Piltdown Superman

Advocates of deep time and dust-to-dinosaur evolution presuppose that dinosaurs died off 65 million Darwin years ago, and biblical creationists presuppose that Earth is much, much younger. With incontrovertible evidence of soft tissues in dinosaur bones, evolutionists had to circle the wagons and open fire on facts (and people presenting those facts) that threaten their belief systems. Credit: Freeimages / jim daly Some people tried to say that there were errors in lab testing, and Darwinoids on the web called the creationists who knew more about science than they did "liars". Other folks tried to get dismissive about this massive problem for deep time and evolution, hoping that their bad news would go away and things would be peachy keen if they pulled the covers over their heads and got a good night's sleep. Didn't happen. People at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (who are also fond of advancing the bad science promoting evolutionism) c

Advocates of microbes-to-microscopist evolution have a great deal to say about the hows and whys of the appearances of things living today, and of those that went before. However, it is difficult to examine their evidence, because it's mighty scarce. Sure, we get a passel of authoritative assertions of "it evolved that way", but assertions and tall tales are not scientific evidence. What follows are several links illustrating false claims of evolution happening. This will be good for students to examine and see how science and evolution can often be mutually exclusive. Original image credit: US Dept of Transportation / aschweigert (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Non-Evolving Dinosaurs Assertions of "being covered with feathers" without any sign of the things; why some dinosaurs moved fast, but details are expected in the future; a crocodile fossil that dates 170 million Darwin Years old is essentially identical to modern crocodiles

An axiom familiar to computer programmers is GIGO (garbage in, garbage out), which essentially means that if the programming is not done correctly, nonsense ensues. Advocates of universal common ancestor evolution have the same problem on a larger scale, and it strongly impacts their cladograms . Assembled and modified from images at Clker clipart Cladograms are made by finding similar traits in organisms and then producing a tree. The classifications of dinosaurs has been rewritten according to faulty data (assuming a common ancestor, despite no evidence for such a thing) and circular reasoning. A new cladogram is causing consternation for the hands at the Darwin Ranch, since the classifications of lizard-hipped and bird-hipped dinosaurs is up for a makeover. Biblical creationists don't have such problems. These owlhoots keep kicking against the goads, denying that dinosaurs and man were created on the same day of creation week. There was no single tree, it's more like

Universal common ancestor evolution is counterintuitive, requiring a similar level of suspension of disbelief that people use when watching movies about killer robots from outer space. That is, evolutionists need people to forget basic science and reason to accept their pronouncements. Since Darwin's stories are losing credibility, his disciples in the scientific community are using "jump the shark" gimmicks to keep their mythology afloat. Credit: US Geological Survey (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) According some some of these owlhoots, large scale death and destruction from volcanoes made the "age of dinosaurs" possible. Those that didn't get wiped out had to get out of Dodge, and then dinosaurs evolved to fill the niche. (Except that there is no evidence of dinosaur evolution, but that doesn't stop a good story. More suspension of disbelief, you see.) Someone else said that the destructive ultraviolet rays of the sun helped

Shawn Funk had an interesting day on March 21, 2011 while working for Suncor Energy in Alberta, Canada. Excavation work had to be done (he's a miner, they do that kind of thing). Bet he didn't expect to make a bit of history by finding what is considered the best-preserved nodosaur (a type of armored dinosaur) fossil.  Suncor nodosaur fossil photo credit: Wikimedia Commons / Machairo / CC BY-SA 4.0 Despite failed, hoary tales of Darwinists and old Earth geologists (such as dying, getting swept out to sea, then becoming preserved instead of scavenger chow), this critter had evidence to present supporting the Genesis Flood and a young Earth. Sure, they wouldn't be so surprised to find a marine creature in that area, but a land dweller? That's the first clue that something unusual happened. Preserved skin remnants were found as well. The whole thing is well-preserved and is expected to yield a whole passel of information, and it would be mighty helpful if the scien

