Piltdown Superman

A few days back, Sebastian and Jimbo, the latrine trench diggers at the Darwin Ranch, were in town buying shovels. Although they are unable to grasp the concept, they knew that the rest of the ranch hands were upset about recently retracted peer-reviewed paper. Some jaspers insist that evidence for creation must be presented in "legitimate, peer-reviewed journals", meaning atheistic. It is a form of ad hominem , a genetic fallacy, a blatant falsehood — and a wrong assumption that peer review is a guarantee of truth. Fight for the Water Hole  / Frederic Remington, 1903 There are numerous retracted papers. (Apparently I misunderstood retraction, thinking that something was removed, but that isn't necessarily the case.) There's a reproducibility crisis, some pass peer review even though they are computer-generated nonsense, blatant fraud, and other problems exist. One was even retracted because delicate atheopaths were offended because it used the word "creator"

Down Florida way, the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, you will likely see mangroves. Those shrubs may be the only friends the much taller manchineel tree has. Some people have toxic personalities, but this bad boy is literally toxic in practically every way. While its distant relative the poinsettia (poin-SET-tee-uh, with four  syllables) has an unjustified reputation of being poisonous , the fruit of the manchineel is sometimes called the death apple. This tree looks like so many others that bear fruit — which makes things worse. Credit: Flickr / Anne and David (given to public domain) It is dangerous to eat the fruit, touch the tree, burn it, breathe the smoke when it burns — about the only safe thing to do with the manicheel is to just look at it. So, what good is it? Like other organisms that have poison, humans are able to use the toxic parts of the tree for helpful purposes. Also, when it is cut down and the wood is dried, it makes good furniture. The very existence of the manicheel

When scientific evidence provides bad news for evolution, Katie, bar the door! Then commence to building rescuing devices, making excuses, and spinning the details. They are on edge because hydrogen-to-hadrosaur evolution has been getting the smackdown from scientific findings in recent years. As predicted by Dr. Mark H. Armitage , dinosaur soft tissues (devastating to deep-time beliefs) are increasingly common. Other advances in technology have provided some fascinating information, but is not friendly to Darwin. Teachers of evolution , as well as the secular science industry itself, require reassurance at all costs. Lambeosaurus  image credit: Flickr / Robin Zebrowski  ( CC BY 2.0 ) Lambeosaurus  is hung on the family tree of hadrosaurid (duck-billed) dinosaurs, proudly sporting hollow crests on their heads. Using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, researchers examined some Lambeosaur eggs and found amino acids. Those complex molecules are alleged to have lasted well beyond est

To hear people tell it, the geologic column shows distinct, orderly layers so the history of the earth is neatly laid out. In those layers, of course, are fossils of dinosaurs and other critters as they progressed from simple to complex. Not happening. As we continue the series on how geology and fossils are distinctly unhelpful to evolution, the Jurassic layer is fraught with difficulties. Indeed, the Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™ cannot provide a coherent message to the faithful. Durdle Door / Jurassic Coast image credit: RGBStock /  Florian Engels The ancient continent Pangea began breaking up in the Triassic (probably due to global climate change), and this continued in the Jurassic. Secular scientists believe in several extinction events, but they have many problems explaining why some creatures did just fine while others joined the choir invisible. As in previous layers, many dinosaurs appeared suddenly, without a hint of evolution. As we have seen many times before, s

As discussed previously, dendrochronology  (counting tree rings) a favorite of people who believe in an old earth, especially because important facts can be omitted so they can get the deep-time numbers they so desire. However, this and other methods of counting layers are terribly flawed . In fact, they like it so much, secularists still use dendrochronology on children as a propaganda tool . With all the difficulties that have been found in counting supposed annual layers , you wooden think they still used that method. Credit: Public Domain Pictures.net / Sheila Brown Some tinhorns exclaim, "Aha! There are trees with rings that date them older than you people believe. Take that , creationists!" Rein in there a mite, Hoss. The basic idea of one growth ring per year is misleading, since some trees produce multiple rings each year, other trees may take a notion to skip a year, and others produce none at all. What is seen is more likely a record of past climate and other enviro

