Piltdown Superman

This is a difficult article for me to present. Not because I have a problem with it, but I got all het up about the article and want to talk about it too much and spoil the main thing for you. So, a bit of restraint on my part is in order. Way over yonder down Cambodia way is a cluster of ancient Buddhist temples and monasteries. Some of them are huge. One of the most famous is the Angkor Wat, and it warrants our attention because of some carvings that look like a stegosaurus. It is understandable for people to say some thing like, "What is that  doing there?" According to deep time presuppositions, it cannot  be a stegosaurus because evolution.  That is, those critters supposedly died off about 65 million Darwin years ago, long before humans roamed the earth. Because of their assumptions, the carving is dismissed out of hand; the secularistically biased Wikipedia wrote them off , "...however the carving does not represent a living stegosaur but instead either a r

While there are honest evolutionary scientists who seek to find and promote evidence of all live evolving from a common ancestor, their militant comrades use skulduggery to promote their worldview. In this instance, the Neanderthal was fully human (as affirmed by archaeology, DNA, anthropology, and more, presented on this site several times), but some insist on portraying Neanderthals as less-than-human brutes. Things get worse, as we shall see. Credit: Unknown, Public Domain, even used at NASA Why do some folks continue to believe that Neanderthals were not quite human and a link to our evolutionary ancestry despite the evidence? They want to. It fits their paradigm, and they are adverse to admitting that the evidence refutes evolution and supports special creation, and that is anathema to them. Portrayals of Neanderthals have been based on presumptions of evolution and on chimerical visions, but not on evidence. Science isn't supposed to work that way, old son. Even in r

You'd think the hands at the Darwin Ranch would know a thing or two about cattle down there at Deception Pass, but the only thing they grow is conjectures. (I think they get into the peyote buttons on occasion, but never mind about that now.) Some cattle kinds from the days of yore are causing some consternation. Image credits: both from Morguefile: Bison (left) by gduncan , Longhorn (right) by ArturoYee When microcephalic thrill-seekers drove the bison of the American Great Plains to near extinction, Longhorn cattle were brought in. Longhorns are hearty and strong, and will breed with other cattle. Crossbreeding got so intensive that the Texas Longhorn itself almost became extinct . The point is that cattle are willing to crossbreed. DNA from very old cattle bones, plus help from archaeologists who know about cave paintings, sculptures, and other things, helped identify three kinds of cattle. One of them was a baffling hybrid they called the "Higgs Bison" (I lik

Here we are with our digital technology, space rockets, increases in medical care, and more. God some mighty fine plans for the future, too, if we don't blast ourselves back a thousand years. We think we're lords of all we survey, don't we? Reckon so. Except that the idea that we're more intelligent than our ancestors is based on evolutionary presuppositions and arrogance. The storyline goes that stupid brutes evolved, then gradually evolved intelligence, and on from there. Not hardly! Image credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann We're not really the sharpest knives in the drawer, we've just accumulated more knowledge and learned a lot. When you study on ancient people (including the surprising, fully-human Neanderthals ), you'll see that there are many examples in ancient history of human ingenuity. People with an evolutionary paradigm get all worked up over this and sometimes even say that our ancestors had help from aliens because they "could not"

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen As discussed here several times, proponents of microbes-to-metallurgist evolution have a mighty dim view of our ancestors. Evolutionists see them as brutish creatures that had been more like ape than man, with intelligence yet to evolve. Of course, this is all based on evolutionary presuppositions and assumptions, not on evidence. (I wonder how many further assumptions were made in formulating the so-called " Paleo Diet "?) But when evolutionist try to slap leather with biblical creationists, they shoot themselves in the foot — nothing more humiliating than being shot with your own gun, but figuratively, that happens to them all the time. I'm saying that  even according to evolutionary "evidence", archaic humans such as Neanderthals showed remarkable intelligence and culture. This is a mite disconcerting to Darwinists, to say the least. De "Weinig" Toren van Babel  by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, 1563 It's been said

