Piltdown Superman

This post contains some direct material, but it is biological, not salacious. We have seen how Darwinists make claims that something is "poorly designed", therefore, evolution. (This is self-defeating, because chance cannot produce something better that the subjects they question.) Their claims are refuted upon examination. We can add the male reproductive system to the list. Credit: Freeimages/ Erik Araujo I could say that I have no complaints, and have children to prove that it works. People who know about logical fallacies should be able to see how that one is wrong, and the same bad reasoning has been used to support evolution. One secularist complaint is that since testicles are outside the body and not on the inside (such as with reptiles), this is bad design. That is a very superficial "argument" based on opinion, not scientific facts. Naturalists have made bland assertions about things like "junk" DNA, vestigial organs/structures, and more

Years ago, I was involved in online groups that supposedly promoted manliness. Questions arose as to what made a man a man, and was based on our activities. Some men wanted to go back to the old days of shaving with the blades and styles that granddad happily rejected in favor of more modern razors. Others talks about sports, automobile engines, books and movies men should experience, and so on. By their criteria, I am not much of a man. Add to the confusion is that women joined the groups and enjoyed many of the things that men like. Credit: RGBStock/ Scott Snyder Supposedly, science is about the search for knowledge. It is a tool for determining how our Creator designed things, how they work, to make predictions, and so forth. Unfortunately, the secular science industry is riding for the politically correct brand, which is clearly seen when used regarding  gender confusion . These same people also demonstrate what we already know: there are  differences between men and women .

If someone keeps records, then those records should be orderly and reliable for reference. Believers in universal common ancestor evolution rely on the fossil record because they believe it shows an orderly progression from simple to complex life forms. This is not the case , and red algae is yet another frustration. Limespot butterflyfish, with  soft coral and coralline red algae image credit: Derek Keats  ( CC by 2.0 ) This stuff is important for coral reefs, and was given an age by evolutionists. Coralline red algae fossils were alleged to be over 400 million Darwin years old — much older than previously thought. Also, the fossils are just like the algae that live today. When something disappears, then reappears, they hijack a biblical reference and call it the Lazarus Effect.  (This may be another name for ghost lineages . ) Evolutionists have no explanation, but the Genesis Flood is the real explanation for (out-of-place)  and living fossils . Red algae form one of the m

The simplest form of the first law of thermodynamics is that matter can be neither created nor destroyed. The second law is that everything goes from order to disorder and energy becomes less useful (also called entropy). Materialistic speculations of the origin of the universe and cosmic evolution fly in the face of these established laws. Flame Nebula image credit:  NASA /DSS (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Secular owlhoots invariably tell biblical creationists that we do not understand those laws and try to evosplain why we are wrong with atheistic talking points. However, village secularists end up demonstrating that they are the ones who do not understand these laws. I'll allow that some well-meaning creationists have misused the laws of thermodynamics, so caution is advised. Fortunately, the article linked below was written by someone who knows his way around physics and astronomy. The Big Bang has been Frankensteined repeatedly over the de

Secular geologists riding for the old earth brand are puzzled by landforms that do not respect uniformitarian dogma. They have trouble with features such as planation surfaces (where the tops of mountains are a bit on the flat side) and others. Some continue to publish speculations even though they have nothing new to offer. Planation at Bayanul, Kazakhstan credit: Wikimedia Commons / Ekamaloff Using uniformitarian assumptions (present processes are essentially the same over millions of years), some landforms should be worn down far more than they are now; erosion rates today are too high. Part of the insistence on calling them old is because minerals-to-minerologist evolution requires them, and because of their reliance on fundamentally flawed radiometric dating. Also, the truth is too difficult for secular owlhoots to tolerate: creation science models of the Genesis Flood are the best explanations for what is observed. According to the uniformitarian principle, present day

