Piltdown Superman

For many years, the claim that humans and chimpanzees were extremely similar in DNA was proclaimed by the Evo Sith as a kind of secularist gospel truth. The degree of similarity varied, depending on who you talked to, sometimes as high as 98-99 percent. When this icon of evolutionism was checked and found to be lacking, the science involved seemed to be largely ignored and the "fact" was still spread around. Image assembled from clip art at Clker When creationist scientist Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins re-evaluated the data, he came up with a much smaller similarity. Then the jungle erupted with screams of simians denying the results. However, I was contacted by computer programmer Glenn Williamson who updated me on the results obtained by Dr. Tomkins. At first, I was mighty suspicious, since I get a passel of hassle from tinhorns who want to dismiss creation science material out of hand. Mr. Williamson furnished me with useful links. It turns out that the software that Tomkins

Evolutionists are finding that research is bad medicine for their fungus-to-florist notions. We've read a right fair amount of material showing how soft tissues in dinosaur bones cannot be as old as evolutionists want them to be, and there are other problems with deep time geology that don't fit the observed evidence, so they commence to storytelling to force the evidence into their story. There's another problem, too. Variety of seeds / Image credit: US Department of Agriculture Seeds have been found that they say are "remarkably preserved". Considering the detail involved, they'd best reconsider and deal with the facts: there's no way these seeds are as old as fundamentally flawed dating methods make them out to be. The Earth was created recently, and evidence keeps on affirming that fact. Hundreds of flowering plant seeds from early Cretaceous strata on two continents show exceptional preservation; how can they be 125 million years old? A pa

Have you ever watched a bee come in for a landing? Most of us don't pay it no nevermind, but keep an eye out next time and think about pilots of aircraft. It's tricky enough for them to land on a flat surface, and worse on an incline. Bees land on all sorts of inclines, and you don't see them have crash landings. Image credit: Pixabay / skeeze Scientists, many of whom believe that bees and other critters are the products of time, chance, random processes and other evolutionary fables, are looking into intelligently designing biomimetics applications for human use. The bee's brain has a guidance system that was designed by the Creator, not by evolution. That should be obvious. Landing safely is a difficult aspect of flight, because the rate of approach must be reduced to near zero at touchdown. This is hard enough on horizontal surfaces, but even more challenging as inclination increases, i.e. when landing on surfaces of different orientation. Yet honey bees ac

Biblical creationists and other Christians often have to deal with prejudicial conjectures from uninformed owlhoots such as, "The Bible is full of fairy tales, and there is no support from archaeology! We believe in science,  even though there is no scientific support for our creation myth. And Genesis is the worst!" Or something like that. If these people had bothered to do a mite of research, they wouldn't cotton to making fools of themselves so quickly, would they?  Clay tablet from Ebla / Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain Although stating that there is no archaeological evidence to support Genesis is an argument from silence and therefore invalid, it's also untrue. The more archaeologists work, the more Genesis (and the rest of the Bible) is supported; Genesis is a valid historical record. You dig? With so many loud voices in our culture asserting that Genesis is a myth, one would think archaeologists have uncovered clear evidence that refutes it. On the

Some secular geologists are claiming that the Coconino Sandstone refutes Genesis Flood geology because there is no way that it could have been formed under water. Interestingly, geologists hang their hats on uniformitarian geology despite the numerous problems with their own hypotheses. So, what's going on? Coconino Sandstone (center) / Image credit: US Department of Agriculture Forestry Service The problem is that the geologists only gave superficial examinations before they came up with their myths. Once again, creationists have to do the heavy lifting and refute their refutations. When creationists suggest that a worldwide Flood deposited all the layers in the Grand Canyon, secular geologists laugh. “That can’t be,” they say, “because one of the canyon’s major layers was formed in a desert over millions of years. It’s filled with fossilized sand dunes, which are windblown deposits that have hardened into stone. You can’t deposit desert sands during a global flood!” Th

Someone left a fact-free, faith-filled comment at The Question Evolution Project regarding a post about a thigh bone in the "wrong place" that threatened evolutionary paradigms: Welcome to science. We are learning new things all the time. Mistakes can be made but it doesn't disprove the theory. Looks like this owlhoot is out of touch with his own belief system (that seems to happen a lot). Later, when I told him that evolutionists have a habid of discarding facts they don't like, he added this: Facts are not discarded. If evidence arrives that challenges theories then answers are found or theories change. That's what science is about. But just because a bone is found somewhere calling into question current theories surrounding ancient human history it just means more research needs to be done to get more accurate information. Looks like he didn't bother to read the whole thing (a common occurrence). If he had bothered, he'd realize that scientists a

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen As you can tell from the title, this here article is a continuation. To see Part 1, click here . I hope you do, so this makes more sense to you. Many times, we get comments from atheists on the prod who claim to be "former Christians" (sometimes claiming they were Christians for many years), and then proceed to show little knowledge of the Christian faith. Often, it is because atheists are notorious liars (as I have shown several times before,  especially with this one ). Often, people think  they are Christians because they were raised in a church-going home, or because they're not Mohammedans, Buddhists, or something else, so "Christian" is a kind of default position for them. (One atheist who claims to be a former Christian was raised in the Christadelphian cult ; he's not a used-to-be, he's a never-was.) But these alleged former Christians display little knowledge of the faith and the gospel message . Betcha thought