Piltdown Superman

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen So, how are those New Year's resolutions working out for you? Early in the year, many people have already failed on some. I disremember where I read it, but one piece of advice was to avoid giving yourself a thorough remake, and just pick a few. Add more later if you have a mind to. Even so, the question remains: why do resolutions fail? A Monkey Encampment , David Teniers the Younger, 1633 Dr. Albert Mohler brought this to our attention on The Briefing , so I got the bit between my teeth and ran with it. Seems that you can blame it on vertical (universal common ancestor) evolution. We can't stick to resolutions or be decisive because we've evolved that way so we can act quickly for survival. Sounds a bit Lamarckian to me. (He's the guy that said giraffes evolved long necks to reach leaves in trees for food.) It also seems live a pitiful rescuing device to excuse perceived flaws in behavior. Evolutionists use the scientific principle o

When evidence does not fit dogmas of fundamentalist evolutionism, the hands at the Darwin Ranch either ignore the problems, or head down into the cellar and fire up the Rescuing Devices Generator™. When smothered in jargon and spoken with authority, fact-denying excuses are accepted by the faithful. We have three more examples of rescuing devices used by evolutionists. Credit: Pixabay / skeeze When it comes to soft tissues and biochemicals, those kinds of things cannot exist for millions of Darwin years, but they are found in fossils more and more frequently. Original oil in a fossilized bird gland existing for such a long time? No plausible explanation. Pigments in a turtle fossil, with no evidence of evolution? Make confident assertions that have no basis in science. Fossil pigments that are identifiable? Claim "contamination", and impugn the intelligence and integrity of many other scientists who have made similar findings. No, earth is not ancient, Darwin was wro

Many evolutionary scientists have become so entrenched in their paradigm, they become fanatical in their efforts to use Darwinism as an explanation for practically everything. Their observations are filtered through their Darwin spectacles , and they "see" things that do not actually exist. They use circular reasoning to prove evolution by assuming it despite lack of evidence. An example of the scientific principle of Making Things Up ™ is when respo nd to reports of UFOs defying the laws of physics, such as sudden turns that would destroy any occupan ts, biological or mechanical. "Well, they're aliens, so they can do that". Such question-begging is based on the assumption that the UFO is of extraterrestrial origin in the first place, as well as the assumption that other life forms can survive such a thing. Evidence, please? Also, UFO enthusiasts (and other people who are just plain interested) should see Alien Intrusion . When examining fossils, there is

Two things that get anti-creationists on the prod is when biblical creationists know more about aspects of fish-to-photographer evolution than its proponents. Added to that is when observable evidence supports creationary models far better than it supports evolutionary conjectures. In this instance, we have been ridiculed for suggesting an aspect of biogeograpy: that one way animals were dispersed is by using rafts. Evolutionists are often stymied by similar creatures living in widely separated areas, and often have to invoke the miracle of "convergent evolution" instead of presenting real science. Credit: Freeimages / Martyn E. Jones Don't go to disunderstanding me, I'm not saying they rented rafts like the ones used to shoot the rapids on the Colorado River or something. After all, most critters cannot carry charge cards. What I'm talking about is using whatever is available (and I suspicion it's often by accident) and going with the flow. Ever see

The three main divisions of rocks are igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary. While the first two supposedly dominate the earth's crust, sedimentary rocks are the most common kind found on or near the surface. The name is a giveaway, because they were formed by (you guessed it) sediment. (Fossils are found in these as well.) Long age dogmas are used to indoctrinate the young , insisting that such rocks take a huge amount of time to form despite contrary evidence. Case in point: the Heavitree Quartzite that is deposited in the Amadeus Basin in Australia.  Lake Amadeus, Northern Territory, Australia November 1994 image credit: NASA (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) You see, secular geologists are in lockstep with proponents of minerals-to-man evolutionism, since Darwin requires long ages and said geologists are happy to oblige. Also, they are unwilling or unable to consider anything other than uniformitarianism (present geologic activity has been mostly the

As you can tell, I have my unregistered assault keyboard in working order and ready to begin 2018. Today, however, the subject matter will be light reading, and we will commence to doing heavier stuff later. So, let's get things off the ground by talking about things that get off the ground. Wallace's flying frog image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Rushenb ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) What are you likely to think of when someone asks about a critter that doesn't have wings but still manages to fly? Class? Anyone? "Flying squirrel!" I suspicion that it's the most common response since there are different species that are kind of widespread. Like its cousin the colugo , it doesn't actually fly, but glides. There are several animals that can be seen getting some distance by abandoning ground travel. There are flying frogs, geckos (probably to sell flight insurance), and even snakes. via GIPHY Yes, really. Several things get in the air. For example, Wallac

The last post for 2017 will deal with one of my favorite subject, which is how anti-creationists use reprehensible reasoning while asserting they have all the facts. Normally, articles by this author like the one linked below would be shared to  The Question Evolution Project  "as is", but I had a hankering to add some additional material. Background image furnished by Why?Outreach Something that other biblical creationists and I emphasize is that facts are facts; there are no facts for atoms-to-atheist evolutionists and other facts for creationists. No, the disagreements occur on the interpretations  of the facts. You have probably seen claims that there are " mountains of evidence" for evolution , but a bit of examination and logical thinking will reveal that the "evidence" is not based on facts, but interpretations, speculations, and opinions. You'll also get a passel of bad logic. One sidewinder insists on lying outright, saying that Creat