Piltdown Superman

It had been quite a spell since Lisa Myworries, Winkie Guard supervisor at the Darwin Ranch, had stopped by my place. (She has been having doubts about evolution but keeps quiet because she needs her job.) The head of their Ministry of Truth, Russell Watchtower, said a study on mutations is bad news for the creationist view on genetic entropy . (That is, harmful mutations are building up at a known rate and we should be extinct by now.) Roundworms do not seem bothered by Chernobyl radiation. Large roundworms, Wikimedia Commons / Alaa ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) The explosion at the plant released large amounts of radiation, which caused areas to be evacuated. Workers got radiation poisoning, which led to the deaths of several. Other people were also affected. Roundworms did not seem bothered by the radiation, so some evolutionary tinhorns inferred that genetic entropy was not valid. This also helps their view of mutations helping evolution. Problem is, humans are not roundworms . (These are supp

Despite the persistent straw man accusations of anti-creationists, we are not content to say, "GodDidIt, case closed!" While creation scientists believe that God did something, they want to know how  he did it. They look for scientific answers first. Not that those are superior, as we presuppose the truth of the Bible. Unlike Darwin's disciples who presuppose naturalism and say, "Case closed," creationists and Intelligent Design theorists appeal to the miraculous when that is the logical conclusion. Both secular and creation scientists ponder biogeography — just how did  koalas and other marsupials get to 'Straya? Koala eating, RGBStock / Richard Dudley (modified at Imgflip ) Creationist explanations for biogeography are superior to those of secularists, as the methods of animal travel they propose are inadequate — even though the quantity of marsupials in Australia is somehow considered evidence for evolution. The debate is not easy for either side since e

As stated before, biomimetics  is when scientists observe in nature and try to imitate certain abilities or characteristics of organisms for our purposes. Hummingbird wing motions for use in aerial vehicles, the navigability and structure in the boxfish, woodpeckers for brain cushions , and a passel of other things. Military minds are always on the lookout for developments that can give an edge over enemies, and it is surprising that butterflies are being studied. Another surprise is that the research is not for flight, but for submarines. Monarch butterfly, Pixnio / Nextreader Creationists have used butterflies as examples of the Master Engineer's brilliance during the amazing metamorphosis time, and also how monarchs have amazing migration . Like some other critters, monarchs tune in to the earth's magnetic field — but these venture to a place they've never been! These small, delicate creatures are a problem for universal common descent evolution. You can probably think

Dating methods are fraught with problems. Secular scientists admit it on occasion. Also, the conflicting results and poor reasoning are brought to the fore by biblical creation scientists. Historical records are suspect because victors often write history, and in ancient times, often embellished the stories. Archaeometric dating is a reasonable idea at first glance. Ancient artifacts often contain bits of iron, and when it is heated (such as when cities were burned), the conditions of Earth's magnetic field are shown. Sounds like a plausible way to calibrate a dating method. Clay brick inscribed with the name of Nebuchadnezzar II, WikiComm / Dr. Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) It doesn't work. Secular scientists make a number of assumptions, primarily uniformitarianism ("the present is the key to the past") and deep time. The magnetic field of the earth was stronger in the past, but there were times of great changes in it. Observations and models of bibli

Although most are reluctant to admit it, proponents of descent with modifications evolution believe in a heapin' helpin' of luck. But luck is not a lady for them in regards to life forming without a Creator, that our sun is well-behaved, Earth's perfect orbit, and more. When considering individual creatures and their survival skills, evolutionists evosplain what is observed and imply luck helped. Their own narrative does not work. For instance, the abilities of the bombardier beetle must be in place all at the same time for the insect to live. Consider some of the residents of Grand Canyon. Horned Lizard, Wikimedia Commons / Room237 ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) The homely horned lizard has camouflage, is hard to digest — and can squirt blood out of its eyes on target at a predator. (Internet anti-creationists act that way in social(ist) media comments.) Although nothing like the roadrunner of cartoon fame, this bird really does run down the road. It also can grab a striking rattlesna

