Piltdown Superman

On this first calendar day of 2013, it is fitting to take a look at the origins of science. The bad news for evolutionists is that evolution has done nothing to advance scientific progress. Science was doing well before Darwin, and attempts to add evolution have actually been harmful to science ! There is the occasional misrepresentation (which I believe is often deliberate) that creationists are simple-minded Biblicists who know nothing about science. Such a pejorative has nothing to do with reality. Chance and random processes are antithetical to science; if evolution and atheism were true, there would be no uniformity of nature in which to do science stuff. In fact, the uniformity of nature presupposes the Creator. Bible-believing scientists of the past knew this. “How can you reject the same science that put man on the moon?” You get that response sometimes when you admit that you’re a Creationist. The irony is that it was a Creationist rocket scientist, Wernher V

The greatest miracle of Jesus...there are many ideas about what that may be, and those are probably influenced by personal preference or knowledge. John 11:43-44 records how Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, and there were others as well. Those are pretty impressive. Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3, Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:2), so making the earth, life, entire universe — a substantial miracle. Calming a storm by speaking to it (he created everything by speaking), healing people, walking on water. An eye surgeon believes giving sight to the man born blind is a huge miracle. Healing the man born blind by Jesus Christ , Vasily Surikov, 1888 As a side note, in John 9:2, his disciples asked, "...who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind?" How could he have sinned if he was born that way? Someone pointed out that the disciples were talking about reincarnation, and Jesus dismissed the idea. This child wonders if they were also toying with the idea of karma. Eithe

There's no shortage of tales to tell by evolutionary owlhoots for the sake of propping up their presuppositions. What does the variation in eyes throughout living things tell you? Simple answer first: the variety of eyes tells you that there's a variety of eyes. National Geographic  people are saying that they can reconstruct the history of evolution based on computer programs and speculations. Evidence for evolution? That'll be the day! Cats' eyes have a tapetum lucidum that reflects light back through the eye so they can see better in the dark. Part of the story is that "convergent evolution" (a theoretical excuse that is used when there is no actual evidence) for eyes happened at least 40 times. Also, evolution is given a demigod status here, too, exhibiting creativity and thrift. Not hardly! This evolutionary storytelling is also an example of ignoring certain data and alternative explanations. The best explanation is that the Creator designed diff

We know the basics of vision, how light is reflected off an object, it reaches our eyes and we see the object. The intricate design of the human eye testifies about the genius of the Master Engineer, but receiving light into our eyes is not the end of the story of sight. Credit: Good Free Photos Like facts and evidence, what has been received must be interpreted. Have you ever looked at the clouds and noticed shapes? Perhaps you were with a friend and each of you saw a different shape until you pointed out the features. Then it changed into something else because of air currents. Your brain was at work trying to make sense of something, often drawing from what you know and have seen in the past. The way the brain makes sense of actual images is quite amazing and is a complex process. We take in colors, patterns, shadows, and all sorts of things. Many parts of the eye and brain are involved, as well as electrical and chemical activities that evolutionists cannot adequately expl

One, two, three, stop and put your spines in the air, then back down. Keep going, stay with the beat . Okay, so arthropods probably did not have recreational activities, but it is fun to imagine trilobites doing a conga line. The number of assigned trilobite species is (to use scientific terminology) a passel. None of them are friendly to Darwinian speculations, such as their sudden appearance in the " Cambrian explosion " and the exceptional optics in some species . Strange about that conga line, though. Ampyx priscus trilobite conga line, Wikimedia Commons / J. Vannier, M. Vidal, et alia  ( CC BY 4.0 ) "It looks sorta like a peloton, Cowboy Bob!" Well, that word is used when talking about bicycle races. The main group is in a bunch. Peloton riders may also form a straight line to reduce wind drag (slipstreaming) and trade off the front position. (Clearly exhibited in a bicycling pace line, seen here .) Geese and other migratory birds do that in their "V&quo

A persistent purveyor of evoporn named Nathan Lents wrote a book to continue the oft-refuted untruth that the human body is poorly designed. An article derived from his book was syndicated in several newspapers, and Darwin's Flying Monkeys© gibbered with glee. It also caused some irritation to creationists, since we have to explain why this otherwise well-informed individual is saying things that are not true. They also defy common sense; for being "poorly designed", our bodies do quite well. Notice that they ignore material that they cannot explain away, such as " Humans: Better Designed and Capable than Darwinism Can Explain ". People are willing to confiscate excuses to deny God, so they pay people like Lents to provide them. I lack belief that he is being truthful. Credit: Unsplash /  Kristopher Roller Whenever you come across an argument from dysteleology (if there's a Creator, he fouled up), it smacks of personal preference, ignorant statements

