Piltdown Superman

Some evolutionists act like they are still giddy after spending May Day at the Darwin Ranch near Deception Pass, dancing around the May Pole and singing hymns to the Bearded Buddha. Mayhaps they joined the ranch hands in consuming peyote for religious purposes. In their ongoing mission to explore strange new ways of affirming evolution, some interesting methods to affirm it without evidence have been written. We have three articles to consider. The first is the longest, about a 12-minute read. Ichthyosaur, Copyright Expired Science Illustrations / Heinrich Harder , 1916 Some of these critters of dinosaur times were porpoise size, others were as big as a whale. Evolution is supposed to be without a plan, but evolutionary paganism was in the reports. Somehow, purpose-driven evolution provided numerous adaptations for marine reptiles. One weird speculation is that they evolved in "bursts." Uh, evidence, please?  Fun fact: The English word please  is a shortened form of plesiosau

Dreadful reasoning under the pretense of science is not a new phenomenon, having been a problem for many years. A glaring example that is often overlooked is how when the Bearded Buddha wrote Origin of Species , he presented his theory and admitted that fossil evidence did not support it. He did not admit that his conjectures were wrong. He blamed  the fossil record . In addition, his disciples continued to have faith that evidence would be found. That is the opposite of science, old son. The Fossil Record, made at PhotoFunia using a photo by  Alejandro Quintanar at Pexels The owlhoots who believe in the General Theory of Evolution are working from their worldview to interpret data. Fine, everyone does that. But they have a tendency to try and force the data into their paradigm and blame the fossil record for being "incomplete" when their speculations fall flat. It's not working, Wilberforce. Some evolutionists are willing to play the cards they've been dealt to so

Several times in the past, I have mentioned Darwin spectacles. That is a metaphor for an evolutionary worldview that colors and distorts what is observed so owners believe things can only be explained from an evolutionary perspective. Mayhaps I should cobble the picture I have so that it includes blinders . Evolutionists can get so conditioned in their thinking that they become oblivious to how they are making much out of nothing. Fossils show that beetles burrowed into coconuts, but the report is actually meaningless. Coconuts, Pixnio / Toper Domingo They burrowed when fossilization happened, they do it today. Also, beetles have always been beetles (with the exception of John, Paul, George, and Ringo). Insects interact with plants, as any grower knows. But the blinkered bespectacled writers of the paper "see" millions of Darwin years, but do not ask questions that should be obvious. They certainly  are unable to see that the evidence easily supports recent creation. Some re

It is said that one of the best examples of evolution is the whale story, which makes Darwin smile and his disciples light prayer candles in celebration. Except that it is not all that impressive, relying more on imagination than reality. If evolution were true, would they need to use tall tales and deception to keep it breathing? This kind of stuff is rampant. As regular readers have seen, evolutionists use faulty reasoning and bad science to manipulate people into believing their worldview. A new paper evosplains whale craniums. Humpback whale breaching,  NOAA  (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Remember, any evolutionary change requires a multitude of gradual changes over long periods of time. There should be evidence to back up their claims. It's not happening, old son. Tales are told with miracles and magic going every which way, omitting important considerations, little to no evidence —then appealing to clades. Those are generally the products of the complex

As you probably know, the story that big space rock smacked the earth near Chicxulub caused the extinction of the dinosaurs (which was selective in what critters it made extinct) is the prevailing view. Not all secularists support idea. Neither do creationists, for several important reasons . Up North Dakota way, scientists found a limb from a dinosaur known as a  Thescelosaurus , a wonder lizard. "Was it called that because it wondered where its limb went, Cowboy Bob?" Good possibility. So, the impact was in Mexico, but the limb is found in North Dakota... Asteroid and Earth, FreeDigitalPhotos / Idea go There were other assorted animals at the site as well. In addition to some absurd statements about the rock column, secularists are making claims that the shock waves from Chicxulub went around the world. That would provide selective devastation, but they are also invoking flood scenarios. They're getting closer to the globally catastrophic Genesis Flood, which is the sup

Charles Darwin proposed his conjectures about evolution by his version of natural selection, but admitted the fossil evidence was extremely poor. The first discovery of what would later be called Neanderthal Man happened before, in 1829, but the discoverer wrote it off as just another human skull. Later, evolutionist covfefe would use insufficient evidence to prop it up as a transitional form between apelike critters and humans. (Neanderthal Man is accepted as fully human today.) Another supposed missing link was  Pithecanthropus erectus , more commonly known as Java Man. Pithecanthropus erectus parts, WikiComm / Peter Maas  ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Eugène Dubois is credited with the discovery, and the history is quite interesting. He was raised Roman Catholic, but his schooling destroyed his weak religion. This was accelerated by evolutionary teachings, which is something that happens to students today with a vengeance. Since Darwin needed evidence, he saddled up and rode down Java way to get