The expression blinded by science seems more popular in the UK than in the United States (I only know of it from the Thomas Dolby Song), but it seems to be a way of baffling people with big words. Apparently this is most effective when discussing science subjects with non-scientists. Sort of like, "Sometimes I use words I don't understand so I can sound much more photosynthesis ". Also useful when using the complex scientific principle of Making Things Up™. Credit: Warpaintcobra at FreeDigitalPhotos.net A slice of evolutionary dogma tells us that everything evolved in the sea, a bunch of critters moved to dry land, and some went back to the sea. There is no evidence for this except in Darwinoid mythology, but not in science. (Seems to be yet another wild-eyed attempt to deny the truth of creation, don't you think?) Some of those apparently dissatisfied living a dry life were mosasaurs . Using a heap of circular reasoning, blinding-by-science-jargon, unsupport

Remember all that hoopla about a " dinosaur feather in amber ", or even "feathered dinosaur tail trapped in amber"? For that matter, remember the criticism of the Jurassic Park / World movies because it did not show feathered dinosaurs? How about the bumps that were claimed to be possibly maybe they hope the beginnings of feathers, but nothing was really found? That's the result of evolutionary zealots spreading fake science in their desperate attempts to deny the Creator. They do that. It's who they are. Assembled with components from Clker clipart The lapdog press of the secular science industry was glad to spread sensationalistic stories, and the Evo Sith were more than happy to wave this "evidence" in the faces of creationists and say, "Aha! Gotcha!" As usual (and often before scientists are ready to make definitive claims), further examination reveals that Darwin's enthusiastic disciples were asserting too soon. Dinosau

Paleontologists were shocked — shocked,  I tell you — to find dinosaur fossils in marine rocks. They were commencing to find themselves some ammonites (the oceanic invertebrates, not the cantankerous cusses of the Old Testament ), and found some T. rex -like remains. Credit: Freeimages / Matt Sullivan The surprise should have ended with the discovery of the new critter, but they got a mite agitated that the fossil was found in an ocean environment. Why? Evolutionists themselves admit that most dinosaur fossils are there, and not in, say, arid regions. Fossils and bones from diverse creatures are frequently found mixed together, and evolutionary speculation only agitates the waters. No, the reasonable conclusion (especially when taken with all the other evidence) is that this is a result of the global Genesis Flood and, therefore, recent creation. Yippie ky yay, old earthers! Another spectacular dinosaur fossil discovery baffled paleontologists who deny the historical accuracy

If you're heading south down Mexico way, past Mexico City but before the Guatemala border, you can find the Yucatán Peninsula. That's the place that some folks of the long age persuasion say that a meteorite or asteroid hit some 65 million Darwin years ago and led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. While some call it a "smoking gun" piece of evidence for the dino demise idea and an old earth, others (not just creationists) are not so certain. Artist's conception of Chicxulub impact / credit: NASA Goddard While the site looks like it would have accommodated a large object from space, but the "smoking gun" didn't eject expected amounts of iridium, which is common in meteorites. Other minerals found there that could be from a meteorite are sparse, and the expected melting is nowhere near deep enough. Creationary scientists speculate that an impact may have happened at the time of the Genesis Flood (the results of the Flood would have eventually l

News keeps getting worse for the hands at the Darwin Ranch down Deception Pass way. Trying to deny science related to dinosaur soft tissues and still believe in long ages is downright difficult, but they make a serious effort. Now the prospect of actual dinosaur DNA is becoming more of a possibility. Some evolutionary scientists are being confronted with a choice: the narrative that dinosaur fossils are multiple millions of Darwin years old (which is based on assumptions), or the scientific fact that DNA degrades rapidly, and cannot for long periods. Secular scientists are loathe to admit that facts show the earth was created recently because minerals-to-mastodon requires those long ages. According to Dr. Adrian Lister, a British paleobiologist, DNA cannot survive in dinosaur bones because dinosaurs lived far too long ago for their DNA, which is inherently unstable, to survive to the present . . . Dr. Lister is no stranger to Ice Age remains, having a particular expertise in

