Piltdown Superman

Descent with modifications evolution is presented in sanitized versions, omitting or even misrepresenting inconvenient facts. Presenting both sides of the equation can get someone virtually horsewhipped, such as in this example . Sometimes, facts against evolution are glaringly obvious. (Out near the Darwin Ranch on Peach Road lives one of the workers who was driven insane by the truth. He keeps mumbling, then screaming, about living fossils.) Charles Darwin himself admitted that living fossils are one of many problems for his speculations. His acolytes are blowing smoke on the problem. Mostly made at PhotoFunia Presupposing deep time and assigning dates to fossils and rock layers, paleontologists find fossils of various organisms that are essentially unchanged from their living counterparts. They get tagged with the moniker living fossils . There's a passel of them, not just a few here and there. Since evolution is used to explain everything (logically fatuous, so it actually expl

Many creationists point out that a species of armored fish called the coelacanth was presumed extinct for over 65 million Darwin years, then it was found in 1936 doing just fine. It was just the same as it was in the fossil record, and that's the beginning of evolutionist woes. A new bundle of evoporn is attempting to make excuses. Credit: NOAA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Scientists cannot use the unscientific rescuing device of "stasis" for this or other living fossils because during those alleged millions of years, Darwinian mythology has a passel of things evolving. In addition, the claim that certain fins were evidence of it trying to evolve legs, but that was also disproved by Big C itself. A paper on the coelacanth tried to save face for Darwin, and it did what his disciples so often invoke. They ignored some very important facts, then used weasel words loaded with the equivalent of "I guess maybe", then passed it off as

A spell back, a Page on Fakebook dedicated to sharing Christian material for the purpose of mockery stated in part, "Another thing that supposedly confirms Noah's flood." If this troop of Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ paid attention, there are numerous evidences for the Genesis Flood, not just a couple of items. Here we have two examples of something troubling to evolutionists and deep-time proponents: massive fossil graveyards. There are many of these all around the world, and are not just anomalies to dismiss. Credit: Another work by  Nobumichi Tamura  at Wikimedia Commons ( CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 ) In an article originally posted in 2007, a passel of dinosaur fossils was discovered not all that far from Ulan Bator, Mongolia. While parrot-beaked dinosaurs were smaller than the big ones that get so much attention, they were not tiny and helpless. Paleontologists are baffled, and tried to evosplain the fossils. It did not go well. How do you fossilize 187 parrot-beaked dinosaurs

Owlhoots riding for the Darwin brand have made numerous assertions about the distant past based on their naturalistic presuppositions, but are frequently surprised when evidence contradicts their views. While everyone has and argues from their beliefs, secularists should have learned a bit of humility over the years. Coelacanth replica / Wikimedia Commons / Citron / CC-BY-SA-3.0 For a spell, the lobed-finned coelacanth was an icon of evolution because by pure imagination, it was thought to have used its fins to walk up on land and commence to evolving. When they were discovered after that yarn was spun, the supposed early legs were used for the fish's own purposes and had nothing to do with evolution. It was also essentially the same as it was all those Darwin years ago. A fossil discovery reveals that the coelacanth grew to be much larger long ago. Many things were larger back then. However, the fossil became an ichthyoid elephant in the room: where are all the fossils between it

At first glance, the American paddlefish can be mistaken for a shark. Scientists long ago thought this was the case, but paddlefish and sharks are not close relatives. Its appearance is rather startling. There are or were relatives of  Polyodon spathula in China and the Mississippi River. Paddlefish Polyodon spathula , WikiComm / Хомелка  ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Ol' spatula snout has a relative — "Isn't that a 1984 song by Madonna, Cowboy Bob?" "No, that's 'Like a Sturgeon.'" How did you guys get in here? You're both wrong, anyway. Speaking of sturgeon, the paddlefish is related to them. In fact, they startled believers in fish-to-fool evolution when it was discovered that  the two fish could interbreed . Because these fish have remained unchanged for millions of Darwin years, they are living fossils . Evolutionists call it stasis  (they didn't evolve because they didn't need to), which is a way to get out of the problem this presents. Anyon

Once again, the irrevocable force of evolution produces no change. Remember the coelacanth story ? Considered extinct by evolutionists and paleontologists for millions of years, it turned up alive and well — and pretty much unchanged, much to the dismay of Darwinistas. The lack of change was not much of a surprise to biblical creationists, however. The fossil record does not support evolution at all, so excuses are made. When different critters have similar features (such as sonar in bats and dolphins), they call it "convergent evolution", although there is no plausible record or model for such things happening. Also, when something disappears from the fossil record, it is assumed to be extinct. But worse, when something disappears for alleged millions of years, then fossils in more recent strata are found, they resort to weird science explanations like " ghost lineages ". From video footage of a frilled shark / NOAA.gov A living frilled shark was found l

