Piltdown Superman

Atheists and evolutionists mock biblical creationists for believing in the observed work of the Creator, but have their own blind faith and "miracles". One example is their fact-free presuppositional assertions that neutron stars make gold in space . Another example of faith in their own schemes is discussed below.   A serious problem for long-age cosmic evolution is the existence of comets. Those nuclei of those bad boys are small by astronomical standards (but you would not want one in your driveway), and are seen when they get close enough to the sun. Then, some of the surface burns off and we see the glow and long gaseous tail. They go orbiting again, and more of the nucleus burns off on the next pass. Repeat and fade until nothing is left, or it crashes into a planet or something. Using the dating methods and assumptions of secular scientists, comets should not exist because they would have been entirely used up millions of Darwin years ago. This is where the scienti

Creationists will often see a fallacy called appeal to authority in discussions with atheists and evolutionists. We frequently encounter this at The Question Evolution Project and other places on teh interweb. While referring to an authority on a subject is legitimate, many tinhorns will refer to someone who has no qualifications in a subject, such as Clinton Richard Dawkins railing about theology. Atheists and anti-creationists get the bits in their teeth and ride hard to heavily biased atheistic storage facilities to find material on a subject, throw links at us, and essentially say, "I cited TalkOrigns! Case closed! " (Seems to me that this might qualify as confirmation bias , but I digress.) Citing those places is easier than thinking or reading creationary material, but those sites are unreliable; it is appeal to false authority in action. Recently, I made a post and said that opponents will go to the excuse mills. A furious atheopath proved me right by ignori

Okay, you caught me. "Nature" does not "teach" anyone anything, just like "science" does not "say" or "know" anything. That is the reification fallacy . Generally, it is not important except in formal debates and similar situations. Otherwise, so many people use the fallacy, we would be calling them out on simple figures of speech left and right and reigning in simple conversations. In conversations, people generally do not do this to manipulate the thinking of others to fall for propaganda. So, I felt like doing it here. Besides, the three links below are using the same figure of speech. Oh, and don't worry, the articles linked below aren't very lengthy. A good designer is going to spend time making plans that include a variety of elements, as well as how the project can withstand variables. The infinite mind of the Master Engineer had everything covered in his plans, which took him no time at all. Humans used the minds that

From 1985-1992, American television had a series called MacGyver, which has become a bit of a cultural icon because of the hero's abilities to use chemistry, physics, and the like (as well as being able to think quickly) to make things happen and get out of difficulties. The series was rebooted in 2016. The idea of using whatever is available and fast thinking is often found in espionage movies and fiction. The concepts of multitasking and repurposing are found in many places, including our daily lives and in biology. Replica ship Mayflower II credit: Wikimedia Commons / OldPine It seems that that some MacGyvers were on the Mayflower as well. The midship beam was cracking, and for it to completely break would have been a death sentence. The resourceful crew cowboyed up and repurposed a part of a printing press' equipment to save the voyage — and a major part of American history. For this, many of us are thankful. Many of our organs, cells, and parts of our DNA are abl

Scientists who are involved in biology disagree on the definition of species. Sometimes this happens with individual critters, but the broader use of the term is also disputed. It is the lowest ranking in taxonomy below genus, most often defined as organisms that can mate to produce fertile offspring . Doesn't always work that way, however. Liger at the Novosibirsk Zoo / Wikimedia Commons / Алексей Шилин We hear about hybrids, often in the plant kingdom. Animal hybrids usually cannot reproduce, and one of the most famous examples is the mule, from a male donkey and female horse. There are other hybrid animals as well. Darwin's imaginary "Tree of Life" gets its branches all tangled up with species interbreeding, and sometimes, the hybrids can breed with the parents, creating havoc for scientists at the genus level. It may be slightly less surprising when the matings happen in captivity, but they happen in the wild as well. Materialists like to reject any cons

Living things seem mighty recalcitrant when it comes to supporting evolutionary conjectures, including those things termed living fossils . Those are things that were thought to be extinct, then found alive and essentially unchanged after millions of alleged years. A green alga, a seaweed, is not quite a living fossil because it was thought to be extinct in North America but still living in other parts of the world. Well, it's been found in North America after all, and it's unchanged. In cases like this, wait for Darwin's Drones to bring out the usual boilerplate excuses: it didn't have to evolve, stasis, and things like that. This child doesn't fall for those tricks, because a lot of environmental things happen in a year, and evolutionary mythology breaks down if they think we're going to accept such "explanations". Aside from the anticipated excuses, there are several important facts that evolutionists overlook, including how critters and plants

Scientists and other people with training and experience can learn a great deal from footprints. Many people can see the different between a bird and a human for instance, but may have difficulty between those of a large dog and a bear. That could be a problem in the wilderness. Barefoot human impressions are very distinct, and a trained observer can learn a great deal about whoever made them. The fossilized human footprints discovered in Crete are somewhat indistinct, but cause some problems for common ancestor evolution. Modified from a graphic at Clker clipart The "our ancestors came out of Africa" mythology is threatened because of the dates evolutionists assigned to the footprints. Also, despite looking like someone is tromping through the mud and not sure of his or her footing, it is obvious that they were not made by anything other than a human. Some secularists do not want to believe the evidence because it threatens their death cult. Creationists do not have p

