Piltdown Superman

The hands at the Darwin Ranch (over yonder by Deception Pass) are busy cranking the Rescuing Devices Generator™, as we saw in " Biochemicals and Evolutionary Rescuing Devices ". This time, we are going to be a bit more specific and focus on excuses made by evolutionist owlhoots regarding dinosaur proteins and soft tissues. Credit: Pixabay / TechPhotoGal Evolutionists and deep time advocates fight tooth and nail to find ways out of the inconvenient truths that dinosaur soft tissues represent. Namely, that the earth is not zillions of years old, that dinosaurs could not have been extinct for 65 million years or so because proteins and tissues cannot  exist that long, and the best explanation for what is found is the global Genesis Flood. No wonder they get on the prod!  Professing Christian Dr. Fazale Rana has a deep time ax to grind because his arch compromiser employer Hugh Ross runs the weird "progressive creation" organisation called Reasons to Believe .

Recently, I linked to a post about how materialists use theological arguments, as seen here . Essentially, they claim that since they think God would not create something in a certain way, he did not do the creating, therefore, evolution. A few days later, I came across the article featured below and learned an expensive word for that approach: dysteleological. I wrote about teleology a spell back, (short form: teleology is design in nature for specific purposes) about how some owlhoots are denying their own purposeless evolutionary beliefs and giving their false god the ability to do design work . So, you can see the first part, dys, as in dystopia, dysfunctional, dyslexic, and so on, then put it all together. Credit and link to full-sized picture: RGBStock / Adrian van Leen Proponents of atoms-to-animals evolution have used the dysteleological argument about the panda's "thumb". Yes, it has an appendage on the wrist that has a superficial resemblance to a thumb.

Sometimes, it gets rather difficult posting about genetics — especially epigenetics. Once again, the more we learn, the more we realize that there is still much more to learn. Like genetics, the study of epigenetics has been friendly to biblical creationists and hostile to Darwinists. Chaffinch image credit: Freeimages / Jack Kemp Evolutionists refer to variations as "evolution" as they are wont to do, which is an effort at equivocation. That is, it's a bait 'n' switch to make people accept goo-to-gibbon evolution by inaccurately calling small changes "evolution", but they are nothing of the kind.  We are told that evolution takes a very long time to occur, so scientists are surprised at "rapid evolution" , which is another example of equivocation. In fact, no evolution happened. (Of course, there is the mostly ignored punctuated equilibrium  concept of Eldridge and Gould , related to the hopeful monsters  idea of Goldschmidt, where no

Deep time proponents have a terrible time dealing with facts that do not fit their fundamentally flawed worldview, especially when it comes to celestial objects . One problem is the presence of oxygen in a comet's atmosphere , but never mind about that now. (Some may think that the interstellar asteroid  ʻOumuamua is devastating to biblical creation science, but it is actually rather unimpressive .) Secularists circle the wagons of excuses to protect their views, but they only end up looking foolish when denying the evidence in front of them. Credit:  NASA /JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Many objects in our own solar system don't "act their age" according to secular views, and even contradict prevailing views of the solar system's cosmic evolution. The battle raged for years over Saturn's rings. Evidence would indicate that they cannot be ancient, so atheistic magic would be used to conjure up

For millennia, humans have wondered how birds can fly, and if we can do the same thing. Maybe glue some feathers onto a couple of planks, attach them to your arms, and flap like a maniac. Simple, right? Nope. It was not until fairly recently that scientists learned (with the help of sophisticated photography) that birds do not simply flap their wings up and down. Instead, there is some complicated activity going on. The study of flight has also contributed to biomimetics. Maybe it is called a swift because it is. Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Dr. Raju Kasambe ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) Some tinhorns assume that since some scientists think that dinosaurs evolved into birds, all scientists think the same way. That'll be the day! Perhaps those who reject the idea of dinosaur-to-bird evolution realize that there are many intricate features that need to be in place, and that the propaganda of that notion leaves out inconvenient facts . Something else occurred to me: which kind of bird?

Imagine some cowboys at the campfire on the trail: "I see you got that fire built up pretty high. Ain't that a tad much for heatin' up beans?" "Normally, yep. But I'm making coffee, it's gonna be a long night". "Well, hope that firewood's loaded up with phlogiston." "What's phlogiston?" "The stuff that makes things burn. If it don't have no phlogiston, it won't burn. Johann Becher explained combustion back in 1667. You really should do some science reading now and then." Too bad the dude doing the explaining didn't read further, or something more up to date. While phlogiston was the dominant scientific theory for a spell, Lavosier became skeptical and determined that it was oxygen , not phlogiston (the dark matter of the 16th century?) that caused burning. RGBStock / Krzysztof Szkurlatowski Unlike Darwinism, phlogiston theory had some explanatory merit. Like Darwinism, the idea of ph

One of the strangest Just-So Stories told by Darwin's true believers is that of whale evolution. It was bad enough telling us that rain washed minerals from primordial rocks, life originated, then evolved in the sea, moved to land, and here we are. It becomes more absurd when some critter took the notion that life on land isn't such fun after all and went back to evolving for sea life. That is where whales and their relatives came from. Not hardly! You get tales of whale evolution , but they have no actual scientific or logical basis. Credit: Freeimages / Kym Parry I'll allow that I oversimplified the evolution story, but we've got things to do, and you get their version of it easily enough. For example, you can go to the museum of Darwinist indoctrination — I mean, natural history — and see the exhibits. Of course, they won't tell you about fraudulent exhibits (see " Faking the Fossil Whales "), nor the duplicity of atheopaths in protecting evolution