Piltdown Superman

One of the biggest problems with purveyors of lichens-to-lizard evolution is that they claim to see "evolution in action" when nothing of the kind is happening. Occasionally, some of these owlhoots will not only use "evolution" incorrectly, but will do the bait 'n' switch equivocation to say that any little change means that Darwinism is true. Not hardly! Image credit: US National Park Service (text added later) Fence lizards have been getting eaten by fire ants. Some do the usual thing and sit there, hoping the problem goes away, and are consumed. Others have learned to do their version of the safety dance, twitching and shimming, and running away. Darwinistas are claiming that variations and natural selection are "evolution in action", but that is downright false. No new genetic material is added, they are drawing from the same DNA that they were created with. Everyone ‘knows’ that evolution is slow and gradual—except when it’s fast a

Perhaps it's a mite unfair to say that Darwinists misuse their own piece of fiction, but when it's passed off as something seriously scientific, then we can throw down. Since the origin of life and the origin of mitochodria cannot be explained, the concept of endosymbiosis was dreamed up. Of course, when you point out that they don't really know what they're doing, evolutionists get on the prod. Endosymbiosis cannot be tested, and obviously, it has not been observed, but that hasn't stopped particles-to-pirate evolutionists from using it as a convenient "explanation" anyway. But even people from their own camp are pointing out that it's full of glaring problems . They sure do put a lot of effort into denying the fact of creation, don't they? The theory that early cells engulfed microbes that became mitochondria is often presented overconfidently. Most evolutionists accept without question the decades-old theory that mitochondria and chlo

As we have seen many times (and further examples are scheduled here), telling stories about evolution takes a great deal of imagination, but precious little actual evidence. When facts are examined, Darwinistas need to backpedal to change the stories — or ignore the evidence and let people continue to believe outdated material. Humpback whale image credit: NOAA.gov via Wikimedia Commons Tales of whale evolution have changed over the years, but the simplified version: we all evolved from sea creatures, then some mammals commenced to thinking they liked it better in the water, so they evolved into whales. Even worse, some evolutionary sidewinders are telling distinct untruths based on their "here's evolution because we want  to see it" paradigm. Vestigial hind legs and a pelvic girdle? Nope, those are used for making little whales . The same falsehood is said about hip bones. Ethics and integrity in science, indeed! There is nothing "vestigial" in whal

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