As observed many times, people argue from their presuppositions and worldviews. We keep hearing about how archaic humans showed signs of intelligence and culture, but proponents of atoms-to-anthropologist evolution are continually baffled by this. Worse for them are the many out-of-place artifacts that show great intelligence from ages long past. The reason is that they are using evolutionary presuppositions, man had not evolved intelligence yet, so those artifacts are "out of place" and mysterious. Why do y'all think Chariots of the Gods and other "ancient alien" books were so successful? Man had to be stupid way back when, right? Not hardly! Antikythera mechanism fragment, image credit: Wikimedia Commons CC BY 2.5 I'm using the word artifact a bit loosely. Not only are there ancient computing devices, airplane-like gliders, batteries — and even cities. Biblical creationists should not be astonished that such things exist (aside from marveling a

Depictions of Neanderthals as stupid, ugly, partially evolved brutes are becoming increasingly unrealistic. Studies of the inner ear , surprises by advanced art techniques , interbreeding with modern humans , heated water and organized their homes , and more factors show that they were inaccurately portrayed. If you study on it, you'll realize that the differences between us and them is shrinking all the time. Beautiful and Ugly by Adriaen van de Venne, 1634 There was a variety among Neanderthals. Indeed, there is a wide variety among the people you pass on the street every day. Were Neanderthals "ugly"? By what standard? Additional research on their facial constructions shows that the "ugly" features were bone constructions, and in fact, modern humans may actually be physically inferior to them! Let's face it, they are not the products of evolution, and neither are we. Humans are created beings, as are all creatures. The facial differences betw

Biblical creationists and other Christians often have to deal with prejudicial conjectures from uninformed owlhoots such as, "The Bible is full of fairy tales, and there is no support from archaeology! We believe in science,  even though there is no scientific support for our creation myth. And Genesis is the worst!" Or something like that. If these people had bothered to do a mite of research, they wouldn't cotton to making fools of themselves so quickly, would they?  Clay tablet from Ebla / Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain Although stating that there is no archaeological evidence to support Genesis is an argument from silence and therefore invalid, it's also untrue. The more archaeologists work, the more Genesis (and the rest of the Bible) is supported; Genesis is a valid historical record. You dig? With so many loud voices in our culture asserting that Genesis is a myth, one would think archaeologists have uncovered clear evidence that refutes it. On the

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen, with research by David Harrison This is a great time to be a biblical creationist! Science supports creation and is hostile to evolution, even though Darwin's ranch hands get all het up about the facts and conjure up train loads of fact-free excuses. Some of the more recent events include: The refutation of "junk" DNA (which creationists predicted was not junk at all, and were proved right) The magnetic fields of several planets fit creationist predictions while evolutionary predictions were astronomically (heh!) wrong Uninformed remarks by C. Richard Dawkins and others about "bad design" have been refuted Carbon-14 where it "doesn't belong", such as coal, diamonds, and so forth The amazing complexity of biology, down to the cellular level Stars and galaxies convolute "deep time" cosmology Various planets, their moons (as well as our own), and other things in the solar system are not acting "old&qu

Bedbugs have been a nuisance for a long time. We hate them today, cowboys hated them, and archaeologists have evidence that ancient people hated the awful blood-sucking things millennia ago. Itches, pain, rashes, psychological difficulties, resistant to most pesticides — but at least these tiny critters don't seem to spread disease like malaria-bearing mosquitoes. If you're afflicted with bedbugs (it's nothing to be ashamed of, most people are likely to have the problem at some point), you may get some useful information at the US Environmental Protection Agency, click on " Bed Bugs: Get Them Out and Keep Them Out ". Image credit: CDC/ CDC-DPDx; Blaine Mathison Moving on to the purpose of this post, some scientists are claiming that there is evidence for evolution. Not hardly. Yes, they probably began drinking the blood of bats, and then varied into the version that afflicts humans. That's not evolution, Edna, that's variation and natural selection