There are several ideas floating around about what creationists believe and teach, but honest inquirers who prefer going to the sources instead of relying on hearsay can quickly learn the difference. Consider what creationists teach about species, for example. As regular readers know, we affirm speciation (a new species arises from an extant species). Unfortunately, some professing but uninformed creationists oppose this fact. The two articles presented below have a prairie schooner-full of material that will inform and equip folks. House finch image credit: Freeimages /  Maria Corcacas Creationists use the biblical word kind , which is somewhere around the family level of standard classifications. Species are way down the list. The definition is about as certain as nailing gelatin to a wall.  Species can change quickly, and this is demonstrated in the case of Jacob and the flocks of Laban . We believe that the Master Engineer gave creatures the abilities to adapt and change — they wer

Just the other day I was having a discussion with Grandpa, Aunt Lily, and especially Uncle Hermeneutics about understanding Ancient Near East (ANE) documents. Hermie says that knowledge of the culture is interesting and possibly helpful, but not to degrade Genesis as just another historical narrative. John Walton has an elitist  Gnostic version of hermeneutics . This evolutionary owlhoot is not content to use a proper approach to the subject , but interprets Genesis according to ANE documents. He is degrading the written Word of God. Illustration by  Sidney Paget  used in "The Adventure of Black Peter", 1904 We are to study the Bible in the proper context, which includes all of Scripture. Interpreting through the lens of ANE texts is convenient for Darwinists and theistic evolution compromisers; it helps them deny the Bible's authority and inerrancy. There are several important reasons we must reject views of Walton and others of his ilk. How did the universe come into ex

Every once in a while, something so outrageous comes across the news feed and I want to cry out, "Who pays these jaspers?" But we already know the answer, because they are paid from grants and the secular science industry — much of this is our tax grotzits at work. Consider bioastrology — I mean, astrobiology. Perhaps this child is not right in the head, but it seems that a field of science needs something to study. Atheists and evolutionists have no evidence for their invisible friends (a position held by blind faith), but they take their pseudoscience seriously . Once again, there are unfounded speculations of life on Enceladus. Enceladus image credit:  NASA/JPL-Caltech/SSI/PSI Those plumes of methane may be signs of life in hydrothermal vents under a huge ice crust. While there are thermophiles (organisms that live in hot temperatures) on Earth, there is no reason to think they formed out yonder. Bioastrologers — there I go again, I mean astrobiologists — are ignoring scie

Through indoctrination classes, Darwinian propaganda documentaries, and other places, many people have heard of how peppered moths were solid evidence for evolution. Light moths on dark backgrounds became bird chow while dark moths did well. Indeed, H.B. Kettlewell said that the Bearded Buddha would have been happy to see this. However, Kettlewell was a #liar4darwin. Despite the fraud in his videos and photos, this fake news is still in textbooks. (So are the fraudulent embryonic recapitulation drawings by Haeckel the Jackal.) I am once again asking why, if there is so much solid evidence for the "fact" of evolution, do they need dishonesty to promote it? 1931 peppered moth image source: Flickr / Ben Sale  ( CC BY 2.0 ) As will be demonstrated in the following two articles, natural selection is not evolution . Was Kettlewell potted when he made his claim? There was no added genetic information, no vertical evolution — peppered moths did not evolve into something else. (A vi

As you probably know, biblical creationists believe the Bible indicates that Earth is only a few thousand years old. This is contrary to the atheistic naturalism narrative of 4-1/2 billion years. Radiometric dating cannot support that number without unwarranted assumptions , and evolutionary population genetics is even more ridiculous. Darwin's disciples have to play fast and loose with observed data to make it appear like their presuppositions are valid. Storytelling has its rewards because people obtain phony-baloney jobs — unlike having a degree in, say, history of art. Credit: RGBStock /  Sanja Gjenero Anyone making a hypothesis or model works from presuppositions, then attempts to see if data and testing bear them out. Creationists and evolutionists make assumptions. Using very conservative assumptions about population growth, it is easy to reach a figure consistent with today's population. For evolutionary views that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of y