Piltdown Superman

Believers in descent with modifications evolution claim to have science on their side, but certain evidences for evolution are simply false. One is phylogenetic trees , which are diagrams of hypotheses and conjectures. They are not evidence. Another is homology . Note that the root word is the Greek word for same , and used in words like homogenous. In homology, if critters have things in common like each having two eyes, tails, external ears, heads on necks, etc., then boy howdy! They must have evolved from a common ancestor. Not hardly! Horse and Cow in a Meadow , Paul Gauguin, 1885 Essentially, a presupposition  is something that is assumed to be true without proving it beforehand. Many times for the sake of discussions, things are presupposed by the mutual understanding of readers or listeners. Other times, evolutionists presuppose evolution and then confirm their biases. That is circular reasoning. Biblical creationists presuppose that the Bible is true from the very first verse —

Proponents of descent with modifications evolution have several fundamental beliefs, many of which are comprised of inference, ignoring relevant data, and Making Things Up™. Homology involves studying similar characteristics in living things and insisting that they have common ancestors. Convergence  is another fundamental dogma, asserting that totally different organisms evolved the same traits. Convergent evolution is — face it — a secular miracle. Both convergence and homology rely a great deal on assumptions and imagination. Further, evolution is presupposed to be the only explanation for what is observed. Astyanax mexicanus , Wikimedia Commons / Citron ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Blind cave fish have lost traits (which for some reason inspires praise to Darwin), and developed adaptations. In addition to various cavefish species, other cave-dwelling critters also have adaptations. To appeal to convergence is a science stopper. Instead, creatures should be investigated for the built-in tra

It is acknowledged that members of the media will run off with sensational science stories and exaggerate information, sometimes even making claims of which the scientists themselves are unaware. This brings two questions to my mind. First, should science publications show some restraint? Second, should they do some checking to make sure they are not contradicting their own worldview, even if scientists did make off-the-wall speculations? Image sources: Wikimedia Commons / PD / US morgueFile / dee37 In this case, evolutionists are up to their old tricks, imagining a connection (homology) so they can bolster their belief system even though the connection is unwarranted. Plus, claiming that birds evolved from hadrosaurs...oh, my. Never mind that they are continuing the mythology that dinosaurs evolved into birds, because dinosaurs ate birds , and bird fossils are found with dinosaur fossils . Then they have to explain how a fleshy appendage lasted for an alleged 65 million years

And now for something completely different. Sort of. Dr. James White gave me a birthday present. Sort of. On a broadcast of " The Dividing Line " starting at about the 34 minute point, he mentioned a video that describes how the Toy Story  movies and the TV series The Walking Dead appear to be the same story. I am uncertain of the exact video he talked about, but this one looks like a good possibility: Dr. White pointed out that things can indeed seem similar, you can find parallels if you want to find them. Of course, you need to ignore the dissimilarities for your "theory" to hold together. His application was different, but his "gift" to me was the inspiration for this article. Edit: I forgot to add that I mentioned this selective data and that people see what they want to see to a physical therapist. She said it happens in the medical field as well, that only some things are presented, but other factors are ignored. I have been a