Darwinists consider stromatolites evidence of the oldest life on Earth, and fossils have been found in some rocks that are dated billions of years old according to deep time conjectures. They were considered extinct until some were found alive and well, and are considered by some to be living fossils . Like many scientific discoveries, they were overlooked for a mighty long time because of evolutionary preconceptions: scientists didn't look because they assumed that stromatolites were extinct. (Don't let evolutionary thinking ruin your mind, kids.) Interestingly, stromatolites seem to need special water conditions to survive, but are still found in diverse areas. Shark Bay stromatolites image credit: NASA / Mark Boyle (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Reminiscent of corals, stromatolites are the assemblages of single-celled, DNA-less microbes known as cyanobacteria. Like annoying house guests, they get together and stay put. Eventually, mats are built. D

And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the sky. Let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise, we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” — Genesis 11.4, HCSB From the beginning, mankind has wanted to be important in his own eyes. Eve fell for the lie of Satan, "You shall be like God" ( Genesis 3 ). Somewhere around 2200 BC, people were still trying to make a name for themselves and challenge God's authority. The ancient pagan religion of evolutionism has been a justification for the rejection of God; Darwin popularized it as "scientific" and put this paganism in a lab coat. Using evolutionary presuppositions and assumptions, charts are made for their timelines and data is force-fit into a naturalistic paradigm. There are frequent discoveries that rattle the cages of the Evo Sith, but they manage to carry on with their worldview despite  the evidence. In this case, a compression fossil of a mosquito

Evolutionists find fossils that they claim are multi-millions of years old. But they look just like their modern counterparts. That is unacceptable to evolutionists. The oft-told tale is that something dies and takes a very long time to fossilize. But this is in spite of common knowledge, but in spite of common sense. Scavengers, decay, the elements and more ruin the chances of fossilization by uniformitarian methods. No, something has to be buried quickly. Golden Orb-Weaver Spider  Nephila maculata /Wikimedia Commons/Engelen A soft-bodied creature is even more susceptible to removal before the established fossil-making techniques are engaged. What is worse is when a fossil is alleged to be so many millions of years old, and its living counterparts show no noticeable changes. Fossils are just one of many different pieces of evidence used to cause confusion between evolutionary theory and biblical history. Many of the fossil finds reported by the mainstream media are touted to

According to common-ancestor evolutionists, their process is slow, with numerous gradual changes between forms. Papa Darwin said so, and they still believe it today. Problem is, there's no real supporting evidence in the fossil record. Sure, they'll trot out that reliable and unbiased source of scientific information called Wikipedia and say, "See? Here's a list of transitional fossils!" That'll be the day. Varieties and variations are not evidence of evolution, and there the few that are seriously considered to be transitional forms are disputed. There should be billions of transitional fossils, and Darwinists should be able to say, "Case closed". They can't do this, because their conjectures of evolution never happened, that's why the evidence is continually unfriendly to them. Instead, the evidence supports recent special creation. Two recent fossil finds are difficult for evolutionists to explain. One is an odd ichthyosaur, the ot

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

Long ago, the coelacanth was considered extinct. Its fossils got believers in fish-to-fire marshal evolution all excited because it had nubbin fins that they thought resembled feet. Yee haw boy howdy, this bad boy was a transitional form. It was evolving for land life as required by the Darwinian narrative! The geologic column has numerous problems including fossils in the wrong order and so-called ghost lineages (where certain fossils appear, disappear for a few million Darwin years, and then reappear). That stuff gets left out of the millions of years with transitions narrative. The coelacanth was not willing to be a part of it. Coelacanth,  NOAA  (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Evolutionists made their pronouncements about the fossils according to their presuppositions. Then the coelacanth decided to stop playing hide and seek. One was found, but not in good enough condition for detailed study. Eventually, more were found, and were pretty much identical to their

Fanciers of minerals-to-microbiologist evolution often erroneously claim that the fossils prove evolution. Quite often, those owlhoots are unaware that the sanitized version of evolution that they are peddling is erroneous, and they end up being schooled by knowledgeable creationists. Fossil ranges are expanding, which causes considerable consternation up at the Darwin Ranch. Bandicoot image credit: Pixabay/ Siggy Nowak Darwinoids ineffectively evosplain how fossils are out of order. In addition, they have to cowboy up to the embarrassment of living fossils (something was thought to have been extinct for a few million Darwin years but is found alive, well, and mostly unchanged). They use the transparent excuse of "stasis", which flies in the face of evolutionary dogma. As biblical creationists will tell you, there is some semblance of order in the geological column. but it does not support evolutionary concepts or an old earth. Indeed, we are not surprised by fossils

When watching some of those "Let's see if we can find the real creature" shows on TV, a couple of sea monster sightings were dismissed as sturgeons. While I was not convinced that a real mystery had been found, I thought it was simplistic to blame a fish. (Sort of like when UFOs had been dismissed as the planet Venus, which was not visible at the time of the alleged sighting.) Later, I learned that sturgeons (which are a bit high in cholesterol) can grow to an impressive size. Ugly, too. fws.gov  But never mind about that now.  Evolutionists want to claim that they are "living fossils". You know, those things that have not changed much in the alleged "millions of years" from what we see now, and the impressions they made in the fossil record. And yet, they contradict themselves. Darwin's Cheerleaders are carping that the sturgeon does not cooperate with the expected rate of change. Nor do they change enough. But they "evolve" too