An interesting story about the merging of neutron stars (who did not bother to consult the Federal Trade Commission on their merger) involved some interesting information on their history and detection. This necessitates material on gravity waves, and some of Uncle Albert Einstein's work. From there, we were given some Big Bang cosmogony, chemistry, and chemistry's weird great grandfather that nobody likes to talk about: alchemy. The Alchemist / David Teniers the Younger Way back yonder in medieval times, some folks were attempting sciencey stuff by attempting to convert base metals (copper, lead, tin, and so forth) into gold. Imagine the devastating impact on economies if they succeeded! Alchemy was distantly related to chemistry for reasons that should seem obvious. We get exceptionally dense neutron stars commencing to merge, and the interaction supposedly produced a passel of gold. Problem is, it's all based on Big Bang presuppositions on the origin of the uni

When materialistic scientists argue from their evolutionary and deep time presuppositions, facts tend to get a mite scrambled. Speculations about things they think happened millions of Darwin years ago get added to the mix. When hearing, viewing, or reading about speculations that have no actual science behind them, it become difficult to stifle laughter. Credit: Freeimages / Aron Hess Geologically thinking, we have rock layers with fossils in them. Secular assumptions smuggle in long age presumptions (uniformitarianism), so the fossilized creatures appear that they were spread out over many years, and that there were several "great extinctions". However, secular scientists speculating about the distant past are not in agreement about how many extinctions happened. Worse for them, their conjectures fail to address observed evidence, but biblical creationists' models of the Genesis Flood have no difficulty giving rational explanations. Must grate on them that the ev

Some folks do not cotton to spiders, even getting the heebie-jeebies at the tiniest of them. I can understand being skittish with a spider that looks like if you tried to strike it with a tennis racket, it would take it away and strike you instead. Yep, that's alarming. Anyway, some might say, "I'm sure glad spiders can't fly!" Sorry, Sally, but some do fly — in a way. Those shimmering threads are not from UFOs, so Auntie Madge doesn't need to call the Air Force (Project Blue Book has been closed for a long time, anyway), nor are they " chemtrails " Just spiders doing ballooning stuff. Ballooning spiderlings image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Little Grove Farms / ( CC BY 3.0 ) Each of a huge number of spiders can shoot out some gossamer and ride the high winds. They don't all have happy landings, though. The survivors, though, hit the ground like special forces leaving their parachutes behind. How do they do this? Sure, the wind is an impor

In any field of science, there has to be some degree of presumption. Scientists have to presume the uniformity of nature and its laws (although secularists refuse to admit that God, who created everything, upholds the universe by his power). When getting further into evolution-related fields, more presumptions are made based on naturalistic presuppositions. This is clearly seen in cosmology — which is not even science , but a philosophy. Credit: NASA / ESA (modified) Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents Cosmic owlhoots Krauss and Scherrer wrote a paper that may not have been entirely serious, saying that cosmologists in the future may not have the necessary information to make the correct conclusions about the universe that today's scientists have made. What, nobody keeps or refers to records? The authors got the bit in their teeth and galloped off with the presumption that they are correct in the first place in the here and now. (Reminds me of the tinhorns who

There are small critters in Central and South America have been given the name "poison dart frogs". Most have bright colors, but if you find yourself near them, resist the urge to pick them up. They are toxic, some are dangerously so. These attractive but dangerous amphibians were given their name because some species were used by natives in the area to poison the darts for hunting and such. Dendrobates tinctorius credit: Wikimedia Commons / Olaf Leillinger ( CC BY-SA 2.5 ) So, they're dangerous to touch, and the poison some secrete can be used to make lethal weapons. This raises some interesting questions: How does the poison work? How can they survive their own poison? What came first, the poison or the resistance? The first question involves biology and chemistry, but the other two are stumpers for evolutionists, because both the poison and the resistance must be operational at the same time, or nothing makes sense, nothing works — evolutionists have no plaus

Advocates of minerals-to-microbiologist evolution are none to fond of information that contravenes their worldview. One way they do this is through outright censorship of creationary evidence . Another is to pile on misrepresentations, logical fallacies, and outright falsehoods . When caught lying, keep on lying. It's what they do. For that matter, I am convinced that many atheists and other evolutionists are afraid of creationary material, so they won't read it; some are so determined to contradict us that they will ridicule material based on a title or introduction alone — and have humiliated themselves by contradicting the evolutionary scientists they adore! CSIRO scientist sequencing DNA credit: CSIRO / Health Sciences and Nutrition Another tactic, frequently observed in leftist news media, is to ignore inconvenient truths and pretend that they do not exist. Darwin's Flying Monkeys© on the internet and other places bombard evolution skeptics with "mountains

