Piltdown Superman

The post " On the Origin of New Diseases " linked to an article that discussed, from a scientific and biblical perspective, how and why we are seeing new diseases. The article featured below is companion to it. Scoffers often claim that since bad things exist today, there is no loving God and that these are evidence for evolution. Some things such as ticks, Lyme disease, and the so-called brain-eating amoeba  are a challenge for creationists, we try to answer questions from our presuppositions — like our secular counterparts. Female black-legged tick, CDC /  Jim Gathany (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Yes, many things are bad today , but that does not necessarily mean God created them the way they are now. (Darwinists evosplain such things with the vacuous "It evolved" non-answer .) Like everything else, ticks have mutations. Comparing them to mites, ticks may have originally been plant eaters and decomposers in the original very-good creation. T

Proponents of universal common descent evolution have a passel of stories to tell, but they have nasty habits of circular reasoning (assuming evolution to prove evolution), neglecting basic facts, and making a passel of assumptions. When scientists say that they have evidence, look for examples. Anti-creationists take the material without using critical thinking skills or asking questions, then tell biblical creationists, "Proof of whale evolution! Take that , creationists!" Not hardly! Watch for evolution of the gaps (they hope information will be found) and speculations. Freeimages /  Kym Parry The just-so story of whale evolution goes back to when life supposedly evolved in the oceans, had innumerable beneficial mutations and natural selection, then something took a notion to go back into the sea, had additional mutations and natural selection, and out popped whales. Latest tweaks for the story involve speculations about how nasal passages moved during evolution and that t

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Many years ago, I asked someone to criticize an article I had written. He replied, "No, but I will critique it." Then I learned that criticize has a connotation of negativity, but a critique can be positive and constructive . The term constructive criticism  is often mere criticism and not constructive. While a critique is most commonly known for art and literature, it is also useful when discussing science and writing papers. Critiques help determine if claims are supported or where the material is lacking. Creationists critique evolutionary material. Pexels / fauxels (seriously?), modified with FotoSketcher In my article on debate challenges , I emphasized some things learned from Dr. James R. White. In a true  debate, there is structure and some amount of graciousness. Debaters work on the material presented instead of taking cheap shots at the people. (I'll allow that it's very difficult to remain clinical when discussing deceivers and v

Purveyors of molecules-to-mammals evolution tend to get on the prod when creationists and the Intelligent Design folks point out things that clearly indicate intelligent design. (One example is  cellular machinery .) Their dogma is that things only appear  designed. To be blunt, that is galactically stupid. We frequently find examples of the Master Engineer's brilliance and of specified complexity, and to keep saying they only appear designed is cultlike. Or maybe mental illness. A new example is echolocation and the speed of sound. USFWS / Ann Froschauer  via Pixnio (none of these endorse site contents) Bats have always been recalcitrant toward the desires of evolutionists, as the fossil record shows that they have remained bats through millions of Darwin years . Now it has been demonstrated that bats are hardwired for echolocation, and they do not adapt well to changes in environments. That reveals design, not evolution and environment. Bats have the amazing ability to accurately

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Once again, I had an inspiration from an unlikely source when my mind wandered off all by its lonesome. I have no idea why I was on the rabbit trail, but I was looking up When Worlds Collide . The book by that name was written by Philip Wylie and Edwin Balmer in 1933. Bookstores have it, and used copies can be had. Try your library. A movie based on the book was made in 1951, and that can also be found. Pixabay /  Neypomuk-Studios The genre of science fiction has a dilemma: Keep the science in it, or skip reality to garner more sales. Some manage to balance storytelling with science and speculative science, but willing suspension of disbelief is still necessary. Not as much as comic book superhero stuff, though. Sometimes people want to shut off reason so they can have fun, or mayhaps guys want to look at Scarlett Johannsson. Discourteous Celestial Objects In the book version of When Worlds Collide , two rogue planets are going to make life on Earth a mite diff

Goo-to-geneticist evolution is usually portrayed as settled science with a few kinks to be worked out, and yee haw boy howdy, new discoveries support it. In reality, not much in science is settled. Evolutionists are constantly slapping leather with each other over important details. People accept the views popularized in the secular science media, so it may come as a shock that the dominant  Out of Africa (or Recent African Origin ) model is disputed and has several variations. It also has serious flaws . FreeDigitalPhotos /  sheelamohan After the RAO model was galloping along, DNA sequencing caused several problems and four main subdivisions were developed. Those didn't solve the problem of mitochondrial and  Y-chromosome genetic clocks that were refuting it. Creation scientists did a passel of work that secular scientists were neglecting, and found that data corresponds to the biblical population models going back to Babel. That brings up the unthinkable to secularists: more str

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  A great deal of noise was heard all through Deception Pass, and was even noticed all the way down to Stinking Lake. The hands at the Darwin Ranch were celebrating, and foreman Rusty Swingset even bought both fire water and cheese curls. This was in response to the news that people in the formerly United States embrace evolution. (At least, to some extent.) The question in a survey to which they responded was a mite disingenuous. Efforts at indoctrination were having the desired results. It seems to this child that there would be more of a push to get people educated in science, mathematics, and basic reading skills, since our academic achievements in those areas would satisfy the Greek philosopher Mediocrates . Also, was there a concerted effort to convince people to believe in actual, demonstrable science facts? Not hardly! No, it is more important to get people to believe in fish-to-fool evolution. The primary worldview in the secular science industry is mate