Piltdown Superman

Proponents of molecules-to-milliner evolution are still having problems overcoming the original hurdle: the origin of life. Some even try to rework the failed Miller-Urey experiment , and others try to find different ways to justify the non-science of abiogenesis. One desperate idea was to invoke a kind of intelligent design by space aliens . Oh, please!  Image credit: Pixabay / Alexas_Fotos Some owlhoots try to distance themselves by resorting to the canard that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. Sure, pilgrim. You want us to spot you the most difficult part, and then you'll take the bit in your teeth and run with it from there. Claiming that abiogenesis (also known as chemical evolution ) is irrelevant is, I believe, blatantly dishonest, since they should know that the origin of life is in evolution textbooks, on documentaries, and so on. Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes A more rational idea involves primordial liquid drople

UPDATE D :   Four  links added below the featured article , and another important update was added 11 April 2017. A reader of The Question Evolution Project contacted me about the "big news" that NASA discovered seven new planets that are in what is called the habitable zone. I had not investigated the story very much since these stories tend to be ridiculous: "It's Earth's twin, except it would be like living in lava ". I chose to wait for a response from a creationist organization so I didn't have to step in piles of evolutionary dogma and hysteria, and the wait paid off, as you'll see below. Possible surface of TRAPPIST-1f, credits: NASA/JPL-Caltech Secularists go daffy over news of possible planets in the habitable zone, and their lapdog press joins in the fun by spreading exciting but actually very fake news. Many speculations, but only a thimbleful of actual science. Why the excitement? So secularists can deny that Earth is a s

Scientists who believe in scum-to-skeptic evolutionism spend a whole heap of time searching for evidence of common ancestry. Various "transitional forms" have been proposed, but none are undisputed, even among evolutionists. What could be considered the Holy Grail for evolution has been called LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor, which came about through abiogenesis (chemical evolution). Image credit: Morguefile / mconnors Some scientists think they've found LUCA, but are in sharp disagreement about where it is found. Also, they are using circular reasoning from their faulty presuppositions. This putative ancestor of all living things will never be found because it does not exist: life was Created, and this is the logical conclusion derived from the scientific evidence as well as the clear teaching of the Bible. Evolutionists believe the microbe LUCA was the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all living things.  Some evolutionists believe they know

Sometimes, it's mighty nice to have a copy of something. To make a copy, you need the necessary equipment, such as a computer, printing press, or somesuch. I have a series of s teps to obtain articles: go to the Web article, send it to the e-book reader, then convert it using te xt-to-speech into an MP3. For copies of other objects, you need skill, imagination, special equipment — here, I'm thinking of biomimetics , where nature inspires man-made applications. When we copy a feature of something that God designed, it's clunky at best when compared to the original. Image credit: Pixabay / Patrice_Audet One of the strongest indications of life is that something is able to reproduce itself. You know, like make young 'uns. Even at the cellular level, copying happens. The Evo Sith disingenuously try to distance themselves from abiogenesis (the origin of life), because the origin of cells, and the steps needed in reproduction (not to mention evolving into higher life

To hear proponents of goo-to-gunslinger evolution talk, evolution is a random, unguided process. They also present it as something that has a kind of will and decision-making ability; a Gnostic-type demiurge, if you will. Evolution is also a sort of irresistible force — except when it isn't. The inconsistencies of the paradigm help illustrate the weakness of the paradigm. Amoeba lassoes a bacterium for chow. Image credit: CDC / Dr. Barry S. Fields , who are not endorsing these here contents Some Darwinoids got themselves all agitated when a multicellular fossils was found and dated way, way back yonder. Dubious dating methods aside, there are still some basic questions that evolutionists are unable to answer: how and why would unicellular organisms have any need of evolving? These organisms are getting along right well, and even if you give evolutionists the existences of unicellular organisms (including abiogenesis to start the whole life thing going), they cannot expla