You know the old saying about beauty being in the eye of the beholder, which basically means that what may look good to you may not look so special to me. On a larger scale, there are things that people generally agree upon that contain beauty. This applies to architecture as well. Credit: Pixabay / Robert Jones There was a time when people made an effort to design a building that was pleasing to the eye, and people wanted a house "with character". With the advent of modernism came utilitarian approaches to building. Bland houses and apartment complexes that were scarcely above the aesthetic value of things resembling bunkers ensued. Some of the designers were actually opposed to the beauty of what went before. Modernists tended toward materialism, and intertwined in that were atheism and Darwinism. I think they also sacrificed quality of work. This utilitarian approach is a tenet of evolutionism. While we have ugly buildings and cheapness in construction, there is

Some feller was investigating shrimp — oh, wait. Kathryn Feller (I got it right, now) was investigating the larvae of mantis shrimp. They are mostly transparent, except for their eyes, which reflect colors. The amazing thing is that they can become almost entirely invisible, as if they had a cloaking device. As expected, the researchers ruined good observational science by invoking evolution to explain their findings. Actually, they conflated natural selection with evolution. They should know better, since natural selection is not evolution. And no, there's no way they'd saddle up on design as an explanation, even though that's a reasonable conclusion. To figure out how the shrimp larvae hide their eyes, Kathryn Feller collected mantis shrimp larvae from Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. In her lab, exposed to ordinary white light, the shrimp glowed blue-green. “The whole sphere of the retina at the centre of the eye reflects this sparkly blue-green light,” she says. “It’s

A favorite argument by biblical creationists and advocates of Intelligent Design against Darwinism is irreducible complexity. The simplified version is that everything must be in place at the same time, from the beginning, or nothing works or makes sense. This applies to the human eye and even down to the molecular level. Papa Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” He also said that he could "find no such case". I reckon he didn't try to see the evidence, just like his disciples today — who have even less excuse because of advances in science and technology. Matthew 13:14 comes to mind. Anti-creationists say that irreducible complexity "can be explained", but their arguments can be summed up as, "I found someone on teh interwebs that says irreducible complexity isn't so, and he says what

There were several things that Charlie Darwin did not like. These included God, design, the Cambrian Explosion , and the peacock's tail. His version of evolution postulated that living things are the products of unguided processes and the cruel, inefficient process of natural selection. He also got the notion of sexual selection, which was essentially that males paraded before females who picked a mate that looked the best. The peacock was supposed to be a prime example of sexual selection, but those tail feathers — the train — are examples of intricate specified complexity. Peacock, Pexels / Soly Moses Peacocks are native to Burma, India, and those parts. Want a peacock tail feather? Wait a spell. They shed their train later in the season. Also, even though that massive train looks cumbersome, the peacocks fly quite well if they take a notion. The structure and design of the tail feathers is intricate even under the microscope, and colors are a combination of several factors. Thos

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen We have seen here are that promulgators of evoporn, whether misotheists or their churchian allies, reveal their determination to indoctrinate people into universal common ancestor evolutionism. Many are fanatically intolerant of other views, especially of their circulation. Before we saddle up and ride this trail, it needs to be emphasized again that there are people who are evolutionists because that's how they were trained; apparently many are unaware that there are other views of origins. In addition, many scientists want to just do science stuff. It's the proselytizers — the indoctrinators — that are the problem. Ideally, science thrives on challenges, better ideas, examining the logic, scrutinizing the validity of data, asking if sufficient evidence was utilized, and more. (Similar things in our lives also benefit from similar scrutiny.) Darwin's cheerleaders are appalled — appalled , I tell you — when evolution is questioned or doubted in the sl

Once again, astronomers find a celestial object that should not exist, but it does anyway. This happens quite frequently, whether baffling planets and moons in our own solar system, or exoplanets such as the oversized NGTS-1b. Why are they so befuddled? Because they work from irrational materialistic presuppositions. Credit: Rgbstok / kimolos This planet is almost the size of Jupiter, orbits a small star, and (according to cosmic evolutionary mythology), there is not enough material for the planet to have formed in the first place. (Then there's the alleged super-huge black hole that shouldn't exist .) It's not just in astronomy where secular scientists keep getting amazed, it happens in paleontology as well . Ironically, secularists use theological arguments based on their naturalistic opinions in other ways. The embrangled theology is first based on the assumption that God the Creator does not exist. F'rinstance, owlhoots who hold to a naturalistic paradigm co