Charles Darwin has been long portrayed as a great scientist, and his brilliant observations led to insightful theories that changed the world. It has been rightly observed that he is adored above scientists who have actually contributed something for the betterment of humanity. Atheists and evolutionists often become angry when people make parodies or satirize Darwin, and especially when people point out how evolution increased racism. Telling the truth about a man that secularists treat like a religious icon is a serious offense to them. Charles Darwin, street hobo with guitar, AI generated at Img2Go His version of natural selection as a creative force was not accepted by the scientific community at first. Papa Darwin promised to provide support for the material he published, but that did not happen. Could the fact that he never had formal scientific training have anything to do with it? He got by with a little help from his friends and did not end up being a hobo playing guitar for

It seems that many people do not know the difference between concrete and cement, so here is the hard truth. There are several stages involved in making concrete , the porous stuff that people drive on or live in. It begins with limestone, which is thought to take millions of years to form. Limestone and a silica source are heated, then the result is ground to powder. Other ingredients are added. When this mixture is going to be turned into concrete, cement , water, and other things are mixed in to make the concrete. Algae is turning those deep-time assumption upside-down. Coccolithophore bloom SW of Ireland, Flickr / NASA Goddard Space Flight Center ( CC BY 2.0 ) Coccolithophores  are marine algae that build protective shells around themselves. The shells of these bad boys make chalk (a form of limestone) deposits, and uniformitarian scientists say chalk takes millions of years to form. Not in this case! Further, coccolithophores could have been producing huge quantities of the stuff

For some reason, I was invited out to the Darwin Ranch to meet the new hand. It was a mite late and the shadows cast by the setting sun at Deception Pass made the going a bit slow. Once I arrived, foreman Rusty Swingset and his assistant Cliff Swallows had me meet Crappie Crankbait. It seems that Crappie is a specialist in aquatic dinosaur-age creatures. He found it interesting that this is the Year of the Dragon according to the Chinese Zodiac, and recent research on a Chinese dinosaur fossil seems to fit right in. Dinocephalosaurus orientalis , Wikimedia Commons / Nobumichi Tamura ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) (modified) Scientists actually used the word  dragon  regarding this critter because the long neck is somewhat similar to the long necks in portrayals of Chinese dragons. This is not exactly a new animal, but a few more fossils have been found. Sure does look like a plesiosaur, but paleontologists insist that D. orientalis  is not related and lazily invoke " convergent evolution "

Another title I never imagined that I would use. A few scientists have been thinking that perhaps some things have consciousness, even cells themselves. We should not be entirely surprised, then, that the question has been raised whether or not fungi have free will. Wait, what? Many people would consider that idea a mite goofy, but in the true  spirit of science and inquiry, put presuppositions and assumptions on hold for a spell. Creation Science, Intelligent Design, plate tectonics, the flood that carved out the Channeled Scablands , and others were originally rejected. Orange Bracket Fungi, Flickr / Bernard Spragg NZ (public domain) "Hey, look! Some mushrooms came up out of the ground after last night's heavy rain! I dare you to eat one!" Best not to do that. Fungi come in many shapes, sizes, and forms. This means they are very common. It's natural to assume they don't have cognition, let alone, free will. To consider the free will question, other questions sh

"He's heading for that space station." "That's no space station, it's a small moon." The secular science industry is all a-twitter about space probe information from Mimas, suggesting there is water under its surface. Interesting that the big crater named Herschel shows an impact that, if it were any stronger, this moon of Saturn would be crumbs. Believers in cosmic evolution seem to believe that if water is found, there will be life. Though the origin of life cannot be explained on Earth, it must have happened elsewhere in the universe. Because evolution. The Farce is strong in them... Mimas, NASA / JPL / Space Science Institute, modified at PhotoFunia (usage does not imply endorsement by anyone) It seems that whenever news arrives that is disastrous to deep-time beliefs, adherents put on happy faces and claim to be excited. Like paleontologists that skirt around the problem of dinosaur soft tissues, these jaspers divert people's attention. Some a

