Piltdown Superman

Why do evolutionists see things that are not there? Like a social media relationship status, "It's complicated". Scientists are not driven by facts alone, but by their presuppositions and other things. Since they assume that particles-to-paleoanthropologist evolution is "settled science", they frequently get a hankering to present evidence for evolution when none exists. If they were being scientific about science, these mistakes should be few and far between. Dreadful evidence for evolution is exhibited like a prize pig at the county fair, but there's really nothing to show to the judges. There are many articles about alleged transitional forms, but it seems to take someone who can take a step back and seriously examine what is trotted out, and then see that there's nothing to pay any mind to after all. Why did Piltdown Man fool the evolutionary community for over 40 years, and why are Darwinistas still chasing down bad leads? A bit of psycholog

It may come as a shock, but various forms of electric current are present in many living things, including people. Various critters have a sensing ability called electroreception, which is present in certain kinds of fish. Darwinists assert (without evidence) that electroreception and the ability to generate current evolved different times. Although that's far-fetched enough, it gets worse for them because some species have direct current, and others have alternating current! Watt will they come up with to explain it? Image credit: morgueFile / DuBoix Let's take a little diversion. Imagine two cowboys meeting on the trail: "What's in them saddlebags, Bob?" "Batteries, Clem. When I camp out, I like to jam on my electric guitar. Want to hear my rendition of 'Purple Haze'?" "I've heard you play. Do you take requests?" "Yup!" "How 'bout them military songs? I'd like you to play 'Down by the River

There are many speculations put forward as to why dinosaurs became extinct, and some are rather outlandish . The most common idea is that an asteroid fell to Earth and caused them to head for the last roundup, but it doesn't have a lot of explaining power. Others have suggested that volcanoes had something to do with the dino die-out. Lately, some geology work prompted a new idea: both asteroids and volcanoes. Scan of Bulgaria stamp from my collection, with added clip art from Clker While uniformitarian assumptions and the circular reasoning in radiometric dating are unreliable, they do give relative dates to work from. Some Genesis Flood geology models postulate that, since the rain was supplemented by the fountains of the deep being broken up (Genesis 7:11), an asteroid impact may have been a part of the great global Flood. Rapid fossilization, plate tectonics, volcanic activity, the Ice Age, change in climate — the whole shootin' match supports creation science model

Funny how when people think they have things all figured out, things change and there's not so much understood after all. The predictability factor in cosmic and biological evolution does not inspire confidence. Sure, you'll find assertive tinhorn evolutionists who will believe in various forms of evolution despite  the evidence, but don't pay them no nevermind. The fact remains that fundamental beliefs in science keep getting overturned; consensus science isn't good science. Physics in particular has been taking a beating as of late. Moon rock from Apollo 14. Image credit: NASA/Sean Smith Analysis of zircon in moon rocks is being reconsidered, which has implications for the age of the Earth and, therefore, evolution. The study of subatomic particles called kaons  may change the Big Bang cosmogony (again). Dark matter and considerations of universal constants. Oh, yes, a whole passel of tinkering with things that are only theoretical, or based on evolutionary

In addition to bad science and dreadful logic, evolutionary thinking has produced "social Darwinism". This in turn has given us the evil of eugenics,  where humans have taken the evolutionary view of natural selection into their own hands. Some people have decided that other people are unfit to reproduce, or even unfit to continue living. The expression, "Who watches the watchers?" comes to mind because who decides that some people are more "fit" to exist than others? Eugenics is the "science" of making such determinations, which has often been based in racism. Such thinking is contrary to a Christian worldview that seeks to defend the defenseless, help the helpless — and even doing good to enemies. However, we  are sometimes considered enemies by academics and those looked upon as the intellectual elite. C. Richard Dawkins and others have decreed that Christian parents teaching creation science to children is child abuse . Neil deGrasse

Once again, the hands at the Darwin Ranch have come up with a scheme that allegedly answers questions about how life made the move onto land. Of course, this is based on their assumptions that life evolved in the first, place, and that life began in the oceans, not on land. Image credit: morgueFile / jdurham Evolutionary scientists are spinning a yarn about how they "solved the problem" by saying that algae made it up onto land and somehow survived. After that, evolution commenced to happening. This raises quite a few questions. One problem that they conveniently ignore is how DNA is in place and working already. Then there is the question of nutrients. After that, we see credit given to algae and evolution itself for making decisions. No, the Creator made the decisions, and that involved recent creation on land. A recent study on algae supposedly sheds light on how aquatic life became terrestrial. So the story goes, “450 million years ago, alga from the ear

Sure has been busy out there, thataway. Probes to Comet 67P, probes to Mars, probes to gas giants and their moons, New Horizons does a flyby shooting of Pluto and its neighbors. Lots of information has been sent back to Earth. Nice pictures, too. Some people may be old enough to remember Sputnik 1 going "beep...beep...beep..." Only this, and nothing more. Quite a contrast. Artist's conception of New Horizons visiting Pluto, with moon Charon in the distance. Image credit: NASA/JHU APL/SwRI/Steve Gribben Unfortunately for long-age advocates, the solar system isn't acting "old", but more like it's thousands of years old — which is what biblical creationists have been saying all along. Assessing data from Pluto has been startling to secular scientists, and they have been hard pressed to explain away the youthful features found in that neighborhood. Wonder what will happen when more data arrives? With the recent flyby of Pluto now in the history bo