If asked what fish in the sea is the biggest, someone may be suggest the whale. If you want to tease, coax them to say the blue whale. Then tell them that they are half right because a whale is a mammal, but the largest fish is the whale shark. Unfortunately, sharks get bad press, especially after that Spielberg movie. Most are not interested in seeking humans for lunch, but someone says shark  and people panic. Nurse sharks are harmless. While the whale shark has teeth and denticles to spare, it eats much smaller things. Whale Shark, Flickr / Mike Johnston  ( CC BY 2.0 ) Speaking of teeth, whale sharks even have some on their eyes. Well, sorta. Those are denticles — "So if they look the same, are they eye denticle, Cowboy Bob?" Uh, sure. Moving on... Darwinists have floated explanations that just won't wash, but those on the eyes are very modified and used to for eye protection. Also, evolutionists did that thing they have done so often: If they don't understand an o

Ever hear of peat? That and peat moss grow in boggy places, and they contain decaying plant material. They are acidic and help improve soil. Kick it up a notch and we get lignite, which is called brown coal. It has noticeable plant material. Lignite has uses, but less energy output than true coals. Lignite was found in Iceland, and the plants of the lignite beds were preserved by lava layers on top of each other. Uniformitarian scientists are baffled as to how some plants reached Iceland in the first place. Lignite Brown Coal, WikiComm / Anton Lefterov  ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) The usual belief is that plants were buried where they grew, but there is no evidence that several of the plants in the Icelandic lignite ever lived there. Some plants can reach remote islands through various means. A few of those in the lignite, however, are not good travelers. Secular scientists suggested ad hoc rescuing devices, but once again, the best explanation for what is observed is found in creation science G

Recently, an angry atheopath demanded that I provide just one claim by evolutionists that is false. He also refused to read any of the posts, so why bother? At any rate, here is another that fits his demand. Darwinists seem to have a habit of saying that they have great evidence, but the evidence is poor. For example, animals claimed to be evolutionary ancestors for turtles either lived alongside them, or had no relationship to turtles at all. Then things get...downright weird. Turtle, Pexels  / Vlad Chețan The great evidence for turtle evolution isn't. These critters are unique, and their shells are integral to their rib cages. There are numerous anatomical features needed. Scientists evosplain how they allegedly developed their shells a little at a time (which would make it more convenient to claim that some creature is an ancestor, despite the fossil record). The newest is claimed to be a "key missing link", but they are just dealing from the bottom of the deck because

Like dinosaurs, pterosaurs came in many sizes and shapes. Tupandactylus imperator was an odd-looking creature, different from the more common pterosaur portrayal. Evolutionary scientists thought they found themselves evidence of feathers. Perhaps it is because many secularists want evidence that birds evolved into dinosaurs — not that it would matter much, because dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and birds   were contemporaries . Also, even if the assertions in the obedient lapdog media of the secular science industry were true, feathers on pterosaurs are no threat to creation science. Tupandactylus imperator (background added), Nobumichi Tamura / Wikimedia Commons ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) What was actually seen is not justified by interpretations by the scientists, and similar nonsense has been floated before . They excluded explanations that do not make Darwin smile, preferring evoporn to actual scientific research and thorough examination. People who have learned critical thinking should know that

Despite the assertions of believers in particles-to-paleontologist evolution, their historical science is riddled with problems. Sometimes, they evosplain things away. Other problems are too difficult to easily dismiss. A couple of days ago, I accompanied my prospector friend Stormie Waters and her pal Ruby Slippers down Texas way. We picked up their supplies and went to the Brittle Star, a restaurant saloon. We talked and watched some folks playing faro. When what to our wondering eyes should appear but Cliff Swallows, the assistant foreman from the Darwin Ranch, and a lady that was new to us. Trilobite, RGBStock / Martyn E. Jones Cliff introduced her as Stevia Dolce, a new baker at the ranch. Conversation drifted to how the saloon shared a name with the brittle star, a relative of the starfish. I mentioned that they show no signs of evolution, but also how they were designed to "see" with their skin . Stevia smiled sweetly and changed the subject to trilobites. It did not g

Time and time again, Darwin's disciples are trapped by their erroneous presuppositions. They filter observed evidence through their worldviews  and are continually surprised when their speculations do not match the facts. Rescuing devices and obambulating weasel words are utilized. As regular readers have seen, secular cosmologists are constantly surprised that facts do not align with preconceptions. This also happens in biology, paleontology, and so on. "Earlier than thought", "Later than thought" and similar terms are vague but unapologetic admissions of error. They are used in discussions of ancient DNA. One major problem for those of the deep-time persuasion is that they assume the earth is billions of years old despite frequent evidences to the contrary . It was extremely difficult to get labs to carbon date diamonds because they "knew" there would be no C14. Wrong. Dinosaurs and other creatures "cannot" have soft tissues and discernable

Believers in universal common ancestor evolution are often presented as being united in their beliefs, with only a few small details disputed in the drawing room over cigars and brandy. Evolutionists often get on the prod when creationists refute this false image. In US law, statements against interest  are admissible in court. When we use the words of evolutionists who are candid about their doubts , accusations of quote mining  are utilized. One of the most impressive statements against interest was made by Dr. Colin Patterson. Unfortunately, some Christians have done quote mining. It usually seems to be from uninformed but enthusiastic people who want to have a "gotcha" remark against evolution. From those who are informed, and especially from creationist organizations, the charge is generally unfounded because such people know the importance of context and checking the facts. We cannot be like misotheists and anti-creationists who do  use quote mining of the Bible. In Da