Humor can be fascinating when you step back and look at it, wondering why  something is funny. We often laugh because we were taken by surprise. For that matter, sometimes we laugh when something is not all that funny but because we want to , and it helps us bond with others. There is a huge variety in what people consider humorous. I dislike those video collections of people falling and getting hurt, but the audiences are roaring with delight. Although I do not get feedback on it, I put humor in many posts that is often very subtle. The Laughing Cavalier / Frans Hals, 1624 People may "get" jokes because of their knowledge and experiences, and some may appeal to those who are more intellectually inclined. Also note that humor changes in individuals and cultures. F'rinstance, slapstick comedy was extremely popular in the early 20th century, but is seldom used now. I am known at my workplace for using quick plays on words. One reason is that there is seldom time to stand a

When someone mentions pelican , the most common feature that probably comes to mind is the pouch in the beak. A few other birds have them, and some animals have similar features. Pelicans use the pouch to store food, a change of feathers, passports, credit cards, smartphones — "Stop that, Cowboy Bob!" The pouches are used in getting food essentially by scooping, then their muscles squeeze out the water. This is a great way to present dinner to the young'uns. But there are several other amazing features of pelicans that show design and bother evolution. Pelican, Flickr / Charles Patrick Ewing ( CC BY 2.0 ) Different kinds of pelicans exist and they are found on almost every continent.Big birds, but surprisingly light. The hollow bones of birds are constructed to withstand the stresses encountered in their lives. Some pelicans can dive into the water, and they don't go to pieces. As for flying, they can utilize the thermals and have amazing energy efficiency. Evolution

In some ways, being born homosexual is a "gotcha" situation to condemn God. That is, if he created people that way, then he is wrong to say that their lifestyles are sinful. Proponents say that gay behavior that appears homosexual is seen in animals, so a hasty generalization is made to justify it in human behavior. People have long wondered what causes homosexuality. Many speculations have been proposed, including a "gay gene" — which does not exist (look it up). Perhaps it has a basis in biology? There has been a great deal of research in this area. Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, no gay gene, based on Sidney Paget (1893) with Clker clipart added It is not surprising to this child that research and studies were faulty. Geneticists tried to pinpoint a cause, and studies were undertaken regarding biological causes. The studies were poorly conducted, the best results being that more research is needed but with larger sample groups. The word  gay  was appropriated f

If someone gets a notion to saddle up and ride to the extreme northeast of the US, going on through Maine in a certain place will get them to the Canadian province of New Brunswick. Some fossilized plants were found there that paleontologists described as "enigmatic." One reason for this wording is that they show an extreme amount of detail, which seems to be increasingly common among fossils nowadays. In addition, scientists were surprised at the complexity of the fossilized plants. Neither of these facts are surprising to creationists. Fossilized water fern (image adjusted), Fossil Butte, Wyoming, National Park Service (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Yet again, secular paleontologists are assuming deep time and evolution, which in turn dictates the way they interpret evidence. Creationists have the same evidence, but presuppose recent creation and biblical truth in their interpretations (see " What is Really Seen from the Webb Telescope " for

Watching or reading material on dinosaurs from secular sources, the story that they evolved into birds frequently comes up. Many things are ignored, including how birds and dinosaurs existed at the same time but museums disingenuously omit this in their displays . Dino-to-bird evolution is also presented as a subject of scientific unity. False. Not only creationists, but some secular scientists reject it. They are not allowed to eat dinner with the big people, and have to scarf it down from paper plates while standing in the alley outside the main hall. Imagined dinosaur bird, Pixabay / Tirriko Evolutionists get mighty sneaky. If they can't prove something, change the facts — or in this case, definitions of dinosaurs  and birds . Presupposing dinosaurs evolved into birds, now we have "non-avian dinosaurs" in the definition. They require trust, but deceive people. Delving into creation science material on dino-to-bird evolution reveals numerous difficulties that changing l

Something that puts a burr under my saddle is the insistence by evolutionists that we did not come from monkeys, and creationists do not want us to say that, either. It is because we are to accurately represent what they believe. Okay, I get that. But it gets a bit difficult. Study on this: Our alleged ancestors and relatives sure did look like monkeys, and some had tails. Specifically, evolutionists say that although monkeys, apes, and humans had a common ancestor, we diverged millions of years ago — and we lost our tails somewhere along the line. Ring-tailed lemur, Pexels / Magda Ehlers Which  supposed ancestor and when  the tail loss occurred, nobody knows. There is no evidence, but the story requires these things. A loyal Darwinist in the media wrote, indicating that there is kinda-sorta a link between tail loss and a birth defect, and genetics. Sounds like faith. Unfortunately, the faith of secularists is in their narrative, and whatever it takes to deny the work of the Creator. A