The hands at the Darwin Ranch get a mite agitated when the discussion turns to stromatolites. They get big and bold, claiming that stromatolites support evolution, but in reality, stromatolites support the Genesis Flood models of biblical creationists and refute evolution . Wikimedia Commons / Didier Descouins This time, the consternation involves chemical evolution (abiogenesis, the alleged origin of life). Stromatolites have been dated a few zillion Darwin years old, back to a fictitious time when life was unable to evolve in the first place. Nice of them to continue to debunk their own conjectures for us, isn't it? May as well admit it, old son: life did not evolve, that's why there's no evidence to support your faith. Life was created on this here planet, made special for us. Perhaps the greatest problem for evolution is where and how the first biomolecules and cells originated by means of random processes. And if that problem wasn't substantial enough—es

Evolutionary scientists work on the origin of life, but they raise more questions than answers. Their conferences don't seem to help matters a whole lot. Despite evidence against them from both secular and creation science sources, some scientists are clinging tenaciously to a couple of dominant conjectures on abiogenesis (chemical evolution); how life arose on Earth. Assembled at Atom Smasher Even the simplest forms of life are extremely complex, and contain a great deal of information so they can function. One bit of speculation involved an "RNA World" of primordial soup, so a special RNA enzyme was produced in a lab. Right, so highly-controlled conditions by people with schooling and specialized equipment, assuming what the world's conditions were like at the beginning, have been able to prove that this one enzyme happened by chance. See " Life from an 'RNA World'? " for more on this idea. Then we have the hot down south hydrothermal ven

Every few years, the hands at the Darwin Ranch attend conferences about the origin of life. This is done because they bring along their materialistic presuppositions, ask a lot of questions, then look for materialist answers for those questions. Any success? That'll be the day! Early Earth artist's conception image credit: Don Dixon / NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center Since they have decided to leave the Creator out of the equation, they wind up with a passel of questions on how life began, it's evolvability, how it can emerge from chemistry and physics, and other details. Many questions, many scientists, many views. Creationists can sit back and watch them commence to shooting it out among themselves, and then we can pick up useful refutation material that they use on each other . They cannot get real answers because they start from atheistic presuppositions. The Origin of Life (OoL) community aspires to discover chemical evolution or abiogenesis. This is the s

Research scientist Jacob Haqq-Misra wrote an article that appeared in the Boston Globe  on September 11, 2016 about the origin of life called " A better theory of intelligent design ". (I wonder why something of this nature was in a newspaper like that instead of in a more specialized publication.) Makes it sound like something new and impressive, what with being written by a scientist and appearing in a prestigious newspaper and all. Not hardly. Turns out that it was actually a rehash of old news while slapping leather with biblical creationists and Intelligent Design proponents. The ideas of panspermia (simple life that came from outer space) has been around for a long time. Since goo-to-guru evolutionists cannot account for the origin of life (abiogenesis)  here, it must have begun out yonder.  Somehow, existing life in space hitched a ride on a meteorite or something and survived the flaming crash to Earth. Such an idea just won't work . That doesn't solve th

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Greek mythology tells us that Achilles was a great warrior and was invulnerable except in his heel. When Paris, son of the king and queen of Troy, shot him in the heel, he was able to be killed . This gave rise to the expression Achilles' heel to indicate someone's weakest point. Common-ancestor evolution has a passel of weak points, and several of them are quite serious. Disclaimer: none. I bought Evolution's Achilles' Heels all by my lonesome, so I received no benefits for writing this here review. Just over a year ago, I gave a favorable review of the 96-minute documentary by the same name , and it's fitting that I write about the book as well. I reckon that because people are enamored with credentials and such, the good folks at Creation Ministries International didn't give scoffers the excuse of saying someone is "not a scientist" — the book has nine Ph.D. scientists, and the documentary ups the ante to fifteen.