Riddle me this: What is the size of a chicken, has drumstick-shaped legs, feather follicles, slender tail, and feather follicles? "That's a dinosaur, ya idjit!"  Well, no. Although proponents of dinosaur-to-bird evolution try very hard to see feathers in dinosaur fossils and ignore bird features, even if they did find a dinosaur with feathers, it would only show that a dinosaur had feathers and not prove that they evolved into birds. They tend to make outlandish extrapolations like that. Credit: Freeimages / Armend (AD) At any rate, further research on a feathered dinosaur candidate shows that it had feathers and many features found in modern birds. There were some other features that we don't see very much in modern birds today. Still, it's another bit of wishbone — I mean, wishful — thinking that didn't pan out for evolutionists, which is no surprise for creationists, and probably no surprise for those evolutionists who reject the dino-to-bird sto

Advances in science and technology should have helped evolutionary science, but instead, they have benefited biblical creation science instead. Howls of outrage from the hands at the Darwin Ranch echoed all over Deception Pass when dinosaur soft tissues were discovered. Now the gang has to put in overtime at the excuse foundry because more soft tissues are being discovered. Things got worse. Evolutionists force themselves to deny science in order to maintain their narratives. Scientists have shown that soft tissues, proteins, blood cells and the like cannot  last for so many zillion Darwin years. Excuses are forged, but the facts are right there in front of them. The most painful fact (for them) is that scientific evidence does not support long ages or evolution, but it does  support special creation. Evolutionists are science deniers. A lready in 2017, secular scientists have described some stunning original biochemicals in fossil bones. Two new finds reignite vigorous debate

Things must have been slow around Deception Pass, since the hands at the Darwin Ranch have been keeping occupied by proving — nothing. While theories and models are expected to change in light of new evidence, it's just plain insipience to keep feeding mules that won't pull the wagon. Not only do they feed the evolution mule, but they also feed the cladistics mule. In this case, rearranging the dinosaur family tree. Assembled from images at Clker clipart In the evolutionary scheme, scientists have no idea where dinosaurs came from. But they have clades showing the alleged relationships between them and where they perch on the tree of life. (Evolutionists do this cladogram circular reasoning stuff, proving evolution by assuming evolution, in much broader ways as well.) Using new models, some evolutionists are mighty agitated, "Everything we know about dinosaurs is wrong! Textbooks have to be rewritten! Katie, bar the door!" Take this branch here, put it ov

One of the items that the bosses at the Darwin Ranch have filed away in the locked back room under Try Not to Discuss is soft tissues from ancient critters. Although we've been hearing about those tissues for a spell, it's not such recent news as some people may think. Just that the more recent events about dinosaur soft tissues have rightly exploded since that business with Mary Schweitzer, Mark Armitage , and others. Triceratops at the Dinosaur Journey Museum credit: US Dept of Transportation / aschweigert (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Some uninformed but loyal evolutionists have tried to deny the tissue problem (even lying about it in forums and on social media), since it's a serious problem for them: dinosaur soft tissues and proteins cannot last for millions of years. That means dinosaurs have not been extinct as long as their dogma requires, and gives another indication that Earth was created much more recently than evolution requires.

It seems that dinosaurs have always had had some popularity over the years, especially for children, but I reckon that their popularity has escalated in recent years. And why not? There's an element of mystery to them, and they've been the subject of many stories in movies, print, and so forth. Dinosaurs have also been used as a tool for evolutionary propaganda to reach the young (to see how evolutionists are attempting to offset children's inborn belief in God, see " Accelerated Evolutionary Indoctrination of Children "). When handled properly, the subject can work in the favor of biblical creationists, a fact that sometimes causes rage among secularists . One thing I learned early on in my creation science studies is that too many parents do not know that answers for questions about Earth's age, evolution, creation, and dinosaurs can indeed be found if people will bother to look. Parents cannot bluff their children. If you don't know, then admit it

