Piltdown Superman

To hear the popularizers of human evolution tell it, the progression from simpler life forms through apelike ancestors all the way to modern humans is a well established mosaic, except for the occasional missing link, and it is all "settled science" and the scientific consensus. The reality is far different, and more like a jigsaw puzzle with scattered pieces. There are false starts, former transitional forms that have been reclassified as fully human or fully ape, embarrassments and frauds. Settled science and consensus? There is considerable disagreement within the evolutionary community. All they have is the presupposition that evolution occurred, then try to force the evidence into their monkey scheme. So, this "mosaic" is nothing of the kind. The fanciful tale is that bits and pieces of bones that are widely scattered, and ancient humans supposedly evolved various traits, and then here we are. The truth of human origins is not found in imaginative paleon

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen Going to make you think about some deeper things today, and linking to three articles. Plus a bonus song at the end. People have criticized creationists for pointing out the fruits of evolutionary thinking. Some have said things like, "Evolution is just biology, nothing more". When I hear something like that I wonder if that person is uninformed, disingenuous or something else. The fact is that ideas have consequences, and evolution is not just biology, geology, cosmology and other things, but a worldview. Evolution is treated like some kind of entity that has goals and makes decisions, which is consistent with its ancient pantheistic pagan roots. Scientists are not dispassionate and totally objective automatons . Using materialistic presuppositions, evolutionary scientists attempt to find the human soul and the source of free will in the brain . But processes of evolution cannot account for logic, the soul, free will — or morality. Making morali

People who get their information about hyenas from children's stories and people who get information about creationists from atheists get the same result: fiction. In reality, hyenas are not cowardly scavengers, but relentless hunters with immense stamina and great speed. Strong, too. (Well, except for the one called the aardwolf, which is a kind of hyena but much smaller and eats creepy-crawly things.) And that noise some of these man-killers make that sounds like laughing? It isn't. Pixabay / valerieBaron The hyena is also an irritation to evolutionary classification. Where to put it on the failed tree of life? It has been considered in the dog family, the cat family and related to civets, having some characteristics of both cats and dogs. This creature is another testimony of the Creator — and neither the hyena nor its creator is to be trifled with. Many people in the west are accustomed to thinking of the hyena only as a scavenger, as in The Lion King. Actually

Evolutionary biologists try to observe, make sense of and explain evolution. Obviously. They want to see it, it's their job. Unfortunately, much of what is called evolution is nothing of the kind. This conflation is misleading, since it implies that the small changes that biologists find are support for molecules-to-man evolution. Pixabay / JamesDeMers For example, some forms of clover have a defense mechanism of releasing low-potency cyanide when being munched. Others are missing the gene for this. Not just a mutation, but completely missing. Therefore, evolution. Not hardly. Clovers come in a wide variety of sizes, and some of them hold interesting surprises. Plant biologists have been studying one trait in particular, and it keeps showing up—or disappearing—in peculiar patterns. Do these patterns illustrate evolutionary changes or does something entirely different switch off this trait? The trait under scrutiny involves clover-leaf tissue that releases cyanide when c

It has been said here several times that scientists are people. They have biases, errors, carelessness, and are prone to avarice like other people. Perhaps more so, since they wish to promote their perceptions of truth from their worldview. Secular scientists have more pressures, because they are trying to get the "next big thing" to bolster evolutionism and get that funding money. Pixabay / WikiImages Many people have idealized and unfair concepts of scientists. They see them as working strictly from the facts and will "follow where the evidence leads. Sure, many try to be objective and seek scientific truth, but secularists start from fundamentally flawed presuppositions. Not only incapable of logical thinking, but placing scientists on a ridiculous pedestal. If people did their homework, they would learn that scientists have been reluctant to admit the truth, committed outright fraud, allowed false conclusions to run unchecked (then blame the science

Even when the evidence is against them, Darwin's Drones continue to preach their worldview. Nobody in evolution can explain the pterosaurs. They were reptiles capable of powered flight (as opposed to simply gliding), and some were enormous. Perhaps it is a good thing that they are mostly (if not completely) extinct today. A large number of pterosaur bones were spread out in a massive burial area. This is exciting for paleontologists, who believe they can learn details about the creatures. However, they waved aside the possibility of a catastrophic burial, and said that they were buried individually. This is despite the obvious flood markings of the strata, and the fact that the pterosaurs were well-preserved. No explanation is offered to how they evolved, even though a potential wealth of information is becoming available. The best thing to do is to drop the failed evolutionary paradigm and examine the biblical creationist Flood models, which give a far better explanation o

Don't you wish you were there to see Homer Primitive say, "Mmmm...bugs..."? Scientists studied some wild monkeys for 436 hours (not at one time) to see how they went about getting bugs for food. They used tools (not in the conceptual manner of humans, of course). Some good observational science was happening. Then it was spoiled by a trip to Maybeland. Some evolutionary fantasists are coming up with ideas that the desire to eat bugs helped human evolution along. Seeing monkeys foraging for bugs gave rise to speculation that the same desires caused pre-humans with bugs on the brain to have their actual brains grow and change — therefore, evolution. And yet, we know that the brain itself is not the person , the soul, the source of free will. So that makes this speculation even weirder. Of course, there is no biological precedent, no model, no real science, but that does not stop them from putting forth wild anti-science tales for that grant money. Mmmm....money..