Ever hear of an oddsmaker ? It's someone who predicts the outcomes of games, contests, and sets the odds for betting. "Ten dollars on Snorting Sally in the fourth at 8:5". If you go to a casino, spend some time beforehand and look up your odds of winning — usually quite poor. You may do better at poker because you have human competitors and can watch their "tells". Image made at Atom Smasher Oddsmakers need information to work with, and there's math involved, of course. Many details need to be considered. For something to evolve, there needs to be something to evolve from. When it comes to the origin of life, the information is getting bleaker all the time. It comes down to the cells, and even further, to the genome. The minimum number of cells for an organism to survive needs to be known, which involves sequencing genomes, gene expression, and several other items. It's a losing gamble to even consider that chemical evolution is possible. The sma

The hands at the Darwin Ranch down Deception Pass way have been hitting the firewater again and telling tall tales — and getting paid. Wild speculation has been recorded and presented as "science", but there's a bit of disagreement with someone spoiling the celebration by bringing up a few facts. Then some yahoo brings up a completely different idea. We have a pair of related articles on these matters for your perusal. M6.4 class solar flare erupting, image credit: NASA / SDO (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) One of the oldest problems for evolutionists is the "faint young sun paradox". Basically, since everything is supposedly the result of the Big Bang, our sun was too cool to support life on Earth. Life couldn't evolve. But they insist on an ancient universe, so there's the "paradox". One Darwinista in the pseudoscience of astrobiology proposed a solution to the problem, but naturally, it involves a whole whack of

The speculations about life on Barsoom   Malacandra Mars are very old, which has given rise to fantasy and science fiction stories about it. For a spell, scientists seem to have said, "There ain't no life on that one, old son", because they realized that the temperatures and atmosphere were not conducive to life. But it remained a curiosity, which increased with the adoration of evolutionism by secularists, which in turn fueled efforts to find evidence of life out there, thataway. Since abiogenesis is an absurd concept on Earth, there must be some way to find excuses to disbelieve in the Creator in the far reaches of space. Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech Evolutionary scientists are not above cherry-picking data and setting up tests in such a way as they validate evolution. Although gamma-ray bursts that should extinguish life were given a bit of a nod, conditions on Mars were set up in a lab and (Mr. Gordons should like this) the survivability of amino acids un

Although Darwin's Drones tell biblical creationists the falsehood that the origin of life is unrelated to evolution , evolutionary scientists spend a heap of time trying to figure out how it happened through naturalistic processes. I reckon that they're getting a mite agitated in their efforts to deny the Creator, since their efforts continually lack science. Sure, they (and creationists) use science in the present to attempt to interpret evidence and infer about what went on in the past, but both approaches are equally philosophical as well as scientific. Credit: Image*After There are some logical problems at work here, not the least of which is that science itself is a philosophy on how to interpret data. Moving on from there, we see that evolutionary scientists are looking at the past, and not using their tools according to their own philosophies. No human was there to see the origin of life, and there is only one eyewitness, but they don't want to acknowledge Go

Some advocates of virus-to-virologist evolution try to distance themselves from origin of life problems by claiming that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. People who have two or more brain cells to rub together can easily tell that this is false. If you study on it, you'll see that not only is the origin of life prominent in textbooks, documentaries ( just ask David Attenborough ), NASA , and so forth that deal with evolution, but you can't have anything evolve if there is nothing living. That means the origin of life is important to evolutionism. Savvy? Image by Rudi Williams , American Forces Press Service, 2002 Although the chances of one cell evolving by chance are about one in forget it, a few cling to the idea, and others put the problem way up in the nothingmuch of deep space. Some troublemaker at the Darwin Ranch dropped a string of firecrackers in the Origin of Life Corral, and all the horses bolted in different directions. Wild ideas about pansper

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Cheri Fields is a "2nd generation homeschooling mom of six, minister’s wife, writer, and science lover". She has not only harnessed the power of the Web, but saddled it up and blazed some trails. Her desire is to present biblical creation science to children, so in March 2012, she began her ministry of " Creation Science 4 Kids ". (There's a link in the lower left on this site as well.) I'll let you click around there for a spell and see what all she offers with articles, podcasts, and so forth. But my focus right now is on her mini e-book. Mysteries of Time and Creation: A Short Intro to Young Earth Creation is a free e-book 'xceptin' at Amazon, who charges $.099 USD. (By the way, I stopped posting reviews on Amazon because that company does nothing about trolls who make the review system almost worthless when it comes to creationist and Christian material, so I do reviews on my sites.) Anyway, you can get the free do