More and more, the evolution of dinosaurs paradigm is falling into tohubohu. The evolutionists who disbelieve that dinosaurs evolved into birds must have been smiling at the news that dinosaurs and birds lived at the same time , making it convenient for dinosaurs to eat birds. We also know about dinosaur-to-bird dishonesty in museums . Another bit of news adds additional reason to doubt the age and evolution of dinosaurs. Hypothetical reconstruction of Dromomeron romeri, a lagerpetid, Wikimedia Commons / Nobu Tamura Although there is no actual evidence for dinosaur evolution, the evidence laundering spin cycle launches into high gear when a putative ancestor of dinosaurs is found in the same rock layers are other dinosaurs. Evolutionists tell some mighty fine stories, I'll allow, but they're all based on evolutionary assumptions and circular reasoning, not on actual evidence. Too bad they don't cotton to allowing themselves to even consider a Genesis Flood model fr

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This is not going to be a long, complicated article. Y'all probably need a break from the heavy stuff, and I don't mind one myself. A reader of The Question Evolution Project sent me a link to a one-minute video (which linked to a non-science article) about how scientists want to tamper with the DNA and chickens, help them get in touch with their inner dinosaur, and possibly bringing back a modified form of dinosaurs. Echoes of Jurassic Park , I suppose. (When we're done here, let's all meet at Kentucky Fried Rex for chow.) One serious question to consider is: why bring back things that were extinct? I reckon it depends on the motivation . Assembled and modified with Clker clipart graphics What caught my attention is how scientists are assuming evolution  in order to do this process, and ignoring the other scientists who reject  dinosaur-to-bird evolution. How many times have we seen where evolutionary thinking has actually hindered s

The hands at the Darwin Ranch have come up with another "theory' about the extinction of the dinosaurs. Why would they do a thing like that? Because none of the theories that have been passed around present adequate explanations of data. Also, someone needed money, so she wrote a book. Years ago, I was giving presentations about creation science and evidence against evolution. One thing I forcefully stated was that evolutionists present layers of "theories", but they are flawed all the way down to the foundation. In this case, a cosmologist invokes dark matter. This stuff is a rescuing device for the Big Bang, and has never been demonstrated to exist (so they keep making excuses for its absence instead of admitting it's paralogical). The spurious theory also involves the fictitious Oort Cloud, another rescuing device for the fact that comets would have been exhausted in an old universe. What stymies this child is how such pedagese not only gets accepted for

There has been a wagon train-load of news about fossils, especially aspects of soft tissues, because what has been found is oppugnant to minerals-to-mocker evolution. Proponents have gone into damage control by looking for excuses, making wild extrapolations (such as, "Iron preserved tissues for a year in a lab, therefore, they were preserved for millions of years in the wild"), going into denial, and even calling biblical creationists "liars". Their worldview is threatened by reality, and they can't deal with it. Image credit: Morguefile / gary3141 But these owlhoots are not entitled to mangle the facts to suit the Darwinian storyline, nor are they entitled to make up their own facts. There are "timers" in biology; things will dissipate after a long enough period. Pigments, chitin, collagen, and more have been found that should be there if the fossils were as old as evolutionists claim — the timers would have expired. The facts support recent c

Seems like feathers have been in the science news quite a bit lately. The biggest story was the attempt to say that a feathered tail fragment in amber belonged to a dinosaur. Recently , we looked at reports of fossilized bird feathers that had proteins and pigments . Now we have the "mud dragon" fossil, from a report in November 2016. Generated at Image Chef There are two aspects to the story. First, the claim that it had feathers, even though there's no evidence of that. This apparently came about because some bumps on a dinosaur looked kinda sorta like the beginnings of feathers, especially if you squint really hard and ignore other possible (and more logical) explanations. Also, they shove it into the "dinosaurs-to-birds" myth to get away from admitting there's a Creator. Therefore, illogically speaking, this one must have had feathers as well. Some creationary scientists have a view of, "If a dinosaur was conclusively shown to have feather