Piltdown Superman

There is a featured article here, and links follow to additional material. Secularists have been making a lot of noise in the press lately, whoopin' and hollerin' about a bit of amber that they claim contains a dinosaur feather. We should be used to this kind of unbridled excitement, and you'd think the advocates of particles-to-paleontologist evolution would have learned to slow down and examine all the facts before making grandiose proclamations. After all, they made silly claims about dinosaur feathers in the past, and made much about nothing with Nebraska Man  — among other follies. Image credit: Freeimages / Edwin Pijpe Amber is a product of trees (evergreens have it) that is similar to sap, but much thicker. When a tree is damaged, it secretes resin to cover the wound. Insects and other small critters would get trapped in the sticky stuff, and it fossilized into amber. (Yes, I said fossilized, even though it hasn't been permineralized.) People make jewel

The United States had a federal program called the Works Progress/Projects Administration for employing people from 1939-1943. (I knew a guy who had been on it, and he referred to the WPA as "We Putter Around".) They did mainly construction work such as roads, but some excavated fossils. In 1940, an odd dinosaur fossil fragment was found by WPA folks, and it was reexamined recently. Modified image of an ankylosaurus postage stamp from Central Africa in my collection. It was called ankylosaurus because it would bite you on the ankles, making them sore. The fossil had a dome head like several others, and had significant features in common with them. But the fragment was separated from its cousins by millions of Darwin years. Many other similar body types have been found separated by layers, so the idea is that they evolved more than once, or "somehow re-evolved". Not hardly! If these scientists bothered to look at the geologic evidence of the Genesis Flood, t

Dinosaur models, movies, animatronics, and so on have been pretty much up to the imagination. Since they were "terrible lizards", we pretty much got lizard looks with greens and grays. But how does anyone know? With developments in science and technology, we seem to be getting a mite closer. Modified stamps of dinosaurs from my collection, issued by the Commonwealth of Dominica A certain well-preserved dinosaur had enough pigments, proteins, and skin that gave scientists something to work with, and they have a pretty good idea how that bad boy was colored. Fortunately, their assigned age has to be wrong, else their source material would have been long destroyed. Interesting that they didn't try to date the proteins, though. Probably because they know it would show that Earth isn't as old as Darwinistas want, it was created much more recently. Scientists mapped the color shading of a particularly well-preserved Chinese fossil—a Psittacosaurus [sit uh kuh SAWR

Gemma Tarlach is an author of fiction and nonfiction (with experience in journalism as well), and does a heap of hiking on her many travels. She is an evolutionist, and has had articles in Discover magazine. A recent article caused an uproar because she gave her opinion on what she saw: a carving that looked like a dinosaur at the Church of Tsminda Sameba. That raises many questions about what the people in that remote location saw, when, why they carved the images, and so on. She didn't say that it was a scientific conclusion, she just said what she thought it looked like. Advocates of common-ancestor evolution were on the prod and gave her some slapping down for her remark. "After all, we know that dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million Darwin years, right? Our materialistic presuppositions require it, don'tcha know. And don't be saying that stuff, creationists will find out and make hay with it!" Or words to that effect. Window dressing on the

It is an exciting time to be a biblical creationist. Evidence keeps on accumulating to confirm what we've said all along, and it is not supportive of evolution. The refutation of the"junk" DNA evolutionary idea is bothersome for them. But one item that really gets evolutionists on the prod is the fact of soft tissues in fossils. (Note that I'm deliberately using the word fossil in its more general sense ; it doesn't necessarily mean that something has been permineralized. Ian Juby discussed that word in a segment on fossilized dinosaur skin at the 20 minute 13 second mark in this video clip .) The reason for consternation on the soft tissues is that they are strong evidence that Earth was created recently, not billions of years ago, and that dinosaurs have not been extinct for millions of years. Image credit: Pixabay / agfcontact Some anti-creationists will pretend that dinosaur soft tissues are irrelevant, others try to ignore them completely, and you

