Piltdown Superman

Something that presuppositional apologists point out that, for the sake of discussion, if God did not exist, then we are just bundles of chemicals responding to our impulses. In a similar fashion, if we have orangutans as our evolutionary cousins , why should we trust our brains and their chemical impulses? Papa Darwin himself had some doubts. Some of the material postulated by evolutionists makes me cognate that they have mighty apish minds, and wonder why they haven't been naturally selected away. Credit: Morguefile / kakisky One thing that has not evolved is the ability to reason, and this is evident by the abominable reasoning presented by evolutionists as "science". Seaweed was partially responsible for our upward evolution, the octopus and squid lost their shells (loss of characteristics is downward, not upward evolution, old son), changes in precipitation affected evolution, and more.  Used under "Fair Use" provisions for educational purposes:

When Adam sinned, death entered the world, creation was cursed, and things went downhill. For a few days before that, everything was "very good" (Gen. 1:31). Animals didn't eat each other, we didn't eat them, no lethal poisons — now we have plenty of killing, eating, poisons, and so on. Highly venomous Bonaire box jellyfish Image credit: Marijke Wilhelmus / NOAA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Now we have various plants and critters with lethal poisons. Creationists speculate that these are part of the DNA programming that was put in place by our Creator's design for use after the Fall, possibly based on modifications of existing benign features. Anyway, the point I'm bringing to your attention is that some things are being studied by scientists for medical use, including the draculin enzyme of vampire bats, and poisons for use in non-addictive pain killers. God gave us intelligence, and expects us to use it. The most common medi

Birds of prey know they're cool , right? The Japanese Sparrowhawk has features that could not have been the product of changes and random processes in common-ancestor evolution. Lots of features. It does have some traits that can be traced to natural selection, but that's not evolution, old son. Image credit: たー坊 / Wikimedia Commons Like so many other things (including those parts in other living things), everything has to be in place at the same time and fully functional. If not, nothing makes sense and the critter is not able to survive. But — what do biblical creationists have to say about God designing birds to be successful hunters? Let's find out. The Japanese Sparrowhawk is an impressive bird. With its keen eyesight, short wings, and long tail, it is ideally suited to flying quickly through dense forests to catch its prey. The barred colouring on its underparts makes it hard to detect in this habitat, leaving its dinner unsuspecting until it is too late. I

It's downright amazing sometimes to see proselytizers of worm-to-welder evolution using things that have nothing to do with their paradigm getting all excited about their lack of evidence. It's unscientific and disingenuous when these owlhoots claim that loss of traits (whether actual or inferred), or even no change, is support for their worldview. In the link provided below, we see that evolutionary scientists are going hog wild in Making Stuff Up™. They give credit to evolution for changes that have nothing to do with neo-Darwinism, and make evolution into an intelligent, choosing entity — which is the opposite of what evolution is all about. It's a huge amount of unnecessary work for the sake of denying the Creator credit for his work. Elephants pass on education for the purpose of survival, is that educational selection? The brilliant colors on spiders are the work of a mysterious evolutionary force, as if the spiders were able to see and manipulate colors at wi

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.

Evolutionary thinking and social Darwinism have given us such joys as justification for abortion , radical environmentalism , forced eugenics , the "junk" DNA fiasco , a basis for communism , excuses for racism , and more. Now taking the naturalistic view to a new low, ISIS terrorists are players in the evolution game. Sidewinder scientists are using concepts of natural selection and evolution and applying them to Mohammedan terrorism. Ideology is omitted, as is religion, human nature, free will, and other factors. It's just a matter of environment. They are not created human souls in need of prayer, repentance, and salvation in Jesus Christ (how many evolutionists believe that?), but players in a game. Indeed, terrorists are almost made to sound like victims! This may be the winning candidate for worst Darwinian just-so story of the decade. You have to hand it to evolutionists; at least they are consistent. If everything evolves, then everything evolves. Makes

A common falsehood told by Darwin's Drones is that people reject evolution because they do not understand it. Often times, they proceed to "explain" it to evolution deniers and get their own pseudoscience wrong. It doesn't help matters that many evolutionists don't understand evolution themselves. They'd be far better off if they'd stop rebelling against our Creator and realize that science does not support evolution, it supports biblical creation. Charles Darwin hung his evolution hat on the peg of natural selection, a concept developed by a creationist years earlier as a preserving factor, not something to cause change. When DNA, mutations, and so on were investigated, natural selection fell out of favor, and we have neo-Darwinism, or the modern evolutionary synthesis. Natural selection is not what causes evolution, but contributes. Except that some owlhoots disunderstand natural and artificial selection, and use the fallacy of reification and gi

