Piltdown Superman

Reading this report got me on the prod because I found it insulting. Sometimes I think that proponents of molecules-to-mammal evolution think that we are unable to see through their just-so stories, but then I see anti-creationists gobbling them up and pretending to believe "science". The latest instance is of a fossil that is laden with silliness. Credit: Pixabay / Andrew Martin A fossil was found that strongly resembles a bat, and Darwin's disciples evosplain with not only circular reasoning (assuming evolution to prove evolution), but are making evolution into a decision-making entity. Here, evolution experimented on the development of dinosaur flight with a bat, a story that belongs in comic books. They're calling it a dinosaur because evolution. There are many bats in the world, pilgrim, like there were in bygone days. What they found was just another bat. Further, evolutionists have no means of showing any sign of bat evolution , nor can they expla

We have two articles for your perusal. The first one is in the here and now, the second involves fossils. Some critters bring out the urge to draw our shooting irons or maybe find flamethrowers because they are creepy. A good part of that is our cultural conditioning, plus the fact that some things transmit diseases. We are none too fond of finding them in our breakfast cereal, either. However, our Creator had a reason for putting cockroaches on the earth. Credit: Wikimedia Commons /  Stuart Cunningham  ( CC by-SA 3.0 ) Don't be getting your "Ewww Factor" in high gear. Although there are only about thirty species that bother humans, the other several thousand species go on about their business. Out in the wild, they are found in a variety of colors. It seems that their main purpose is to dispose of various kinds of waste. For that matter, cockroaches are being farmed in China to take care of kitchen waste , and they are mighty tasty to hogs. Are we missing out? (

With an abundance of material, I thought it best to combine links to these articles into one post. Each of these is a quick read but they have some interesting information about how paleontologists are baffled by new discoveries — including how one fossil blatantly defies deep-time reckoning. Credit: Pixabay /  GeorgeB2 Our first entry is about sex. Katie, bar the door! Just kidding. It's more about how difficult it is to determine the sex of dinosaurs. There have been many speculations over the years, but it's mighty difficult when all you have are bone fragments and fossils (reasonably complete skeletons are rare). Since paleontologists agree that dinosaurs were probably reptiles, perhaps a comparison with existing reptiles could help. Seems reasonable. Recently, a new study led by Queen Mary University of London concluded that dinosaur bones tell us little about their sexes. In the past, secular scientists have made various claims about the ability to make sex dete

Ever get bugged with a caddisfly infestation and have to call the exterminator? Not surprising, since there are 1,200 species in the U.S. of A alone.  They're misnamed, since these moth-like creatures are of a different scientific order than flies.   They live on land, but the larvae are in silk structures in the water. Caddisflies are good in their own environment, and even beneficial, but we prefer that they stay out of our homes . Also, they're often considered pests (including Potomac horse fever ), and are pestering paleontologists. Platte River caddisfly image credit: Jeanine Lackey / USFWS This is another life form that cannot be accounted for according to bacteria-to-bug evolution. Another living fossil, their alleged millions-of-years-old ancestors are pretty much the same as the ones we see today. A larger potential problem is that a jumble of terrestrial and aquatic fossils includes what may be yet more organic material of their silk, which cannot last for m

In our last installment , we saw that Darwin's Desperate Cheerleaders are ignoring facts from paleontology and geology, and trying to make an ancient bird into a feathered dinosaur. This post has two more items that need your investigation. Megalosaurus, a bird-hipped dinosaur Some Darwinists are so intent on determining the origin of flight that they see feathers in all sorts of dinosaur fossils. It has been speculated that dinosaurs had feathers, and then branched into two kinds: Lizard-hipped (which allegedly evolved into birds) and bird-hipped (which did not allegedly evolve into birds, despite having an advantage in the hip department). I actually laughed when I read that. Things that look like feathers to some enthusiastic scientists actually have almost no resemblance to them. Here are two articles that show why the feathers are from the land of imagination. First: The media have jumped all over a discovery of fuzz on a small ornithischian dinosaur, ignoring the ev

Evolutionary scientists are presented as profoundly wise, using the proven fact of evolution to give explanations and offer predictions. Since they base these predictions on the faulty presuppositions of uniformitarianism and evolutionism, they end up with numerous errors. This list of evolution fails includes bird stripes, living fossil fish, cooperation, continent of human origins, dinosaur sizes, use of fire. Read these at "'Darwin Fail' Entries Add Up", here .

