Piltdown Superman

When the word shark  is mentioned, people may think of certain movies involving man-eaters with powerful bites. There are over 300 species of sharks but only a dozen are dangerous to humans. (In a ludicrous example of appealing to Darwin, NOAA said that they evolved before we did, so that is why we are not usually on the menu !*) Checking sources on which animals have the strongest bite force yielded disagreement, but the Great White was the only shark on those lists . Tiger Shark, Flickr / Oregon State University, N. Hammerschlag ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ), modified at PhotoFunia Evolutionists wanted to make Charles Darwin smile so they studied a variety of shark jaws. The researchers claimed that habitat and prey shaped their jaw evolution. (The fact that sharks have always been sharks and there is no sign of evolution should have given them pause on asserting jaw evolution, but that's none of my business.) No, old son, the Master Engineer designed them to adapt, and calling what is found

Regular readers have seen how the secular science industry is supporting leftist causes, and how evolution is the centerpiece on the table. This child wants to keep political matters to other weblogs, but when secularists infuse themselves into policy making, things need to be discussed. Once again, it should be said that genuine  environmental concerns are well in keeping with biblical creation principles , but leftist politicians are taking environmentalism to extremes. Elitists in the secular science industry are joining in to further the agenda. Range of the Caucasus mountains , Ivan Aivazovsky, 1869 Biblical creationists point out how believers in descent-with-modifications evolution play fast 'n' loose with their definitions. They tend to broaden them so that variation, speciation, and other changes (which are compatible with creation science) are deceitfully termed evolution  so people will think that Darwin was right. It's who they are and what they do. Similar word

There was a great deal of excitement about the James Webb Space Telescope, understandable when people saw some amazing images it produced. These were adjusted from the infrared. While it spends a great deal of time looking for extrasolar planets, JWST is also used for closer images. We recently considered the young rings of Saturn and the surprisingly warm moons of Jupiter , and more recently, the JWST revealed something startling from Enceladus, a moon of Saturn. It has been known that it shoots ice geysers ( troubling old universe philosophies ) — and now this. Geyser Basin of Enceladus, NASA et al. , colorized at Palette (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by anyone) A geyser was seen shooting farther than seen or expected, and it wasn't just ice. Organic chemicals were involved. Where they came from was obviously the subject of speculation, but secular scientists consistently ignore the elephant on the moon. That is, how could this activity be going on today if

When Grand Canyon is mentioned, most people probably know about the one in Arizona. There are other canyons that could be considered grand, but they are hidden away — under Greenland ice and others are underwater . They may be grander, but people can visit the famous one. Secularists say it refutes creation science Flood geology, assuming uniformitarianism (slow and gradual processes) to claim that it was carved by the Colorado River ( including Wikedpedia ) . Interesting that they cling to that story even though it denies science. Colorado River and Grand Canyon, US Geological Survey (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) "Okay, smart guy, how do creationists explain how it formed?" The global Genesis Flood provides the best explanation for the evidence. That statement is unsatisfyingly simple as an explanation. In fact, creationists are divided on how it formed. One view is that water built up during the Ice Age in lakes, then the natural dams breached. From

Time and time again, evidence shows that the solar system is nowhere near the billions of years in age that secularists expect. Using their calculations, they can only get millions, not billions of years for the rings of Saturn . The moons of Jupiter add further damage to deep-time thinking. The four largest moons (one of which is bigger than the planet Mercury) are giving off heat. According to uniformitarian views and secular planetary formation, this is a cosmic evolution puzzler. Secular scientists need to provide plausible explanations. Jupiter and moons composite, NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) The moons are plenty cold for someone who may try to stand on the surface. Evidence indicates that the warmth is deep inside. How? They cannot have leftover warmth from their formation in the standard timescale. Radioactive decay? Doubtful. Tidal heating because of gravity? Maybe, but it requires conditions inside the moons to be exactly right. Then there's t