New material added to the end of this post. There was a time when Neanderthals were considered partly-evolved cavemen, a link to our simian ancestry. Scientists caught up to what biblical creationists have said for decades: Neanderthals were fully human just like us. Evidence continued to mount that showed how they were not only human, but intelligent. Now we learn that they were rather sophisticated! Modified from an image at Openclipart Neanderthals were creative and intelligent and fully human. Some scientists were skeptical that there was evidence proving they were the ones who did those high-quality cave wall paintings. While it seems obvious, study on it a spell. Nobody saw them doing the painting, and they could have taken over furnished caves or shared them with Denisovans and modern humans . Nope. Now it is believed the Neanderthals did the painting. This may have been put aside for a spell since they apparently had a proclivity toward sexual promiscuity — like moder

We have seen many examples of the methods used to promote universal common ancestor evolution, and quite a few are disingenuous. Some are downright sneaky. Creationists frequently deal with straw man arguments, blatant misrepresentation , personal attacks, and so on. Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ often use distractions when the harsh light of truth gets them on the prod. I have seen atheists and evolutionists who demand evidence for what biblical creationists believe. When it is provided, they bounce around to different subjects (which happens in all sorts of discussions, even informal ones). Anti-creationists and atheists try to put us on the defensive. Sometimes they claim to be asking "honest questions", and invariably trying to slap leather with the creationists with emotion-based distractions and attacks. I'll allow that it is easy to let ourselves follow their lead, but it they get mighty irritated when we keep them on topic. Some of the distractions are along th

Many believers in scum-to-sculptor evolution have realized that life could not have arisen on Earth according to their paradigm, so they push the problem out in space and give it to the aliens. Other materialist owlhoots still try to make origin of life speculations seem plausible. How about order from disorder?  Credit: Freeimages/ Loretta Humble Keith Cooper headed down to the Darwin ranch and ran an idea up the flagpole to see if anyone saluted it. Not much reason to, since it is loaded with assumptions (even though evolutionists are not skittish about them) and multiple variables. Just take some biological stuff lying around and hope it evolves into something useful, and then upward into humans and things. Not hardly! Aside from OoL refutations, there is not model or mechanism, and the author admits that his idea has problems. The idea is irrational. His biggest problem, however, is that he refuses to humble himself and admit that life was created by God. OOL without des

If you ever watch some of those documentaries on cats, you can see that the furry critters that own us as pets can be found in a variety of shapes, sizes, and colors (the Maine Coon is a whopper.) Go to the zoo or watch a different documentary and you see the big ones such as lions, tigers, cheetahs, leopards, bobcats, and a passel of others. Where did they originate? Liger (lion-tiger hybrid) image credit: Ali West ( CC by 2.0 ) Darwinists are content with " it evolved " and spin some yarns, but it is obvious from their amazing abilities such as vision, smell, hearing, and others that the Master Engineer designed them. Biblical creationists believe in the created kinds  of Genesis, and the study of the kinds is called baraminology . They're all cats, and can interbreed. Lions and tigers can breed. The largest domestic cat (although  domestic  is disputed) is the Savannah cat , a cross between a domestic and an African serval . Lions are discussed in the Bible

This is one of those times when a very technical article needs to be presented for people who want more in-depth hard science. It helps to have a background in botany, but if you have some knowledge of science, you can still get something out of it. It involves an area that frustrates particles-to-plant evolutionists, and has some support for biblical creation science models. Credit: Unsplash/ Henry & Co. Usually as a reproduction error, polyploidy is a condition where — "You mean like David Gilmour, Roger Waters, Syd Barrett and those guys, Cowboy Bob?" That would be poly Pink Floydy. Let's hope your lapse of reason is momentary. Moving on. Polyploidy is where organisms or cells acquire additional sets of paired chromosomes. Sometimes organisms are deemed "fit", but controversy ensues. It has been suggested that polyploidy is a means of evolution, but that would mean it happens too rapidly, so the fact-free concept of punctuated equilibrium