Some scoffers claim that the Genesis account of the Noachian Flood are simply copies of other flood stories that were embellished by ancient Hebrew writers. Such views show not only an anti-biblical bias, but also poor reasoning and lack of knowledge of historical documents. For that matter, the Epic of Gilgamesh (one of the ancient flood accounts supposedly the true source of flood legends) is markedly different from the Genesis Flood account. Even a casual reading shows that the Epic  is mostly fantasy , with lots of polytheism and unbelievable material that probably wouldn't interest monotheistic Hebrews. When the flood account is inserted into the story, that part of it has a different tone, and shows similarities to the real Flood narrative in Genesis. For that matter, there are global flood legends around the world that have some remarkable similarities where the earth is covered by water and only eight special people survived. Pixabay / stux There is another account

Aren't science and technology wonderful? They are useful applications of observational science (where your view of origins is, or should be, irrelevant to doing the science). The remains of two formerly unknown ancient civilizations have been discovered through satellite imaging and the use of drones equipped with radar and infrared. Naturally, archaeologists are quite excited. An excavation of a Roman / Phonecian site in Malta. Image credit: freeimages.com / bearcatroc Darwin's disciples preach that early humans were stupid brutes, what with being freshly evolved out of the jungle and all that. However, there are frequent discoveries that give lie to that idea, and show how early people were actually quite intelligent. The true history about early humanity is not found in evolution books, but in the Bible. You can read about the two amazing discoveries by clicking on " Lost Civilizations: Human History Hidden in Plain Sight ".

There have been scoffers for many years who simply dismissed the Genesis Flood as a fanciful tale or a complete fabrication. (Worse, there have been liberal Christians who have agreed with atheistic interpretations of geology and said that the Flood never happened, that it was local, "tranquil", or some other nonsense.) Many flood legends exist around the world, and quite a few are only fit for jawing with folks to fill time while riding the lonely trail — nowhere near believable. Yet, many of the flood tales from around the world have elements in common with the Genesis account. The Great Flood / Artist unknown / PD Some scoffing scholars insist that since the "Epic of Gilgamesh" is the oldest legend of a global flood that we have on record, it must be the original, and Genesis is a copy of it. Even a superficial reading of the Gilgamesh story (written as a fantastical poem) shows that it's another story that has some of the same elements of the Genes

Stonehenge has been the subject of study, tourism, speculation, occult lore, the A303 , and so on for a very long time. The consensus is that it was built thousands of years before the time of Christ. But this dating is based on the common practice of evolutionary thinking, which is to reject records and other indications of age that don't square with evolutionary preconceptions. Then they get surprised that "ancient primitives" (not fully evolved yet) had the notions to do some intricate design work and amazing labor. From a biblical creationist perspective, it was built after the Genesis Flood by intelligent people. Stonehenge, circa 1890 / PD Using historical documents (and working around some of the less-than-historical material), plus some other conjectures, we get a much more recent date for the construction of Stonehenge; I wonder if this will affect the dating of the Rollright Stones ? (Evolutionary thinking also influence people to reject the Bible as a his

Standard evolutionary thinking will not allow for ancient people to have any great intelligence levels. After all, they evolved up from the slime through various stages including ape-like brutes and eventually to human form. Evolutionists do not know where intelligence came from except the ad hoc explanation of "EvolutionDidIt". When advanced techniques in lifestyles, architecture and so on are discovered, I reckon it's a bit disconcerting to them because their presuppositions are out of whack. Göbekli Tepe (Turkish for "Potbelly Hill") was an unimpressive site, mostly ignored for about 30 years. Then Klaus Schmidt noticed some interesting things. Now  the site is impressive, since there are examples of architecture, artwork and construction that are interesting — and mysterious. Now they have to study on how this fouled parts of their belief system. These discoveries do not fit with evolutionary assumptions, but are completely in line with biblical creatio