Every once in a while, some tinhorn makes the declaration that scientists know dinosaurs were killed of by a big rock from space crashing to Earth, setting up a sequence of events that laid them low. There are several problems with that story. One is that secular scientists are not in agreement about that scenario, nor are they in agreement that dinosaurs evolved into birds. So don't let someone try to fool you with those claims, since they're leaving out some mighty important information. Image assembled from components at  Clker  clipart. Since the data don't fit, scientists have to keep revising their dinosaur die-out tales . Not all dinosaurs died 65 million evolutionist years ago, some survived along with birds and mammals, or birds lost their teeth and grew beaks when the evolved, some stories go. In other words, storytelling disguised as science. Some secular scientists admit that the stories are ridiculous, but their counter-proposals aren't a heap of a

Proponents of long ages and the extinction of dinosaurs millions of years ago assert their beliefs as if all scientists in the field are in agreement, and that ancient doom was a done deal. This involves arguing from their assumptions of deep time, and disregarding historical records and possible modern sightings of dinosaurs  (they don't like these because it threatens their "millions of years" paradigm). If you cognate on it, you'll see that many of the pictures and descriptions of dragons fit mighty well with what we expect dinosaurs to look and act like. Seems to me that it's even more so with the oldest records and artwork. Image credit: St George and the Dragon  by Paolo Uccello, 1470 Why would George slew his ownself a dragon? Because it needed killing. Oldest stories of this go back to about the tenth or eleventh century. Some of the records told how they could be mean things. In the biblical creationist model, dragons (remember, the word dinosaur  

It's a bad time to be an advocate of microbes-to-mycologist evolution, since the facts keep undermining evolution and supporting creation. They get mighty ornery when soft tissues in dinosaurs are mentioned. Although soft tissues in the rock have been found for many years, things have really escalated with the finding tissues, blood cells, and the possibility of DNA in dinosaur remains. These things point to a young (as in recently created) Earth. Image credit: Freeimages / Cam Campbell Although some evolutionary polecats will resort to presenting tall tales as scientific facts in museums for propaganda purposes , all they can do with the soft tissue thing is make lame excuses and give outrageous extrapolations. You know, iron preserved this sample for a spell, so it must have been so for 65 million years. That's not science, old son, that's desperation. So, how do we test this stuff? How long can something last? Darwinists have challenged biblical creationists by

Wherever you go, media will tell you the tired old line, "Dinosaurs became extinct due to an asteroid impact 65 million years ago". It can be a kids' show, documentary, television comedy, a novel, news report, or whatever. Creationists have to endure it because we know that it's ridiculous, but it must grind the gears of many evolutionists, because that story is not  a unified consensus. Why? Because some scientists cognate on how the impact "theory" fails on several levels. A new speculation is that dinosaurs were on their way out anyway before the asteroid hit because of (wait for it) climate change. Naturally, a scientist managed to work the alleged conditions of the distant past into the human situation today. If you study on it a spell, you'll learn that the Genesis Flood has the best explanation for dinosaur diversity, selective extinction, and the observations of dinosaurs by modern humans . Who will go back and fix the animations? If

Finding dinosaur tracks has become somewhat commonplace (saddle up or take a hike at Prehistoric Trailways National Monument in New Mexico , for instance), but they're found in several parts of the world. Some dinosaur footprints are unremarkable, like they're going to and from the general store for supplies or something. Others, however, look like they're fleeing something. Image credit: Bob Wick / Bureau of Land Management Dinosaur tracks in Lake Quarry, Australia , had paleontologists giving weird cognations that the critters were fleeing a predator, but that does not hold up under examination. Same kind of thing happens with the dinosaur tracks on the Isle of Skye — relevant information is ignored, facts are pushed into an evolutionary worldview, and the best explanation of the Genesis Flood is rejected out of hand. Sorry, but uniformitarianism fails again. The Earth is far younger than you and Papa Darwin want it to be. On Scotland’s Isle of Skye, researcher