Because of hunting and such (a variation on natural selection), tusks are fading. Amazingly, Darwinists are claiming that this is  evidence of evolution.  Not hardly! Groucho Marx said something ir-r elephant to this topic: Actually, there is. Elephants are losing their tusks to some extent. Image credit: cropped from Freeimages / fabrizio colombo Evolution is the acquiring new traits through added genetic information. Evidence does not support evolution, but what is observed supports what is to be expected from the biblical account. Elephants’ tusks are getting shorter—with an increasing proportion of the elephant population even being completely tuskless—and it’s widely being heralded as ‘evolution’ and ‘Darwinism in action’. Outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins refers to the phenomenon in his book, The Greatest Show on Earth—the evidence for evolution, in the chapter titled “Before our very eyes”. The speed of the change has surprised many. Dawkins points out in that cha

I can't for the life of me figure out why the hands at the Darwin Ranch over at Deception Pass get paid so well. They spread propaganda like a farmer flings fertilizer on the fields, but they lack understanding of evolution itself as well as their favorite excuses, such as endosymbiosis . Even though orthodox Darwinism's belief in natural selection as a means to get something to change into something else altogether, it's not happening. They really need to be more circumspect in their use of the term natural selection. Sign assembled at AddLetters.com While natural selection does occur because our Creator designed it, Darwinoids act like it's a sentient being that is able to guide the process. More than that, they are unclear on the term itself, and obfuscate natural selection along with artificial selection, and other "selections". Their reports make less sense than Lewis Carroll's "Jabberwocky" . If humans guide a process, that is no

One of the biggest problems with purveyors of lichens-to-lizard evolution is that they claim to see "evolution in action" when nothing of the kind is happening. Occasionally, some of these owlhoots will not only use "evolution" incorrectly, but will do the bait 'n' switch equivocation to say that any little change means that Darwinism is true. Not hardly! Image credit: US National Park Service (text added later) Fence lizards have been getting eaten by fire ants. Some do the usual thing and sit there, hoping the problem goes away, and are consumed. Others have learned to do their version of the safety dance, twitching and shimming, and running away. Darwinistas are claiming that variations and natural selection are "evolution in action", but that is downright false. No new genetic material is added, they are drawing from the same DNA that they were created with. Everyone ‘knows’ that evolution is slow and gradual—except when it’s fast a

People who go camping in parks populated with bears need to take certain precautions , because having a grizzly or some other Ursus in your campsite — ain't nobody got time for that. Those critters can get right ornery, especially since you're on their territory. Play a little game. If you commence to searching for species and subspecies of bears, you'll find quite a few. Then ask your friends how many bears they can name. Worse would be to try to get people to identify them by pictures: brown, black with lighter fur, grizzly, the Kodiak (Alaskan grizzly or Kodiak brown), that can be a mite confusing. Even bears that are considered to be closely related can have wide varieties. Photo credit: Polar bear by Steven C. Amstrup / USGS (usage does not imply endorsement) Evolutionists will tell you that all those bears are different because of mutations over long periods of time. But mutations do not add genetic information to account for the diversification. Yes, crea

Purveyors of goo-to-graffiti-artist evolution tend to deal from the bottom of the deck when it comes to definitions. You'll hear about beneficial  mutations, but what does beneficial really mean? If I spray paint something on a wall, the paint may protect the covered areas from rain, which is beneficial. But the chemicals may cause the affected bricks to deteriorate, obviously not a benefit. Nor is it a benefit to me when Marshall Long takes me to jail. Before people get irritated because I'm using an analogy about non-living things, just study on it for a spell; I'm talking about word usage and perspective. When some living things have mutations, some are neutral but the overwhelming majority are bad. Calling them "good" mutations is subjective. A critter can have a mutation that looks good in a lab setting, but will kill it off in the wild. Likewise, some changes can be good in one instance, but extremely bad elsewhere. (They've tried to make somet

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

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen I'm a bit late to this party. The book Evolution's Achilles' Heels  was released in July 2014, and the DVD came out in October 2014 (see the trailer at the bottom). Once my finances stabilized, I went to the stable, saddled up and purchased the book-DVD combo pack. That means Creation Ministries International did not give me anything, financial or otherwise, for writing this here review; I bought the items by my lonesome. In fact, they don't even know about the review yet. Haven't read the book yet, but I'm looking forward to it and will give that a review later on. First off, some basic information. You want credentialed scientists? You got 'em! The 15 Ph.D. scientists in the Evolution's Achilles' Heels  video discuss seven areas where evolutionary theory fails, but they don't go into a lot of heavy scientific lingo. The video is 96 minutes long, and the sections are separated so you can find them easily if you don

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

A small lizard that is sometimes called the American chameleon can be purchased through mail order, at least in the continental United States. Misleading, because it's not a real chameleon, but a relative that has some similar characteristics. They are more properly called anoles. Pixabay / JamesDeMers An experiment over several years was conducted in Florida with green and brown anoles. After all the crawling, jumping, eating of young, change of dwelling preferences and more were done, researchers claimed victory in evolutionary research: some had bigger toes. You'd think those owlhoots would learn to stop being so desperate as to call every variation "evolution", as if it was proof of slime-to-slacker evolution. The Creator designed organisms with the capacity to adapt, after all. An island competition between two species of anole lizards—in just 20 generations and a mere 15 years—has, evolutionary scientists report, provoked one of them to evolve wider st