Piltdown Superman

A major problem for uniformitarian geologists is the decay of the Earth's magnetic field. The thing is decaying at a measurable rate , and if the Earth is as old as they say it is, then way back yonder, the field would have been impossibly strong, and they've known this problem for years. So, they theory is sick and needs to be fixed up right quick so they don't have to admit that the evidence shows a recently-created world. I recommend that you read the excellent article, " Earth's Young Magnetic Field ". Secular geologists know full well that they need the Earth to appear old because evolution requires long ages. Can't admit that our planet isn't so old after all. A rescuing device was presented that needs work, and has some amazingly bad flaws. A new theory to maintain Earth’s magnetic field looks like a case of special pleading to rescue a dogma. Keeping Earth’s magnetic field going for billions of years is a major problem, because its st

It gets a mite disconcerting for "deep time" adherents to promote their uniformitarian views in the light of conflicting evidence, but they keep on doing it. This time, it's the extinction of the woolly mammoth and other animals that is causing a problem. Image credit: FreeImages / Ainhize Barrena The common image of woolly mammoths, sabre-tooth tigers, and other critters in icy wastelands is somewhat misleading, as there were warm periods during the Ice Age and plenty of food available for grazers. Three basic ideas for the mass extinctions include climate change, hunting them to death, and illnesses from humans. None of those make sense. Proposing that they were killed off because of global warming (sorry, no way to make it anthropogenic) is really grasping at straws. Although it's dismissed out of hand without examining the evidence and plausibility, the post-Genesis Flood Ice Age model proposed by biblical creation scientists offers much more

Purveyors of mold-to-monkey evolution will point to what they call vestigial structures as proof of their belief system, where the standard definition of "vestigial" is something that was useful in our evolutionary past, but is now completely (or almost completely) useless. This is based on circular reasoning and making assumptions: how do you know what happened in the distant past? One of the most common examples cited is the human appendix, which can be perfectly healthy but removed anyway, based on evolutionary assumptions. Jerry Coyne redefined the word : "A trait can be vestigial and functional at the same time. It is not vestigial because it’s functionless, but because it no longer performs the function for which it evolved ” (emphasis in original)". And he knows the original because...? Although the appendix was shown to be important to digestion , Evo Sith like Jerry Coyne,  Live Science , and others persist in the "it's vestigial" fal

The Evo Sith will argue from their worldview, we get that. Many are committed to naturalism, and reject any possibility that they are accountable to our Creator. Recent creation? Global Genesis Flood? Easier to teach a sidewinder to herd cats than to get many of these folks to even consider the possibilities. When they rely on evolutionary thinking, it shouldn't come as a surprise that they hide cards and deal from the bottom of the deck to not only promote their own careers, but to convince people that their paradigm is pristine and proper. It's survival of the fittest, isn't it? We shouldn't be surprised at all the storytelling and outright bad science used in the promotion of evolutionism, nor should be be surprised when fraud is involved. (Many people say that Piltdown Man was a "hoax", but I insist it was a fraud, and fooled many people for about 40 years.) But aren't scientists above such unconscionable acts? Not hardly! They're sinful hu

Advocates of molecules-to-machinist evolution can cook up some mighty convincing stories about why and how evolution happened, but they leave out important information and talk about what happened in the distant past without any real evidence. What they come up with are comparable to Kipling's Just So Stories . They sound good, but do not have plausible mechanisms or explanations. And yet, true believers accept them by faith. Regular readers know that I have featured material by Dr. David Coppedge's " Creation-Evolution Headlines " on this site many times. (Here's another: he has some personal anecdotes in an interesting article called " Secret Animal Hideouts ".) Bob Enyart interviewed Dr. Coppedge on Real Science Radio, and they discussed several evolutionary stories, and touched on biomimetics, design, and more. You can listen to or download the podcast by clicking on " crev.info headlines on RSR with David Coppedge ". The picture bel

Every once in a while, biblical creationists will be told something like, "Even if you disproved evolution, I would still be an atheist because evolution is not all that important to me". The indoctrination was strong in this one. Similarly, some will say that they do not need evolution because they have other reasons to reject the Creator. (Interestingly, they betray themselves by coming to creation science sites, groups, Pages, and so forth to tell us that they do not care.) But they must care, because there are only two possibilities to answer the question of origins. One tinhorn stated that atheists reach their conclusions because they thought things out, and Christians do not do this. His claim was a logical fallacy. In reality, atheists are driven by emotion and faith commitments to their disbelief, and if they had bothered to use critical thinking, they would realize that their worldview is irrational and incoherent, lacking the intelligibility that is only fou

The hands at the Darwin Ranch have been holed up down at Horsethief Canyon , telling tales around the campfire. This one's a doozy. A study was undertaken involving the differences between the brains of humans and chimpanzees, and they reached the conclusion that humans evolved the ability to evolve. Of course, no mention was made of how neuroplasticity in human infants was planned by our Creator. Image credit: MR LIGHTMAN at FreeDigitalPhotos.net Infant chimps develop more rapidly than human infants — and then their genetic makeup hollers, "Whoa!" Humans continue to develop and the changes are influenced by environment as well as genetics. But we are designed to develop further than our alleged evolutionary cousins. While the study was good while it stayed with operational, observable science, when the owlhoots began to make pronouncements about what happened in the distant past, that stuff left science and entered the realm of campfire stories. Chimpanzees,