizations since I also want to make good material available for readers and viewers, but do not want to give detractors fuel for their fires. Don't disunderstand me. There are very intelligent people who have no

Proponents of molecules-to-milliner evolution are still having problems overcoming the original hurdle: the origin of life. Some even try to rework the failed Miller-Urey experiment , and others try to find different ways to justify the non-science of abiogenesis. One desperate idea was to invoke a kind of intelligent design by space aliens . Oh, please!  Image credit: Pixabay / Alexas_Fotos Some owlhoots try to distance themselves by resorting to the canard that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. Sure, pilgrim. You want us to spot you the most difficult part, and then you'll take the bit in your teeth and run with it from there. Claiming that abiogenesis (also known as chemical evolution ) is irrelevant is, I believe, blatantly dishonest, since they should know that the origin of life is in evolution textbooks, on documentaries, and so on. Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes A more rational idea involves primordial liquid drople

For this post, you're going to need your cogitating machines fully operational, because this material isn't very easy. It's down to Earth. Very. One of the deepest layers in the geologic column is the Cambrian, which has caused considerable consternation among Darwin's Cheerleaders because of the "explosion" of fossilized life forms, and they try to come up with explanations for this evolution-defying event. Credit: Pixabay / RafaelMousob Before the Cambrian layer is the Precambrian (yes, really). Not a whole passel of fossils there, but there are signs of meteorite impacts. There is some controversy about how many actually set themselves down, since one impact can effectively erase another if it's close enough, and the criteria are a mite too rigid. Evidence exists that there may have been many more impacts than are officially recorded. Michael Oard offers his hypothesis and evidence (65 footnotes) that Precambrian impacts had a major effect on th