The latest contestant on Darwin's Got Talent is singing an old song with a new verse tacked on. This time, the old song, "We Found a Missing Link!" has a new verse about a T-Rex link. The scientism press is delirious from the Dar-wine, and their intoxication shows up in the propaganda mill reporting. Naturalistic scientists aren't helping much. Image incorporates elements derived from Clker clipart. Fact of the matter is, that missing link is mighty cracked and blurry. Bones were found over a wide area for a period of years, so don't let someone fool you that they found an intact skeleton in one place. But not all secular scientists are singing the new verse to the song, as there's a heap of problems with this so-called link. Oh, but artists took the liberty of adding feathers so they can further the falsehood about dinosaurs evolving into birds, even though there were no feathers found. Sure are determined to pretend that evolution is true and that G

Know why Darwinists keep seeing things that aren't there? Because they want to. Many times, there has been one "evidence" for evolution after another brought out of the corral and shown off to adoring spectators, only to find out that there's nothing to it after all. Feather from Clker clipart Those proclaiming dinosaur-to-bird evolution keep imagining feathers, but they have the blinders on as to seeing other explanations for "proto-feathers". To be consistent with their own viewpoints, they should be considering the fossil evidence against such evolution in the first place! If Darwinistas would do their research a bit more thoroughly, they wouldn't be rushing to erroneous conclusions quite so often. For that matter, the evidence really  shows that birds and dinosaurs were each created separately — and more recently than evolutionists want to admit. A recent claim of a newly discovered “feathered” dinosaur has pushed the controversy over bird

Soft tissues in dinosaurs has cause considerable agitation at the Darwin Ranch, and reactions have been disbelief, ad hoc excuses, weak extrapolations of tissue preservation possibilities, and the expected ad hominem attacks. But the evidence against long-age paradigms just keeps on rolling in. New soft tissues and blood cells from dinosaurs and other critters that have been dead for millions of Evo Sith years are being recalcitrant, instead supporting young Earth biblical creation models. The truth is there, and is being presented, that God created the world recently, and the Genesis Flood is the best explanation for what has been found. Scientists keep finding short-lived biochemicals and even soft tissues in fossils! Over the years, they have found unmistakable evidence of specific proteins like collagen and hemoglobin, and even what look like red blood cells and bone cells, in dinosaurs and other fossils. Most soft-tissue structures occur as mineralized remains that prese

Someone left a fact-free, faith-filled comment at The Question Evolution Project regarding a post about a thigh bone in the "wrong place" that threatened evolutionary paradigms: Welcome to science. We are learning new things all the time. Mistakes can be made but it doesn't disprove the theory. Looks like this owlhoot is out of touch with his own belief system (that seems to happen a lot). Later, when I told him that evolutionists have a habid of discarding facts they don't like, he added this: Facts are not discarded. If evidence arrives that challenges theories then answers are found or theories change. That's what science is about. But just because a bone is found somewhere calling into question current theories surrounding ancient human history it just means more research needs to be done to get more accurate information. Looks like he didn't bother to read the whole thing (a common occurrence). If he had bothered, he'd realize that scientists a

It's getting to become a common thing, just press play to hear approval for things that are passed off as "science". We've seen many times some amazingly unscientific speculations presented to the world as scientific advances, especially in areas related to origins. The Darwinism supporters in the press are all-fired joyful about sharing it with the world, often embellishing the "discoveries".  If people had a mind to, they could examine these speculations and see that there is no actual science  involved, just expensive words given with authority. To hear Darwinistas tell it, the consensus is that evolution is true, and scientists are all in agreement. Not hardly! I reckon they're getting more and more desperate to avoid facing evidence for the Creator, don't you? A scientist examines Earth animals, and has a guess as to what aliens would look like Evolution treated like an entity with the ability to learn  Evolution is like a computer

