Piltdown Superman

Proponents of bacteria-to-bat evolution have a high percentage for assertions, conflation, and conjectures. When it comes to actually providing evidence for their claims, their batting average that's lower than a snake's belly in a wagon wheel rut. The evolution of the bat is a noteworthy failure as far as evidence is concerned. Indeed, the evidence shows that bats (along with other critters, plants, humans, and so forth) were all created, not products of evolution. Flying fox (fruit bat) image credit: Morguefile / kconnors The idea is that bats supposedly evolved from some kind of rodent. Maybe it's because bats look kinda sorta like rodents, except the limbs are all wrong. Also, there's no evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Imagine that, a bat is just a bat. There are many specialized systems in place for the bat's flying ability, echolocation, variety, and more. No, these helpful creatures were designed by their Creator, and that's w

Ever notice that some people get a mite irritable when they don't get enough sleep? We need it to process events, and possibly help get some things locked down in memory. It's important to people and critters, and the need for sleep doesn't just apply to mammals. (I feel sorry for Basement Cat when she's had a bad dream, mewing in her sleep and then waking up looking afraid and confused.) We need REM sleep to get dreams, as well as the other kind. People and animals deprived of sleep can get a bit mentally disturbed. Sleep is a gift of God, who set an example for us by resting (Exodus 20:11). It looks like the bearded dragon goes into REM sleep stages as well. Bearded dragon image modified from Morguefile / cooee A simple study on electrical impulses in the brains of bearded dragons led to a study their sleep patterns, and it looks as if they do some dreaming as well. Unfortunately, some evolutionist jasper (who seems to be hallucinating from sleep deprivation) de

A tragic account from 1994 was brought to a close in 2015 with advances in forensic science. Patricia Tamosaitis disappeared from a kayaking trip down the Snow Hole Rapids on the Salmon River in Idaho. She was presumed drowned, and her body was never recovered. Kayaking on rapids near Washington, DC. Image source: Freeimages / Joshua Davis . Two years after the tragedy, a skull was found, and later still, a humerus bone. An expert anthropologist stated that it did not belong to Patricia Tamosaitis, but rather, to a Native American youth who had died 20 years previously. Forensic science showed that it was indeed the remains of Patricia. This raises some serious questions about anthropology, including the fact that an expert could be so terribly wrong about remains that were not all that old. Then we have the questions about anthropology errors for remains that have been dated to be many evolutionary years old regarding our assumed ancestors and "relatives". To read the

Every once in a while, some tinhorn makes the declaration that scientists know dinosaurs were killed of by a big rock from space crashing to Earth, setting up a sequence of events that laid them low. There are several problems with that story. One is that secular scientists are not in agreement about that scenario, nor are they in agreement that dinosaurs evolved into birds. So don't let someone try to fool you with those claims, since they're leaving out some mighty important information. Image assembled from components at  Clker  clipart. Since the data don't fit, scientists have to keep revising their dinosaur die-out tales . Not all dinosaurs died 65 million evolutionist years ago, some survived along with birds and mammals, or birds lost their teeth and grew beaks when the evolved, some stories go. In other words, storytelling disguised as science. Some secular scientists admit that the stories are ridiculous, but their counter-proposals aren't a heap of a

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Every once in a while, a proponent of molecules-to-man evolution will ask, "What evidence will it take for you to change your mind and accept evolution?" On the surface, that seems to be a reasonable question, and people asking it are often sincere. Unfortunately, there are some problems at its base. There is an erroneous belief that a question by itself is not fallacious. Loaded terminology and the complex question are two examples, often intertwined, of an illogical question. Seems to me that the question of what it would take to make a creationist believe in evolution contains an unargued philosophical bias . To get past the expensive words, it basically means that we all have a worldview, and there are certain things that we take as "givens" or established truths that don't need explanation or investigation. The biases in the "what would it take" question are that materialism is true, evolution is a fact, and there'

Do evolutionary scientists have ego problems? I've encountered a few that were not above abuse (and even libel) when called out on their faulty reasoning or shown where scientific evidence does not support the falsehoods that they are gleefully teaching. Wouldn't you reckon that, since they've made so many pronouncements that have been shown to be false, they'd learn a bit of humility? Especially when they declare things in the human genome to be "junk" DNA , and are proven wrong. Again. Image assembled from components at  Clker  clipart DNA is comprised of four bases that are abbreviated A, C, G, and T. When Darwinists examined DNA, they did not understand much of their limited samples, so they declared it to be "junk". Sure, makes perfect sense to examine a little and write it off, right? Not hardly! I reckon that a scientist that did halfhearted work and made assertions would be run out of Dodge for lousy work, especially when "junk&q

Although Darwin's Drones tell biblical creationists the falsehood that the origin of life is unrelated to evolution , evolutionary scientists spend a heap of time trying to figure out how it happened through naturalistic processes. I reckon that they're getting a mite agitated in their efforts to deny the Creator, since their efforts continually lack science. Sure, they (and creationists) use science in the present to attempt to interpret evidence and infer about what went on in the past, but both approaches are equally philosophical as well as scientific. Credit: Image*After There are some logical problems at work here, not the least of which is that science itself is a philosophy on how to interpret data. Moving on from there, we see that evolutionary scientists are looking at the past, and not using their tools according to their own philosophies. No human was there to see the origin of life, and there is only one eyewitness, but they don't want to acknowledge Go