When the question is asked, "Why did this feature evolve?", the answer is often a simplistic, "Because the organism wanted it to", or some such. (Almost like orders were placed at an annual convention: "I'll have night vision, please".) Proponents of dust-to-Darwin evolution fail at explaining how something allegedly evolved, but adding in why is beyond answering. That is because, according to evolutionists, their process is without design, so they're contradicting themselves by implying that something evolved on purpose. Can't have it both ways, old son. Image credit: Pixabay / markovojkic Turtle shells are for protection, sure. But a turtle is much more than a reptile with a protective outer casing has properties of architectural design . (Did you know that the Eastern box turtle has a kind of antifreeze ?) Shell, skeleton, muscles, lungs — all were designed by the Creator to work together as a unit. Evolutionists found a fossil and

It is interesting to think of how critters lived before the Genesis Flood, especially those predators that would not take any guff off anyone. But like in the Old West movies where someone says, "This town ain't big enough for the both of us", there is no reason to think that the mean ones all lived in the same area. The Animals Entering Noah' Ark , Jacopo Bassano, 1570s Dinosaurs with sharp claws and (as Tim the Enchanter might say) nasty big pointy teeth. It may be fun to watch them strutting around looking for a fight like rival gang members, but is that plausible? We know from fossil evidence that there were some rip snortin' fights, but those were probably the exceptions. The same kind of safe distance thing can be inferred from predatory animals living today. A [CMI] reader from Ukraine, B.V., asks some interesting questions about what dinosaurs are found buried together and why. His message follows, with a response from Philip Bell, intended to prov

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

Advocates of microbes-to-microscopist evolution have a great deal to say about the hows and whys of the appearances of things living today, and of those that went before. However, it is difficult to examine their evidence, because it's mighty scarce. Sure, we get a passel of authoritative assertions of "it evolved that way", but assertions and tall tales are not scientific evidence. What follows are several links illustrating false claims of evolution happening. This will be good for students to examine and see how science and evolution can often be mutually exclusive. Original image credit: US Dept of Transportation / aschweigert (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Non-Evolving Dinosaurs Assertions of "being covered with feathers" without any sign of the things; why some dinosaurs moved fast, but details are expected in the future; a crocodile fossil that dates 170 million Darwin Years old is essentially identical to modern crocodiles

morgueFile/carmemlucia (modified) Despite the presuppositions and wishful thinking of evolutionists, it is statistically impossible for life to have arisen by chance in outer space. Just for the sake of argument, if we granted that there really is life (or the building blocks of life) out there , there are some substantial difficulties for that life to arrive intact on Earth. The notion that life somehow originated on another planet and then came to Earth via outer space holds a wistful obsession for many evolutionists. This is because: They have been unable to explain the origin of life on Earth, and even the ”simplest” living cell is now known to be unimaginably complex. As life has been found deeper and deeper in the fossil record, and so in older and older strata according to evolutionary dogma, many are now saying that there has not been enough time for life to have evolved on Earth; thus an older planet is needed. Of course, postulating that life began on another

It seems that most fossils being found nowadays are good news for creationists, what with excellent preservation, computerized tomography ( as used here ), and all that good stuff. New South Wales is a state on the east coast of 'Straya, the centre of which is home to McGraths Flat. It is a research area, and they are finding some interesting fossils (expect more in the future). A brushfooted trapdoor spider fossil was on the large side. Although mostly the same as its modern counterpart, Darwin's disciples naturally cheered evolution. Brushfooted trapdoor spider in Brisbane, Australia, Flickr / Robert Whyte ( CC BY-NC-ND ) Other spider fossils have been discovered there, and even tiny ones can be examined in minute detail. I find this amazing because we're talking about stone that gets examined, not soft tissues. Once again, we see that creatures had to be buried in the right conditions (rapidity is a big part of it) so scientists can examine those details. They could not

If you head north in England, you will reach the ceremonial county of Northumberland. Find Howick and head for the North Sea. If you go for a stroll, be careful walking on boulders, and watch out for overhangs. Boulders fall. Also watch out for millipedes as big as cars. As big as cars? By length, mayhaps, but not by weight or width. And not living. An incomplete fossil was discovered in one of the aforementioned boulders that fell and broke open. Arthropleura , extinct millipede, model. Maker: Peter Roberts, Photographer: Benjamin Healley Source: Museums Victoria ( CC BY 4.0 ) Secular paleontologists commenced to using circular reasoning about the age and former environment. They also used guesswork on their deep time and evolutionary presuppositions, but there's no sign of an evolutionary progression from smaller critters. Their speculations raised other questions that went unanswered. What was found is best explained by recent creation, then rapid burial during the Genesis Floo

Rewriting this post*. My wife will not read this because she doesn’t like spiders , and they give a lot of people the heebie jeebies. Time to put feelings on the shelf so we can examine some important facts about spider fossils and the Flood. Credit: Flickr / Chandan Singh ( CC BY 2.0 ) I prolly gave some of y'all the heebie jeebies all over again. Ignore it. Besides, I don't get to use that expression very often. "When spiderish eyes are shining, sure, 'tis like the morning spring —" Do you take requests? How about if you sing "Down by the River" and "Fall In"? While soft tissues and fossils have been known for a long time, the situation was amplified by famous work by Mary Schweitzer in 2005, as well as by Kevin Anderson and Mark Armitage . (One furious atheopath recently claimed that young-age creationists “hijacked” her work, affirmed the dubious iron preservation rescuing device, then ignored all the rest of the soft tissue news.) In fact,