A spell back, I met up with Stormie Waters and Roland Meadows to discuss (yet again) plans for their upcoming nuptials. When I mentioned stingrays, Stormie expressed disgust and mumbled about Steve Irwin . People seem to have been conditioned or have developed what I call the "Eww Factor," where something is labeled as repulsive. Those get interesting with familiarity. Researchers must put aside bad feelings for the sake of study. Ever notice that conservation efforts focus on cute critters, but not things people consider unpleasant? Honeycomb Stingray, Flickr / Arend ( CC BY 2.0 ) On space opera television and movies, alien races often consider humans hideous. Put feeling aside and appreciate living things for what they are. As long as they're attractive to each other and keep the species alive, that matters more than our opinions. When researchers get into the joys of discovery, they find unique abilities of "ugly" things and even ways that humanity can benef

As biblical creationists have pointed out for quite some time, the study of origins is historical in nature. Both creationists and evolutionists use science in their efforts to determine what happened way back when. Something I learned from Ken Ham at a creation science seminar many years ago was the simple question, "Were you there?" (I used it in presentations of my own as well.) A follow-up question is, "Do you know anyone who was there?" Asking this cuts through a wagon train-load of bluster and assertions, and evolutionists get mighty agitated. Night sky, Pixnio / pattomolina They dislike it because some folks think for themselves instead of accepting evolutionary propaganda. It also puts a bit of pressure on secularists, and we need to keep that up. Evolutionists and atheists appeal to the authority of evolutionary and deep-time scientists, but they usually evosplain things and expect people to accept it. "Were you there?" also reveals the lack for c

Yet again, the more living things are studied, the more scientists realize how intricate they are. Neurons (nerve cells) are what make the brain and nervous system operate . They make sense of and direct sensory input so the brain can make use of it. This involves all sorts of steps in the electrical signals for information to be processed. Neurons talk to each other. They have a bit of a resemblance to a tree, so imagine trees sending signals through branches to communicate. Neuron art, Pixabay / Colin Behrens .jpg Some interesting research on neurons opens up several possibilities on the functions of certain neurons, and of the complexity of the brain as a whole. If materialists were not locked into their paradigms, they might begin to realize that we have an infinitely wise and powerful Creator that has made amazing things, and how time, chance, and random processes cannot explain them. Who isn’t curious, at some level at least, about how human brains process all the complicated inp

Several months ago, we examined how the Dunning-Kruger effect, frequent fodder for anti-Christian and anti-creationist remarks, has been debunked . You know the routine: A Christian makes a statement of fact and atheopaths talk to each other as if the Christian was not seeing it, saying he is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Or it is a direct insult. People who do this are not citing science. (More like they got it from the seventh planet.) The D-K effect took another hit. This time, from mathematics. Partially made at ImgFlip , plus a great deal of editing The key point for Dunning and Kruger was that people don't know that they don't know. This came from a use of statistics. In that peer-reviewed paper, those fellas did it wrong. Now it is refuted three ways. Something this child has enjoyed is showing misotheists who think they are smarter than they really are is that they are using an ad hominem  from fake science. It also illustrates how atheists and evolutionists

There was a critter on the Falkland Islands that puzzled Charles Darwin and others, since it seemingly should not be there. It had several names such as the warrah, Falkland Islands wolf/fox. It became extinct partly because people wanted to kill it to own its fur. Some pinheads thought it was a threat to sheep. Stuffed specimens exist in museums, and some interesting research involved taking samples of their mitochondrial DNA and comparing it (and mutations) with South American canids. The Warrah may have been a descendant of the maned wolf. Falkland Islands warrah/fox/wolf, WikiComm / John Gerrard Keulemans (public domain), modified at Pixlr So how and when did it get to the Falklands? The DNA testing is problematic for adherents of deep time because it conflicts with when secularists say canids entered South America. There is speculation that the warrah crossed land bridges, or possibly rafted on floating vegetation. New evidence suggests that Fuegian Indians were in the Falklands