Piltdown Superman

One of the hallmarks of Big Bang cosmologists is the ability to continually modify their story to dodge the facts. (We saw something very similar in the post about phylogenetic trees , too.) When in doubt, resort to the complex scientific principle of Making Stuff Up®. Things called green pea galaxies  caused some mighty fancy footwork over at the Hawking Honky-Tonk. Image assembled from Clker clip art and a NASA image of the M-81 galaxy . Now, don't get all het up, these aren't galaxies made of green stars. The green light comes from a combination of circumstances between the stars. These galaxies are much smaller then other galaxies, and are round, so when you put it all together, can't say as I blame them for calling them green peas. Some folks will tell you that these galaxies are a problem for creationists, but that's only from the string of storytelling based on cosmic evolutionary presuppositions — not from actual facts. What they are less likely to admit

It's one thing for the Darwinistas to argue among themselves about what happened when and what is responsible for evidence that is being examined. But they are not in agreement, despite what deep time and evolution proponents may say. It's bad enough that false science gets into the textbooks, but worse when textbooks don't get the story straight. Stromatoporoid reef in Alberta, Canada. Image credit: Georgialh / Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 Stromatoporoids were creatures that were fond of building ocean reefs, and are considered to be closely related to sponges. A secular science book got it wrong when the owlhoot author wrote that stromatoporoids were responsible for the oil reserves in Alberta, Canada, millions of years ago. Yes, they were involved, but it's implied that they turned into oil. A better secular explanation has a few things right (inadvertently paralleling the creation science model), but the comparatively recent Genesis Flood is a far better

Much of the Western world holds scientists in high esteem beyond that which is fitting. They are not monoliths of objectivity, and are subject to the same fallacies as the rest of us; having a degree or scientific prestige is not a guarantee of morality nor objectivity — they have their biases and avarice, and those are clearly seen. Unfortunately, science suffers for this. Made at Redkid.net Scientists are sinners like us reg'lar folk, and it often transfers into their work. Evolutionary scientists reject God and seek to utilize naturalistic presuppositions in the interpretations of the evidence. Ironically, they claim to have their own  ethical and moral standards  (perhaps they could have Dinsdale come around to bad scientists and nail their heads to the floor because they transgressed the unwritten law — cruel but fair). In addition, the vaunted secular peer review process has a passel of problems . Even their own scientists are dismayed by the ineffectiveness of th

The hands at the Darwin Ranch are so busy making trees for science presentations, you'd might think it was continually Arbor Day down there. Besides, these trees are the written kind, and the only growing they do is in the minds of evolutionists. Some of them are a mite impressive. Speculatively rooted tree for rRNA genes. Image credit: Modified from NASA image by Eric Gaba These trees are based on evolutionary presuppositions and circular reasoning. In reality, they little value other than showing certain similarities. When the evolutionary stories do not fit the facts, and additional information is discovered, the phylogenetic trees are pruned, grafted, and even made from scratch. If they had a creation-based approach, scientists would produce something more useful. At the 75th annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, held this year [2015] in downtown Dallas, the world's foremost fossil experts presented scores of research summaries. Researc

If you get to roaming around the jungles of Southeast Asia, watch your step, know when and where to look (what with many being elusive and all), you'll find a whole heap of beasties that defy evolution. Yesterday's post was about the tarsier , and this time, another tree-dweller called the colugo.  I reckon one reason some things are "elusive" is that they live way up yonder in the trees, and are very difficult to observe and track. And colugos kind of fly away. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Lip Kee Yap / CC BY-SA 2.0 One name for the colugo is "flying lemur". It's not a lemur, and it doesn't exactly fly, it glides. Quite a long way if it has a mind to. Evolutionists don't know how to classify it, and it's currently in a class by itself. Creationists believe it is from a separate biblical kind . (By the way, just because creationists use a different categorization method in some cases doesn't give anyone call to go all hayw

There's a critter in Philippine jungles that's about as big as your hand, has big eyes, and runs its mouth a lot. You can't hear anything, though. But they can. The tarsier has its own special means of communication that is more than three times the upper limit of what humans can hear. I can name some people that it would be nice if they spoke beyond human hearing frequencies, but never mind about that now. Image credit: NOAA / Tarsier in Philippines by Laura Fralinger , 2008 Naturally, some owlhoots had to spoil the real science with evolutionary assertions, saying things that are nothing but assertions put forward as science. They get paid for this. I'm in the wrong job, I bet I could make up "science", too. Hey, here's one: tarsiers have long legs and can jump huge distances, so they must have evolved from frogs. But seriously, evolutionary "science" aside, the tarsier is another example of the ingenuity of the Creator, and has nothing

Depictions of Neanderthals as stupid, ugly, partially evolved brutes are becoming increasingly unrealistic. Studies of the inner ear , surprises by advanced art techniques , interbreeding with modern humans , heated water and organized their homes , and more factors show that they were inaccurately portrayed. If you study on it, you'll realize that the differences between us and them is shrinking all the time. Beautiful and Ugly by Adriaen van de Venne, 1634 There was a variety among Neanderthals. Indeed, there is a wide variety among the people you pass on the street every day. Were Neanderthals "ugly"? By what standard? Additional research on their facial constructions shows that the "ugly" features were bone constructions, and in fact, modern humans may actually be physically inferior to them! Let's face it, they are not the products of evolution, and neither are we. Humans are created beings, as are all creatures. The facial differences betw