Piltdown Superman

Should we feel sorry for evolutionists? Things that they put their faith in as "evidence", things that have been considered "facts", get dropped on the dusty trail of learning. But then, they accept many things presented without question. "The oyster's twist shows evolution", but this is done with assertion and conjecture, not with plausible models. One thing I keep trying to tell Christians and creationists is that our faith is not based on the ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies (it's like trying to patch the sinking ship of evolutionary dogmas with more unfounded assertions). Science and evidence support our faith, but they do not make it. Oysters have the unfortunate distinction that they were one of the first examples of an alleged proof of evolutionary lineage in the fossil record (mooted by paleontologist A.E. Trueman in 1922).1 The ‘flat’ oyster, Ostrea sp., was said to have evolved into the coiled shell Gryphaea sp.

Some people are herded into the corral of "radiometric dating proves an ancient world". A herd mentality may not be such a bad thing if people were believing something that was the result of solid reasoning and good evidence, but the fact is, secular methods of radiometric dating are fundamentally flawed. Not only are there assumptions, but circular reasoning. And the circular reasoning is "validated" by additional circular reasoning. I reckon that the whole process is a wreck. Unfortunately, many Christians have bought into the atheistic conclusions and bad logic. Conditions during the Great Flood of Genesis play a significant factor in fouling up uniformitarian dating methods. Radioactive dating is a key concept in determining the age of the earth. Many secular scientists use it to dismantle the faith of Christians and cause them to accept uniformitarian assumptions that, in addition to being scientifically erroneous, demand a figurative and distorted interp

Darwinists try to distance themselves (or even deny) the racism in evolution, although that is well established . So what do evolutionary anthropologists do? Use more racism in their "research". The basic presuppositions are that evolution itself is a fact, and certain ethnic groups are less evolved than white people. In this case, the logic goes further downhill. A case of scientific racism? An anthropologist studied living Kalahari Bushmen for clues to the evolution of cognition. Human beings are long, long past any evolutionary stage anthropologists could claim they were going through 400,000 years ago when our ancestors allegedly learned to control fire. (Michael Balter in Nature asserts that date, even though evidence of cooking goes back millions of years in the evolutionary timeline; 6/17/09.) So what are anthropologists doing listening to the campfire stories of living tribesmen to draw inferences about our evolutionary past? To read the rest of this art

The misnamed "language gene", FOXP2 (forkhead box protein P2), is essential to language development and is a factor in learning. (Since it is found in many creatures, I wonder why Basement Cat doesn't learn not  to get under my wife's feet so she won't get stepped on.) Experiments with "humanized" FOXP2 in mice showed some improvement in some tests but not in others. The research helped advance scientific knowledge about how this protein (encoded by the FOXP2  gene) operates. At this point, we move from observational science into evolutionary presuppositions. The main assumption is that evolution happened, then the assumption that humans and apes diverged from a common ancestor. The difference between humans and chips with this gene is two amino acids. (Interestingly, evolutionists only care about chimpanzees, and ignore the fact that gorillas have the same gene, but gorillas are not "closely related" to humans.) This gene is only three

The feeling that everyone else on the road is not smart enough to drive is most likely a product of your imagination. And admit it, you've had times where you've done less than spectacular things when tired, distracted or whatever. There are studies indicating that IQ is indeed dropping ( as we've seen before ). While taking care of ourselves physically and mentally can help us to some degree, there is no way of staving off the overall genetic decline. This is another indication of the truth of the Bible, that everything is going downhill. Are we dumber than our grandparents? Social psychologists are tracking IQ scores and noticed a decline in the last decade after a steady rise since the 1950s. Some wonder if the recent downturn reflects genes that have been eroding all along. Are we evolving stupidity? The concept of eroding genes—steadily but slowly marred by new slightly harmful mutations that occur every generation—has its proponents and detractors. New S

Some evolutionists like to justify their beliefs in evolution and natural selection by claiming that a feature ( such as the human eye ) is the product of "bad design", so EvolutionDidIt. The "carrying away vessel", the vas deferens, of many males is one such feature that people like Richard Dawkins will regard as poorly designed. He made mistakes that someone with his training should not have made, and also went beyond his expertise to say that he could have done better. (Unfortunately, his disciples accept his words and spread them around in their efforts to negate creation science and Intelligent Design.) Dawkins' alternative designs do not withstand examination. DO NOT go to the URL in the picture   Not only is the vas deferens expertly designed for embryological development, but is efficient from biological, engineering and fluid mechanics viewpoints. The vas deferens is an important part of the male reproductive system. However, some anti-creationi

Secular cosmology keeps needing repairs. Once they think they have something figured out, actual scientific data ruins their ideas. Observations (such as lithium content) are interfering with the Big Bang again, so new stories will need to be made up. If they did not have faulty presuppositions in the beginning, they would not have so many problems, would they? After all, the logical conclusion is that the universe was designed, not a product of an inexplicable explosion . You can read more about some of the new problems by clicking on " Big Bang’s Lithium Problem Gets More Problematic ". Also, you can read " Big Bang Fizzles under Lithium Test ".