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Proponents of vertical (universal common ancestor) evolution tend to overreach when they assemble facts, or things they believe are facts. It is illogical to extrapolate or over-generalize that if something is true in one place or thing, it is true in all similar places or things. In reality, we only know so much from what we observe, then we have to build on it to attain further knowledge. Credit: Pixabay / ghcassel Let's suppose that we had concrete, irrefutable evidence that an organism developed from simple to more complex, a textbook example of Darwinism. Okay, you got one. Evolutionists would put on their Darwin spectacles and see the world through their limited vision. However, evolutionary evidence of one thing, one time, one place would not prove that anything else evolved. Any other critter's evolution would have to be demonstrated, not assumed because of what was observed in something else. We've seen many times how evolutionists

The flap over well-preserved tissues and bones in fossils continues. Not only are more and more being found in dinosaur remains, but they are found in other fossils as well. According to materialists' dating methods, these fossils are alleged to be millions of years old, so soft tissues and such simply cannot last for such long periods of time. Unfortunately, secularists are so locked into their mindset, they have to deal from the bottom of the deck in hopes that they get a winning hand. That'll be the day! The truth is, what they continually discover debunks long ages and evolution, and supports recent the Genesis Flood and recent creation. Credit: Pixabay / suju Two creationary organizations released articles about sensational bird fossil discoveries, and I thought they were both reports on the same thing. Nope, didn't happen. So I'm giving you a twofer in this post. The first involves finding a gland that secretes oil that birds use for preening and such, and

It would be easy to think that those black and white whales (often called orcas) act in a manner similar to their appearance. That is, pretty much the same. They are actually distinct, and their groups ( clans or pods ) are different from one another. Credit: Holly Fearnbach / Alaska Fisheries Science Center / NOAA Fisheries Service (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Let's rein in for a moment and clear up a couple of things. First, they are more closely related to dolphins than whales. Second, despite a silly movie from 1977, orcas are not known to have eaten humans . Third, don't let the cute and cuddly critters doing tricks at sea amusements fool you; they are killers because these sidewinders of the sea are devious. Orcas are also fierce, eating things larger than humans, and smaller, and whatever is convenient. A large part of their hunting prowess comes from their communication abilities, and that one group cannot understand another group's

One of the common false accusations against Christians and biblical creationists is that we use "GodDidIt" as our primary argument for creation, the Genesis Flood, and so on. Not hardly! Anyone serious about learning what creationists actually believe and teach can check out the major creation science ministries (several of which are frequently linked on this site). A seeker will learn that while we believe that God "did it", creationary scientists want to know how God commenced to doing certain things.   Credit: Pixabay / PIRO4D Like their secular counterparts, scientists who believe the Bible have hypotheses and models to try and explain the historical science of their views. Also like their counterparts, creationists are not in lockstep and have disagreements about various models. Further, secular scientists have their materialistic presuppositions upon which they base their models, and creationary scientists hold to the inerrant Word of God for their pre

Something that gets the hands at the Darwin Ranch on the prod is when someone mentions the Cambrian Explosion . The Cambrian layers were supposedly formed hundreds of millions of evolutionary years ago, but there's a passel of fully formed creatures, mostly invertebrates. Evolutionists admit that the Cambrian Explosion is a problem for them, and make weak attempts to explain it away . Some of the cant from anti-creationists is simply dismissive, such as, "The Cambrian? You mean that era which contained nothing but small marine organisms?" If such a remark is serious, it indicates a lack of knowledge of fossils and also the Darwinian mythology that the user espouses. (I reckon that those folks feel compelled to contra dict creationists, even when it means contradicting evolutionists as well.) Paleontologists and other fossil hunters expect to see marine organisms, since those comprise the overwhelming majority of all fossils. (Interestingly, there are comparatively few

Proponents of atoms-to-astronomer evolution often tell the world that there are "mountains of evidence" for their interpretations of scientific evidence. Those of us who believe in biblical creation science know that those mountains are molehills, and the evidence not only refutes evolution, but supports creation. Government indoctrination centers (also called "schools") and other sources of information saddle people with the idea that we are the products of time, chance, random processes, mutations, and the like. Live has no meaning, there is no ultimate justice, and when you die, you're worm food. This materialistic worldview actively rejects the Creator, who gives us meaning, there is ultimate justice and Judgment. Logic and science are impossible in a materialistic worldview, and only the biblical worldview makes sense of life, and makes logic, science, love, and other intangible aspects of our daily lives possible. Taking an honest look a

Way back when, I lived in small a Michigan town on the shore of the lake that shares that state's name. There was a park on the shore, informally known as "G Park", short for "Giraffe Park", because teenagers would go there for a long necking session. You know, making lip lock. "Does this have anything to do with creation and evolution, Cowboy Bob?" Not really. So anyway, as many of y'all know, evolution wasn't created by Charles Darwin . Lamarck suggested that physical changes were inherited by offspring. Darwin rejected this, but he backtracked and included some of Lamarck's concepts in his later writings. One of the rejected ideas of Lamarck was that giraffes developed long necks by stretching to eat leaves on trees. That idea was justifiably dismissed. Credit: Freeimages / Leslie van Veenhuyzen However, evolutionists still cannot lasso an explanation for the giraffe's neck. Some are dancing in the dark with Lamarck, a