Purveyors of the universal common descent idea should know their history. Papa Darwin ran his version of evolution up the flagpole even though he admitted the paucity of fossil evidence, and people saluted it anyway. He, and his subsequent followers, were hoping that evidence would be forthcoming. If you check your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™, you'll see that this is blind faith and not science, pilgrim. Evolutionists have a long history of trouble with moths, such as the fake news regarding the peppered moth . Continuing the tradition of wishful thinking, they studied some fossilized moths and hoped they would have some kind of evidence for their belief system. What they obtained was evidence that moths have always been moths, even after alleged millions of years. I reckon moths could be considered living fossils . With the continuing development of more precise microscopy (and some fascinating equipment), new moth fossils were analyzed. Scientists were able to d

The hands at the Darwin Ranch have been desperately trying to shloop stories and fool the public. Mayhaps they are on the prod because biblical creation science ministries have been trying to teach people to think and ask questions. The problem of Rohmer's Gap is not going away. Pederpes image credit: Wikimedia Commons / DiBgd ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) No, Rohmer's Gap is nowhere near the Darwin Ranch. It is in the fossil record regarding missing transitional forms (as if they had any undisputed transitional forms in the first place!), and it's huge. Try as they might, evolutionists cannot shrink or eliminate the gap despite a few prospective failed candidates. They plug in their naturalistic models, but those do not explain what is observed. Using a creation science Flood geology model, however, makes a great deal more sense of the evidence. Yippie ky yay, secularists! One of the biggest hurdles for evolution to overcome is the transition of creatures from living in water to liv

This post features the third part in a series by Dr. Robert Carter, first two of which were made available in this post . I thought he was done, but he had some more to discuss with us. In this article, he discusses a model for the created kinds, baramins , of Genesis. Darwin's "Tree of Life" simply does not work. Biblical creationists have pointed out that created kinds are like an orchard, or branching trees in a forest. Dr. Carter believes that this concept should be developed another way. Corals extend tentacles, NPS / A. Bourque (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Many secularists get furious — furious , I tell you — that creation scientists reject  their  classification system (which materialists stole from creationist Carl Linnaeus and modified to fit atheistic naturalism), and are working on baraminology , the study of created kinds . No, creationists do not believe in the "fixity of species" (no speciation, everything stayed the same). T

People who study origins and evolution have heard of Darwin's Abominable Mystery. Like the irreducibly complex eye was a serious problem for Darwin  (yet he still believed in gradual evolution anyway), the fact that flowering plants appear in the fossil record too soon was another problem for him. Neither was resolved. Evolutionists are prone to lying to con people to accept evolution, and they did so a spell back about DAM . This time, however, they are honest about the inescapable conclusion (based on their systems) that flowering plants existed millions of years sooner than they previously thought. Phylica pubescens , WikiComm  Marco Schmidt ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Something that adds to their problem is that a flower found in amber is a Phylicia, which is basically identical to its living counterparts. It did not see fit to evolve after being subjected to "evolutionary pressures" through all those alleged millions of years. In addition, there should be a chain reaction in e

Flying reptiles of the past have long been a source of amazement to many people, and there is a great deal of mystery surrounding them. As expected, they appear in movies and such. There are about 150 species defined from fossils, and apparently  Pterodactylus was the first kind discovered. A 2005 movie titled Pterodactyl  has some of the critters living in modern times with wing edges like guillotines. Those are also about three times the size of  Pterodactylus from the fossil record. If the movie makers had done a little homework, they should have called it Pteranodon . Better yet, name the flick after the bigger grouping, pterosaurs. I only watched a few minutes of the movie and suggest you skip it. Pterosaur replica, Pixabay / Efraimstochter (mosaic effect added) They are classified as reptiles, but do not have some reptilian traits. There is speculation that they were warm-blooded. One scholar said they have a mosaic of features. Because of an abundance of fossils (some are well

"Go to a museum", they said. "You'll learn a lot about evolution", they said. Yes, creationists have to deal with statements from the evolutionary faithful such as this. They place their faith in natural history museums to present a fair, unbiased picture of evolutionary history. Even though much of what is seen is conjecture, with exhibits that are artists' conceptions based on little actual fossil or bone evidence. Makes for interesting stories, though. Credit: Freeimages / Melissa Squires For example, how often do you see modern birds displayed with dinosaurs? Seldom, if ever. You see, that would ruin evolutionary dogma. Even though there is disagreement among scientists that dinosaurs evolved into birds, the predominant view is that dinosaurs evolved into birds; you can't be the same age as your ancestor. Many evolutionists are ignorant of the fact that dinosaurs ate birds . Evolutionary subterfuge and propaganda continues in museums. Ev