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen People who pay attention to the origins debate are likely to have noticed that Darwinism advocates, especially on the web, are exceptionally passionate. Many of these folks really get on the prod if someone dares to write, speak, or even whisper words of doubt about evolution. This is hypocritical, as the same people often claim that they want "tolerance" and "discourse", but have no tolerance of those who reject any or all of materialistic evolution; so-called "freethinkers" often oppose people who think in a manner for which they disapprove. Credit: Freeimages / hamidreza ahmadi For that matter, Charles Darwin said in Origin , " A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts  and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be  here done". However, he apparently did not have any intention of discourse with people who doubted his conjectures. Instead, it was appare

One problem that creationists have is that we have to deal with Darwin's Drones who want to negate what we have to say with proof of evolution. (Some are more reasonable and simply want to give what they consider to be evidence of evolution, not "proof".) Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents do not have a problem with evidence, because what Darwinists have to offer in defense of their worldview is weak. Have you ever seen a creationist haiku on a tombstone before? The most frequent problem we have is when evolutionists present what they consider evidence, and it has been dealt with by creationists already or even discarded by evolutionary scientists. They seldom do their homework. Unfortunately, these things keep popping up and are even in textbooks and so forth. We often know their material better than they do. This article presents two items that are touted as evidence for evolution that should be buried. One is a claim that since some members o

Many years ago, my mother told of an encounter with a deer when she was driving on a highway one evening (we lived in Michigan). Instead of  waiting, the fool beast ran alongside her car and then jumped over it. My mother saw the hind legs as it went onward. This adds to what many people know, that deer are fast runners and strong jumpers. Cropped from a nice scene on Freeimages / Juha Soininen Then there's the story of the woman who called the radio station to complain about the deer crossing signs. She was upset that the deer didn't obey the signs. If that call happened (and there are several versions of the story), I think it was probably done as a prank. On a more serious note from TQEP 's Public Service department, a good guideline for motorists is to never assume that there is just one.  If you stop for one in the road, keep an eye out for others. I can verify this from more than one experience. Let's move on. There are many of the deer kind around th

There's a heap of fossilized trilobites. I'd like to be under the sea in a submersible vehicle, seeing if an octopus' garden contains any living fossil trilobites. Wouldn't that be great? Well, the coelacanth was considered extinct, but it was found doing mighty fine. Maybe trilobites exist way down there and don't want to be seen, did you ever think about that? Trilobite, US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Although fossilized, scientists have been able to determine the composition and function of their eyes. They had multiple lenses in each eye, so they had excellent vision under the sea. In fact, they could see things in three dimensions, sometimes double 3-D. Other kinds of trilobites had eyes on stalks, so they could do 3-D 360. To believe that such amazing specified eye complexity is the product of blind (heh!) chance processes in evolution, well, ya gotta wanna believe that. It makes far more sense to admit that the evidence support

Yes, it seems like an dull subject, but blinking is important for many creatures so they can keep their vision. People who have dry eye syndrome need treatment. Although blinking is not a conscious activity, it can be controlled for a short time. In " Mudskippers Blink, Evolution Tinkers ," we considered how Darwin's disciples study the mudskipper for evidence of evolution, assuming  it is evolution in action and that life evolved in the sea — then things decided to evolve further on land. Yet there is no evidence for mudskipper evolution. Blink and smile, Flickr / Lee Haywood ( CC BY-SA 2.0 ) Controlled winking and blinking are often used for communication. When a cat gives you a slow blink, that's affection, Alfred. In the book of Proverbs, those planning evil signal with blinks and such ( e.g. , Prov. 6:12-15). More importantly, autonomic blinking cleans and lubricates the eyes. Evolutionists study mudskippers, ignoring the fact that there is no evidence for evolu

The 1981 remake of the song "Bette Davis Eyes" was a huge hit, but this child failed to see what was special about them. Could she move each one independently? Mayhaps a rewrite about someone who "has chameleon eyes" would be interesting. When discussing alleged facts by evolutionists, likely, probably, scientists think,  and other terms are used to dodge the issues but still promote their faith. In this case, discussing how the eyes and vision of chameleons operate practically require such words — the reptiles are not talking. Chameleon on a branch, Pixabay / Shilona We have examined the most obvious trait of chameleons before, the ability to change color . It seems their vision has been underrated, which presents problems to evolution. No other land animal has the independent eye motion which still makes sense because of the brain's intricacies. What we have here is yet another example of the Master Engineer's work. Most vertebrate animals have their eyes