There is an interest in looking at living things from an engineering perspective, which places evolutionary ideas of time, chance, mutations, and luck closer and closer to the rubbish bin. We have discussed how engineering concepts relate to creation several times. Parametric design  is used in several ways, using parameters  (see what they did there?) in algorithms (sets of instructions). This method has been helpful in architecture. It also fits quite well with intelligent design and works quite well with engineering considerations in creation. Spinal column, Pixabay / Clker-Free-Vector-Images Creation itself shows design. Not only design, but advance planning where living things grow and develop, often adapting to changes. There are many things in biology that show growth where things have to be in place so the critter can survive. Consider the human spinal column: Vertebrae and such need to grow from simpler cells, all the way to adulthood. No, evolution has no place here. The Mast

Secular cosmologists, cosmogonists, and astronomers are frequently astonished when their expectations are not supported by space exploration. So are deep-time creationists and many in the Intelligent Design community. They expect to see evidence supporting their beliefs in cosmic evolution. There were high hopes that the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) would reveal the primordial universe. Galaxies still forming, stars with only the lightest elements, and certain aspects of the redshift. Instead, they were astonished — again — and rescuing devices ensued. M80 galaxy, Flickr / NASA's James Webb Space Telescope ( CC BY 2.0 ) Over ten years ago, some atheopaths started a Page on Fakebook for the purpose of attacking me personally because of my stand on biblical creation science. (Attack the person instead of rationally dealing with the content...it's who they are and what they do.) I had written that there is no evidence of stars forming, and they found a secular piece that cla

Atheists and other anti-creationists use Stephen Jay Gould's claim that the panda has an ineffective thumb as an argument against creation and Intelligent Design, but this dysteleology fails in several areas. One should be glaring obvious: Why would a bear need a thumb like humans have? The comparison is not valid, as we are different creatures with different life niches. Gould and subsequent followers claim that it is a scientific refutation of creation and ID, but it is not a scientific argument ! It is philosophical — really, it is theological. Modified from "Giant Panda Tai Shan" /  Fernando Revilla / Wikimedia Commons Misotheists are very fond of "bad design" arguments, which is silly. They do not believe God exists, but presume to fault him for things in nature that (in their unhumble opinions ) are flawed. Those of us who use presuppositional apologetics can show that anti-creationists are not consistent with their own belief system, especially when they

People have been trying for some time now to give legal status to parts of nature, which most folks find...truly bizarre.  Rivers can file lawsuits , an  elephant was declared a person for a while , and more. At least Utah and some other states are not participating in this madness . Yet. Nature "rights" are rooted in evolutionary beliefs. Think about it: We all evolved from a common ancestor, so humans are not special — and not created in the image of God. Indeed, many environmentalists are actually  engaging in goddess worship . Now we are to talk to trees? Dead trees, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen People giving legal status to things in nature lower the status of humans, and wanting to talk to trees is not helping matters. Yes, they have their own communications systems, but denizens of the Wood Wide Web are not exactly having discussions or developing a culture. Yet some evolutionists think that every living thing has intelligence. An image of vegetables floating around

Some of the hands from the Darwin Ranch traveled down from Deception Pass and gone into town to celebrate. Rusty Swingset, the foreman, was even paying for their drinks. The reason? Some evolutionists had used education, technology, and skill in making a hybrid plant receptor, supposedly demonstrating no intelligence or Designer was necessary. Study on that a spell. Good science is often tainted by worthless efforts to prove evolution. Plants pay attention to their environment with receptors, and two of them control development and immunity. Woodland sunflower, Unsplash / Cowboy Bob Sorensen It is not an isolated incident. Instead, faulty logic, incomplete evidence, materialistic presuppositions, and more are common. For that matter, part of our DNA was called "junk" by tinhorns who did not know what they were doing and used a faulty dataset. Other Darwinists gleefully joined in and added their two grotzits-worth of opinions "Junk" DNA became the consensus — and it