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This post will have a rather substantial interruption, since one thing led to another in my research. While going down rabbit holes can be fun, it can be a huge distraction for this child (and many other folks). The topic is how secular scientists were sad about a disease found in a fossilized dinosaur. I searched for news of a fossil where a hadrosaur was injured by a T. rex before it took a dirt nap. Stay with me while I discuss a snarky anti-creationist, okay? Sauropod, Flikr / tadekk  ( CC BY 2.0 ) Plaintive Paleontologists There are advertisements designed to tug at viewers' heart strings by showing suffering animals, you can help by giving them money (use caution and check them out first ). Sure, those are living things, and decent people don't want to see them suffer. But why would researchers grab tissues over a sauropod fossil? It is demised. It is no more. It is an ex-sauropod. The sauropod showed signs of having a painful disease, and they spe

The secular science industry is ruining science by supporting leftist causes , and Russell Watchtower is working overtime. He heads up the Ministry of Truth at the Darwin Ranch (west on Folly Road, past Stinking Lake, up toward Deception Pass). The wokeness gang declares that paleontology is racist. Instead of opposing or even ignoring such nonsense, secularists react, " Yahyuh, yahyuh, dat makes good sense! " White people are bad — because reasons and stuff. We developed many sciences, and obtained fossils where they are found. This includes places now occupied by people of color. Made at PhotoFunia using a Wikimedia Commons image from Daderot  ( CC0 1.0 ) In some astonishingly bad logic (frequently found when promoting fish-to-fool evolution), Nature allows numerous unsupported claims in a capitulation to leftist absurdity. In addition to anti-white, anti-wealthy assertions, they conveniently neglect how "colonialism" occurred throughout history. When asserting t

The county of Rutland was famous for being the home of The Rutles , now they gained further attention by the discovery of the largest fish lizard fossil yet. It is rather interesting that an ichthyosaurid was discovered when a reservoir in Rutland was built, this one was found when one was drained. A thorough examination is expected to take possibly two years. (Rusty Swingset offered to send Dewey Lye and Cliff Swallows over from the Darwin Ranch, but local paleontologists declined.) No word if they contacted the nearby CMI's UK/Europe Leicester office for assistance. Platypterigius kiprjanov  by Dmitry Bogdanov at Wikimedia Commons ( CC BY 3.0 ), mostly modified at PhotoFunia It seems critters that spent all of their time in the sea would be fish or perhaps mammals, but these have features found in other reptiles. Is that a peculiarity of the time of the dinosaurs? There were other interesting things found as well. For one thing, it appears that another ichthyosaur was going to d

Other biblical creationists and I think that not only does God have a sense of humor, but he has set up various creatures to be discovered to defy Darwin's acolytes. We have examined the platypus here several times, and when evolutionists study it further... it does not go well . The title of this post is not something I dreamed up all by my lonesome. It is based on terms that secular researchers used themselves, and the alleged evolution of this crab fossil is troubling for evolution. Callichimaera perplexa , photo by Javier Luque via Wikimedia Commons  ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) Charles Darwin famously admitted: To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. He went on to say that he believed that it evolved anyway . Modified at

Over yonder in southern Wales near the southern end of Cardiff Bay is the seaside resort and community of Pernath. Scientist found fossilized dinosaur tracks that indicated they were walking on soft ground. It was not that some dinosaur decided to head out for a stroll on two legs in the mud, as several of these things seemed to be in a mighty big hurry. The deposited sediments had minerals that are characteristic of a marine environment, which puzzled the scientists. These tracks were from Benedicts Rock, Wales, credit: Flickr / Dr. Mary Gillham Archive  ( CC BY 2.0 ) The secularists tried to evosplain why dinosaurs would be making tracks in ocean sediments, and even used a bit of the just-so story principle. (No mention if they found fossils of the dinosaurs that made the tracks.) For that matter, there are fossils of land and marine creatures buried together all over the world. If they weren't married up with atheistic uniformitarianism, scientists might see that observed eviden

One of the most common stories told by purveyors of universal common ancestor evolution is that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Atheists and other evolutionists pretend that this view, along with many others, is universally supported by secular scientists. That is not the case. There are mainstream scientists who reject dinosaur-to-bird evolution. The majority view is ridiculous for many reasons, including that  dinosaurs and birds co-existed . This should make them pull back on the reins and holler, "Whoa!". Similarly, there are important reasons to reject the dino-to-reptiles view. Looks like the lizard regrets meeting the egret. Credit: Flickr / Paul Wright  ( CC BY 2.0 ) Numerous complex changes would be necessary. Darwin's disciples evosplain that birds and reptiles are not all that different, but that requires a lack of basic science knowledge and thinking. (They should use the minds they were given and question evolution .) The differences are actually quite complica