If someone keeps records, then those records should be orderly and reliable for reference. Believers in universal common ancestor evolution rely on the fossil record because they believe it shows an orderly progression from simple to complex life forms. This is not the case , and red algae is yet another frustration. Limespot butterflyfish, with  soft coral and coralline red algae image credit: Derek Keats  ( CC by 2.0 ) This stuff is important for coral reefs, and was given an age by evolutionists. Coralline red algae fossils were alleged to be over 400 million Darwin years old — much older than previously thought. Also, the fossils are just like the algae that live today. When something disappears, then reappears, they hijack a biblical reference and call it the Lazarus Effect.  (This may be another name for ghost lineages . ) Evolutionists have no explanation, but the Genesis Flood is the real explanation for (out-of-place)  and living fossils . Red algae form one of the m

For some reason, I never thought Katy would, but katydid. Fossilize, that is. And this fossil is extremely detailed, unlike those ammonites and things we find in the river or quarry. There have been quite a few fossils found lately that are very intricate. This katydid fossil shows so much detail, it works against particles-to-paleontologist evolution: All of the minutiae are like their modern counterparts, so no evidence of evolution. We looked at the recurrent secular miracle of convergent evolution . Here is stasis , another popular miracle among Darwin's disciples. Katydid (Tettigoniidae), Flickr / Insects Unlocked (public domain) Evolutionists want things both ways, since evolution is a "fact" and pretty much like an irresistible force (except when it's an entity making choices and decisions), or there is stasis where organisms didn't change after millions of Darwin years. Paddlefish , sharks,   tunicates , alligators,  coelacanths , and many other critters

Living things seem mighty recalcitrant when it comes to supporting evolutionary conjectures, including those things termed living fossils . Those are things that were thought to be extinct, then found alive and essentially unchanged after millions of alleged years. A green alga, a seaweed, is not quite a living fossil because it was thought to be extinct in North America but still living in other parts of the world. Well, it's been found in North America after all, and it's unchanged. In cases like this, wait for Darwin's Drones to bring out the usual boilerplate excuses: it didn't have to evolve, stasis, and things like that. This child doesn't fall for those tricks, because a lot of environmental things happen in a year, and evolutionary mythology breaks down if they think we're going to accept such "explanations". Aside from the anticipated excuses, there are several important facts that evolutionists overlook, including how critters and plants

We have seen that believers in universal common descent have serious problems with the Cambrian explosion and with vertebrate evolution . Instead of solving problems, they continue with the narrative and speculate more, such as with the evolution of jawed vertebrates. Credit: Flickr / J Thomas McMurray ( CC BY-NC 2.0 ) As discussed before, if a science conjecture, hypothesis, or theory is true, one should expect supporting evidence. Darwin's disciples evosplain using the fossil record, and we should expect a wagon train-load of transitional forms. Jawless fish evolved into jawed fish evolved into jawed vertebrates. (Why do we keep discussing fish? Evolutionary mythology has us evolving from the things.) The fossil record does not have transitional forms. Indeed, there are contradictions as well — including huge leaps of faith regarding biology. What can we expect from creation science to deal with some fossils that may seem inconvenient for us? Follow the link below. One of the g

Believers in evolution and deep time get on the prod when soft tissues are discussed, mainly because they cannot exist over millions of Darwin years. Lately, the most frequent discussion on soft tissues involves dinosaurs, but they are found in other areas, such as the ink in a fossil ink sac that was used to draw a picture . In a similar manner to soft tissues, fossil plants are not cooperating with the evolution narrative. Gingko leaves in autumn, Wikimedia Commons / Joe Schneid  ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Even after the alleged millions of years, original plant molecules and chemical bonds were found — and a term that brings the concept of entropy to mind, thermodynamic stability, was used. Worse for Darwin's disciples, plant material was essentially unchanged between those in the fossils and living counterparts. I reckon that the term living fossils may be applicable here. Yee ha boy howdy, evolutionists were frustrated twice in one study! Truth is, the earth is not billions of ye

Did you hear about the huge guinea pig fossil? They reckon that bad boy was about 2,000 pounds (907 kg). I'd like to say, "Bacon!", but the guinea pig is a rodent, not a pig. And they're not from Guinea. Darwinists have a thing they call "Cope's Rule", which is supposed to mean that things evolve to be larger (but this idea falls apart when the bad logic is exposed .) There are many large things in the fossil record , and creationists have speculations as to why they were bigger then, but critters just don't grow that big anymore. I suppose evolutionists will invoke "evolutionary stasis" or something. Back to Ultra Rodent and His Stupendous Friends. Things were larger back then, even though Cope's erroneous "rule" is not exactly seen in action. What happened to the big guys? As if living creatures don’t display enough variety in God’s creation, fossil forms bring that diversity to a whole new level. Consider the fossi