Piltdown Superman

The expression "built for speed" applies to more than just machinery. A study of the vertebrae in mammals' skeletons had some interesting results. Creatures that are built for speed tend to have little variation in different kinds, but the slower animals that do not rely on speed for survival have more variation. The study was an example of natural selection. Natural selection does not mean molecules-to-man evolution. Instead, it weeds out the unfit and preserves organisms within genetic limitations; it does not add new genetic information to enable an organism to turn into something else. Interestingly, this study had a result that the scientists did not plan: It supports the work of the Designer, not evolution. Why is the number of vertebrae in the trunk of mammals, despite diverse lifestyles, “surprisingly constant”? Evolutionary biologists investigating biodiversity want to know. To solve this riddle, Frietson Galis of Leiden’s Naturalis Biodiversity Center

The idea that scientists are totally impartial and will follow where the evidence leads is simply not true. Instead, scientists have their starting points, biases, opinions, want to see if an idea has merit and so forth. Biblical creationists have the starting point that the Bible is not only reliable in matters of faith, but also correct when it addresses matters of science, history and other things. Secular scientists (and Bible compromisers) begin with atheistic naturalism, long ages, evolution and a rejection of the Bible as a reliable record of historical events. Kangaroo Point Cliffs / Wikimedia Commons / Figaro Regarding geology, nobody is observing the past. People attempt to deduce what happened in the past using observations and deduction. Dr. Tas Walker uses a biblical Noachian Flood model in his approach to geological data, and the result is that the biblical model is superior to the secular uniformitarian model in explaining what is seen. His article discusses pa

Secularists have been stealing the scientific method. Although it had several contributors, it had its best development under the hands of Christians. Naturalistic interpretations of science became popular, and Christians stood by and let them redefine science in naturalistic terms. Now people have the impression that when a scientist makes an utterance, it is a scientific fact. The word "theory" is grossly misused, and speculations are being pawned off as facts, especially in reference to molecules-to-man evolution. Worse, atheistic scientism is being used as the means to interpret scientific evidence. This is ridiculous, as a naturalistic time-chance-mutations universe would make doing science impossible! Some biblical Christians are making efforts to show the extreme limitations of naturalistic science interpretations. We want the scientific method back so we can save it from further abuse and use it properly again. Are modern schools teaching the scientific method

For a long time, the conventional explanation of fossilization was that something died and then was gradually buried. After millions of years, it became a fossil. Some people realize that such a scenario does not work in reality, and that fossilization requires rapid burial; conditions are more essential than time. Fossil graveyards, such as Dinosaur National Monument, have jumbled fossils. Many are intact, and some are bits and pieces. Secular geologists will invoke a form of catastrophe to explain what has been observed, but they will not defer to the best explanation, which is the Noachian Flood models of biblical creationists. At Dinosaur National Monument in Utah, a confused tangle of bones juts from a ridge of sandstone, chock-full of dinosaur fossils. The sandstone is part of the Morrison Formation, a body of sedimentary rock extending from New Mexico to Saskatchewan in the north and covering more than 1 million square kilometres (400,000 square miles) of the western US

An old Polish proverb has been making the rounds lately: "Not my circus, not my monkeys". Some say it simply means, "Not my problem", others say it's useful when someone is trying to draw you into problems that are not yours. In this case, our alleged evolutionary ancestors are not my monkeys. Not yours, either. We were created, we did not evolve. More stamps from my collection. Circus tent from Clker.com "You st00pid dumb Xtian creationist, nobody says humans evolved from monkeys!" Yeah, we know the story, that humans, apes and monkeys evolved from common ancestors that supposedly looked like apes and monkeys, but were not. Convenient excuse, huh? Anyway, the alleged evolutionary science that is coming out lately is amazing. Not because it is impressive, but because we can wonder how people take these things seriously. It helps them when they tack on the word "theory" when it is nothing but guesswork, but "theory" so

First, a reminder that the word "fossil" does not necessarily mean something that has been permineralized, as explained here . There are evolutionists and atheists who will deny the fact that soft tissues have been found that are allegedly millions of years old; such a thing is not possible. To cling to fundamentalist evolutionary dogma, they have several possibilities: Deny outright that soft fossils exist (I've seen it happen), try to find excuses to explain away the evidence so they can reduce their own cognitive dissonance, or perhaps combining the denial and excuses by calling creationists "liars". Soft tissues and non-mineralized fossils are actually not something from the last few decades. Actually, such things have been discovered for a much longer time. They are being examined much more thoroughly with modern scientific equipment, and denying the facts becomes much more difficult. Of course, long-agers want  to escape this information, because it

Once again, the Archaeopteryx has evolutionary scientists in a flap. There are eleven good fossils showing that it had feathers, but the rapid burial required to make fossils leads to some distortion. So more fossils would have been nice. Paleontologists and evolutionary ornithologists were hoping to learn about the evolution of feathers, and the purpose for which this critter evolved them on its legs. This led to some amazingly bad speculation presented as science, even using a form of the argument from silence : Since they could not find what they were looking for, they made up further stories that had no substantiation. Bad science could be drastically reduced if scientists did not insist on forcing their evolutionary presuppositions on their interpretations of data. The evidence shows creation, not evolution. Some of the scientists were actually doing honest speculation about whether or not this bird could fly, based on their examination of the data. When it became assertions

Two obvious things are involved in the search for alien life, and both are based on evolutionary ideas. First, it would make evolutionists who pushed the origin of life problem off our planet feel vindicated because they would assume that life originated by chance "out there". Second, they could validate the huge expenditure of money over the years in their search. Of course, there are astronomical problems involved in detecting signals from space since they would take a very long time to get here. Then there would be the difficulty of deciphering the signals as well. Some of us think that perhaps it is not such a good idea to make contact with a "more highly evolved" life form . Others believe that there are no aliens because of theological reasons. Of course, that does not stop evolutionists from grossly misrepresenting the positions of some Christians  or from using convoluted "reasoning" to defend their dishonesty . EDIT: I did an article on the

Sometimes, i's interesting to spend time speculating on "what if" in a fantasy world. Maybe Chuckie had never been born. Or perhaps he continued his studies in theology and became a Bible-believing pastor (theology was his only formal schooling, after all). It could be that he would continue his apprenticeship and become a medical doctor. Imaginably, he pursued is one-time interest in taxidermy with John Edmonstone. Or he could have run away and left no news. At any rate, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life , plus The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex and other things would not have been written. Perhaps Alfred Russel Wallace would have been the one to write his version of evolution and become a hero to God deniers. Maybe...perhaps...imaginably...could be...could have...it's like reading evolutionary science, yes? There are people who think that Charles Darwin was

One of the more common expressions uttered by proponents of evolution is "evolutionary advantage". Essentially, they see an organism's particular characteristic and "explain" it in terms of some kind of evolutionary advantage. Sometimes this explanation is somewhat plausible, but many times, they are humorous; almost as if you were to say that short people have the evolutionary advantage of not having to stoop to pass through doorways. This is why some of us claim that they see evolution almost everywhere (blessed be!), but are mainly the products of imagination. In addition to the nonexistent whys  of evolution, the hows  are also missing; no fossil record, and so forth. Pixabay / katja Finding any evolutionary advantage to the seahorse is extremely unlikely. It is a fish that has many unique characteristics in addition to the obvious horse shape. No other fish spends most of its time swimming upright, its eyes work independently, the father does the b