Although the Bible has a proven track record of historical accuracy, there is a growing effort by anti-theist revisionists to make it appear wrong. Much of this is based on the argument from silence fallacy, such as, "There is no historical evidence of the ancient Hittites, so the Bible authors made them up!", but the biblical record has been vindicated time and again. Their presuppositions against the Bible are showing. Pixabay / Paukner Egyptian history is treated in much the same way. Despite the accuracy of the Bible as history, some presume that it is incorrect regarding ancient Egypt. One claim is that Egyptian history goes back further than the biblical timeline of Creation, therefore, the Egyptian records are correct and the Bible is wrong. This myopic view has many serious problems, including ignorance of Egyptian culture, religion, record-keeping methods and more. Another assumption is based on evolutionary thinking, that ancient humans were stupid, evolvin

Creationists are grinning about dental calculus. Of course, we wouldn't be grinning so much about having to have our own removed. Rather, archaeologists made some cavities and are studying the remains of supposedly prehistoric people. Studying dental build-up has put evolutionists down in the mouth before, and it is happening again. Evolutionary assumptions are that humans were stupid brutes early in their development, and they were too stupid to figure out how to use plants effectively. It seems that the people of this study knew about plants, and how to use them effectively — possibly for medicinal purposes. The results fit with biblical post-Flood dispersal models and put a cap on evolutionary guesses. Al Khiday, near the Nile River in Central Sudan, contains five archaeological sites with burial grounds representing three cultures: one without evidence of agriculture, another with evidence of some agricultural development, and a more recent one suggesting a well-devel

No, the Frink dating method has nothing to do with the romance and marriage between Mr. and Mrs. Frink. Rather, it is the Oxidizable Carbon Ratio method postulated by Douglas Frink. Like other methods used to try to determine the age of items, it relies on several assumptions about the dating process. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers SPA Archaeologist Jeremy Decker records a piece of fire-cracked rock, one of a series of artifacts showing where prehistoric people built a hearth. Also, the OCR method is calibrated with carbon-14, another dating method that requires many assumptions. But at least Frink points out difficulties in his process that need to be worked out instead of rushing in as a hero of science. So this, too, is not a reliable method to conjure up long ages for the sake of evolution. MM from Australia asked about a new dating method called “oxidizable carbon ratio” (OCR) dating, which was brought to his attention by a friend. It

It's a bit distracting to be writing this while the cat is snoring. I should record it, people won't believe the log-sawing.  Creationists keep pointing out that there are fossils out of order according to the geologic column, and Darwin's Cheerleaders come up with various rescuing devices to keep from discarding it. Similarly, there are things that just do not belong according to archaeology, history and so on. Rather than admitting that evolution has been refuted seven ways from sundown, people will resort to speculating that ancient space aliens are the answer, or simply cover up the many anti-evolution smoking guns. Spend a half an hour on this video by Ian Juby for " Genesis Week " and see some information about artifacts that fluster evolutionists . They really should abandon their "theory", the evidence supports the biblical creation model far better than their conjectures. ADDENDUM: A three-part article on OOParts can be found at the

Peat bogs are given a dire image from movies, television and literature. Sure, wetlands can be dangerous places to walk, so you need to know what you're doing . But they are also interesting places for historians and archaeologists. People, plants, various creatures and thousands of lawyers reside there. The peat itself is useful in many ways. freeimages/ColinBroug But how old are they? Some scientists will refer to peat bogs as evidence that the Bible is wrong and that the earth is old. This is done through assumptions and flawed dating methods, the worst of which is picking a sample of the deposition that fits their worldview and ignoring other data. Uniformitarian dating methods are highly misleading. Indeed, other data indicates more rapid deposition, and is in keeping with archaeological evidence. But scientists who believe that the book of Genesis is history, not myth, understand from the Bible that the global Flood occurred about 4,500 years ago. Peat bogs of toda