The first thing taught in Darwinian catechism is that evolution is a given. Second is that Earth is billions of years old. When evidence is presented that threatens either assumption, evolutionists tend to get on the prod and try to dismiss the evidence (you may like " Fear and Loathing of Dinosaur Research by Evolutionists ", " Dinosaur Soft Tissues and Evolutionist Science Deniers ", and " Soft Tissue Time Paradox " by ICR's Dr. Vernon Cupps). Dinosaur soft tissues have them mighty angry because the evidence strongly refutes not only the idea that dinosaurs have been extinct for tens of millions of years, but that the planet is as old as they want it to be for evolution to happen. The real  evidence, without evolutionary trappings, shows that everything was created recently, and did not evolve in the Darwin way. Image credit: Pixabay / agfcontact (modified) Someone sneered on one of my posts, "What next, dinosaur DNA?" Pay attentio

There are many speculations put forward as to why dinosaurs became extinct, and some are rather outlandish . The most common idea is that an asteroid fell to Earth and caused them to head for the last roundup, but it doesn't have a lot of explaining power. Others have suggested that volcanoes had something to do with the dino die-out. Lately, some geology work prompted a new idea: both asteroids and volcanoes. Scan of Bulgaria stamp from my collection, with added clip art from Clker While uniformitarian assumptions and the circular reasoning in radiometric dating are unreliable, they do give relative dates to work from. Some Genesis Flood geology models postulate that, since the rain was supplemented by the fountains of the deep being broken up (Genesis 7:11), an asteroid impact may have been a part of the great global Flood. Rapid fossilization, plate tectonics, volcanic activity, the Ice Age, change in climate — the whole shootin' match supports creation science model

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Edited 12-14-2015 Evidence supporting an old Earth has been iffy for a long time. Uniformitarian geologist Charles Lyell (a lawyer by trade) wanted to free the science of geology from Moses , and famously gave his own estimates of the rate of erosion for Niagara Falls despite  evidence to the contrary . Today, there is deceptive reporting in paleontology . " Dinosaur Fossils " image courtesy of  khunaspix / FreeDigitalPhotos.net Dishonesty is not surprising. After all, atheists and other anti-creationists are opposed to the biblical worldview, and are  living up to their own ethical standards . In addition, they don't look too kindly on scientific evidence that refutes long ages, and microbes-to-minerologist evolution requires huge amounts of time. Ain't happening, but they need the time for their Just So Stories. There have been numerous challenges to long ages of late from many places, so evolutionists are circling the wagons to de

While it is expected for scientists to work from their worldviews and assumptions, secularists have a habit of clinging to evolution and uniformitarian biases to the point of absurdity. Part of that problem is that these scientists do not consider possibilities beyond their own presuppositions. Speculations are put forward in an effort to explain various findings, but those speculations often defy analysis. Juvenile hadrosaur / Pavel Bochkov / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 2.0 In the instance of juvenile Hadrosaur-like bones discovered in Alaska, the ruling paradigm dictates that, although these dinosaurs were rapidly buried, it was due to local flooding. This concept does not fit the observed facts. The better explanation is anathema to them: the rapid burial was due to the global Genesis Flood. In late September of this year a report was published on a new species of Hadrosaurid dinosaur (commonly and hereafter called duck-billed dinosaurs) dubbed Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis (“a

People are a mite confused about the word fossil,  seeing as how it's used to mean old stuff as well as organisms that are permineralized (organic material is replaced by minerals) or petrified  (turned to stone). I could call my mother-in-law a "fossil", but people would know it would be a disrespectful term about her old age, and they would have sense enough to know that she doesn't fit any scientific use of the word fossil.  When it comes to old dead things called fossils, sometimes scientists as well as us reg'lar folk do it. Ian Juby mentioned the shilly-shallying over that word in this video clip, starting at the 20 minute 13 second mark . Hadrosaur fossil. The 2010 article referred to both  fossil  and  bones. Image credit: Mark E. Jacobsen , Bureau of Land Management Believers in particle-to-parasaurolophus evolution don't cotton to having the news of soft tissues and actual bones being found because those facts refute their long-age presupposi