Piltdown Superman

Operational science does not support eukaryote-to-engineer evolution — especially DNA sequencing, despite the claims of some evolutionists. Darwin's tree of life may have seemed plausible in the past, but rogue data in gene neighborhoods are not cooperating with evolutionary ideas. Scientists using presuppositions, assumptions, cherry-picked data, evidence manipulation, and other unscientific methods attempt to preserve their belief systems; they present their stories as factual, even though they are what "could have happened", and not what can be demonstrably true. Other scientists are trying to re-draw the tree of life using microRNA genes. The results are still disappointing, as things refuse to fit the expected patterns. What we do see is support for the Genesis account of creation, where everything is to reproduce "after its kind". After all, God did not command, "Go ye and turn therefore into something else over long periods of time". This

Back yonder in the nineteenth century, two scientists with mutual detestation, Cope and Marsh, were ambitiously trying to outdo each other in the "Bone Wars". That is, they spend money, time, and effort in trying to find and classify dinosaur bones. One of the most notable examples was the Brontosaurus ("thunder lizard", though much larger dinosaurs were discovered later that would have made bigger thunder when they walked than Bronto). But it had the wrong head. In 1903, the mistake was corrected and Apatosaurus ("deceptive lizard") was made.  The story goes that the Brontosaurus never existed (for fun and more information on the Bone Wars, check out this  yet-to-be-updated article at NPR ). Funny how this is one of many things that evolutionists don't do very well in getting information to the public, since the Brontosaurus took a long time to fade from the scene — the US Postal Service issued a stamp of the thing in 1989.  There are larger thing

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

Cicadas are all over the world, but like many other living things, different kinds live in different areas. The "periodical cicadas" (also called Magicadas) are not found on a chemistry table of elements, so don't look there, Hoss. Those critters are mostly in the eastern part of North America. They're not a pest and don't seem to be much good (except as food for other things) and they make a lot of noise. Public Doman, from Insects, their way and means of living, by R. E. Snodgrass (Plate 7). "Them's good eatin' . Do you want them deep fried or stir-fry?" I'll pass right now, but you go right ahead, old son. Periodical cicadas are baffling to Darwinistas because they live underground for years, then different broods appear in huge swarms. The adults live for a month, mate, and die in unison. (Sounds like it would make for a good country music song.) How do they know? Also, they seem useless at first, but they're actually bene

There are supporters of old earth theology who insist that the Bible does not indicate the age of the earth. True, there is nothing explicitly saying that the world was created on 9 AM Oct 3, 4004 BC, or something similar. OECs (Old Earth Creationists) sometimes claim that biblical creation (YEC, or Young Earth Creation) is something new, and belief in an old earth has been the default position of Christians throughout church history. Not hardly. Belief in recent creation has been taught by the church fathers and the reformers , and getting an ancient planet or universe out of the Bible only comes through eisegesis . Malicious Advice Mallard does not want you to learn from the sources. Although church fathers and Reformers can help establish facts of history and offer important insight into Scripture, they were not writing Scripture itself. The opinions of people aren't as important as what Scripture teaches, and what can be reasonably inferred from the Bible. (Some ow

Millions of professing Christians around the world are celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead on this day (1 Cor. 15:3-8). It is also commonly called Easter (sometimes  mistakenly attributed to pagan sources ). If there was no resurrection, we would all be wasting our time (1 Cor. 15:17-20). But he did rise from the dead, and those of us who put our faith in him are children of God (John 1:12). Why would creationists be excited about this? Because Jesus is God the Son, the second person of the Trinity. He is the Creator (Col. 1:16, John 1:1-3) of all things. Although we are all sinners (Romans 3:23) and worthy of death (Romans 6:23), we have been redeemed by the blood and resurrection of Jesus (Heb. 9:15, Gal. 4:5, John 11:25). Salvation is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8-9), and those who humble themselves can receive this gift on God's terms, not ours.  Imagine...the Creator of the universe is living in me, and I am secure in my salvation, even though I don&#

The realm of values and ethics is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview. Darwinists believe in survival of the fittest where the unfit are eliminated, so why should they care when a scientist actually displays the natural result of an evolutionary worldview? For that matter, when a disingenuous anti-creationist troll calls a creationist a "liar for Jesus" or an article a "lie fest", he or she is appealing to a non-Darwinian worldview. When atheists and evolutionists complain that something is wrong, and that there is a better way to live and act, they are actually showing that their own worldviews are incoherent, so they rustle the biblical Christian worldview and brand it as if it was their own. In addition, scientific methods are not just the stuff of using sterile, impersonal facts. Don't get me started on peer review fraud ... There are competing philosophies in the scientific community about what defines a law, "tacit knowledge"