Piltdown Superman

A common falsehood told by Darwin's Drones is that people reject evolution because they do not understand it. Often times, they proceed to "explain" it to evolution deniers and get their own pseudoscience wrong. It doesn't help matters that many evolutionists don't understand evolution themselves. They'd be far better off if they'd stop rebelling against our Creator and realize that science does not support evolution, it supports biblical creation. Charles Darwin hung his evolution hat on the peg of natural selection, a concept developed by a creationist years earlier as a preserving factor, not something to cause change. When DNA, mutations, and so on were investigated, natural selection fell out of favor, and we have neo-Darwinism, or the modern evolutionary synthesis. Natural selection is not what causes evolution, but contributes. Except that some owlhoots disunderstand natural and artificial selection, and use the fallacy of reification and gi

A great deal of science depends on consistency and predictability; we expect things to behave in certain ways and according to established patterns. In biology, cells have mitochondria or traces of it so they can survive. Monocercomonoides seems to be making its own rules, and causing a whole heap of consternation for biologists and especially Darwinists. Assembled at the Says-it sign generator Naturally, some "Just-so" stories are being fabricated, such as  Monocercomonoides having mitochondria, then losing it, surviving now through a cellular version of horse trading. Funny how these people use an alleged loss  of function as evidence of onward and upward evolution, isn't it? Not that this protist showed any sign of ever having had mitochondria, can't let that get in the way of good propaganda. Here's a thought: the Creator built it that way so it could thrive in its particular environment! But no, materialistic worldviews preclude the possibility of th

Proponents of the Big Bang point to CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) radiation from the original fireball as strong evidence for the Big Bang's validity. When CMB was discovered, the fellas won a Nobel Prize, probably because secularists like science that fits their worldviews, even though things haven't been thought out well enough. Image credit: NASA (click on the link to see a short animation of the presumed initial explosion and afterward). Even though the original Big Bang concept was an explosion (and is still referred to that way ), the whole story keeps evolving. (That's because evidence keeps interfering with the secularist mythology of origins and cosmic evolution, and they refuse to admit that evidence supports the Bible's claim that God created the universe, and did it recently.) The question has been raised, "Where are the shadows?" If the background glow was way, way out yonder, celestial bodies should cast "shadows". One of

It is an exciting time to be a biblical creationist. Evidence keeps on accumulating to confirm what we've said all along, and it is not supportive of evolution. The refutation of the"junk" DNA evolutionary idea is bothersome for them. But one item that really gets evolutionists on the prod is the fact of soft tissues in fossils. (Note that I'm deliberately using the word fossil in its more general sense ; it doesn't necessarily mean that something has been permineralized. Ian Juby discussed that word in a segment on fossilized dinosaur skin at the 20 minute 13 second mark in this video clip .) The reason for consternation on the soft tissues is that they are strong evidence that Earth was created recently, not billions of years ago, and that dinosaurs have not been extinct for millions of years. Image credit: Pixabay / agfcontact Some anti-creationists will pretend that dinosaur soft tissues are irrelevant, others try to ignore them completely, and you

Although there are many advocates of goo-to-gigantosaurus evolution that deny the inconvenient truth that soft tissues exist in fossilized bones, the evidence just keeps on accumulating. Various rescuing devices have been presented, but they involve many assumptions, circular reasoning, and some dishonesty. They have enough problems dealing with 65 million evolutionary years, but things got worse. Assembled from Redkid.net sign generator An interesting development is that molecular analysis of fossilized bones found in Poland show what evolutionists do not  want to find. Worse, the rescuing device they rustled up was self-refuting. Seems like a lot of effort to deny the evidence of recent creation, doesn't it? Those who have difficulty accepting reports of collagen (a type of protein) preserved in supposedly 80-million-year-old dinosaur bones will scratch their heads with new vigor over a recent report. Supposedly 247-million-year-old fossils from Poland show signs of exc

There are several fossil forests, and one in particular was discovered a spell back a few hours' drive from my neck of the woods. Geologists and botanists reckoned that, since they were very old in Darwin years, a few simple trees would be all that existed. More evidence shows that they were riding up the wrong trail again. Assembled at  Sign Generator Their problems lie in using uniformitarian ("the present is the key to the past", slow and gradual processes) assumptions, and those assumptions keep on failing. In fact, a form of catastrophism is used now and then when it's convenient. In the case of this forest, they're closing in on the truth (the Genesis Flood), but are still tied up in their worldview. There are many reports of fossil ‘forests’ across the earth that display vertical tree remnants. Vertical tree stumps and trunks are assumed to be in situ, which seems to be the definition of a fossil forest. Evolutionists think that the first forests w

An earlier post discussed how evolutionists have limited understanding of human nature . We supposedly evolved, then sat around for a huge amount of time before showing any signs of the ambition we exhibit today. Similarly, those jaspers collecting our tax dollars are dodging the questions about how  and why  farming developed. Image credit: Morguefile / Jusben  (modified) According to the hands down at the Darwin Ranch, not only were we ignoring technology and cities, but we hadn't bothered to do agriculture, either. It just suddenly appeared in history, even though farming types moved around, interbred, and so forth. If you study on it, even their concept of late-blooming agricultural skills is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview. The biblical creationist worldview makes much more sense, in that we did not  evolve but were created recently, and were intelligent from the get-go. That old Earth stuff really interferes with historical science, old son. If intellige

At the risk of being Captain Obvious, we get a heap of blessings from the sun. Living things depend on its energy for various reasons, we get warmth, time and seasons (Genesis 1:14-15), and other benefits. Without it, this planet would be a lifeless ball of ice hurtling through space. But you knew all that. Aside from thankful but deluded people who worship it, thoughtful folks have wondered what powers the sun. The Sun , Edvard Munch, 1916 Is it powered by gravitational collapse? Nuclear fusion? A combination of both? In 1979, a couple of astronomers presented a paper where they thought they had evidence that the sun is indeed shrinking. Some creationists stampeded to present that idea because it fit with a younger universe paradigm, but secular and more cautious creationists realized that this idea should be filed under, "Don't go there, girlfriend". Still, where is the evidence for nuclear fusion? Why, neutrinos, of course. But why are only a third of the elusi

Let's start by over-stating some basics. First, we depend on oxygen to survive. Down around sea level, the pressure is fine and we can get what we need. You go up the mountains, the air is thinner. Death Valley is below sea level, so don't be in a great hurry to go from there to Denver, the "Mile High City". (Baseball players don't always cotton to playing up there .) Mountain climbers need to take extra precautions, as do pilots. (For that matter, your big ol' jet airliner trip was in a pressurized cabin.) Fighter pilots have oxygen masks. Taking your dog with you on a bombing mission can be bad news if you're both unprepared; going up too high too fast, or just too high at all, can be disastrous. Whitney Smith, the 53rd Wing honorary commander US Air Force photo / Sara Vidoni (Usage does not imply endorsement of this site or its contents by the US DoD.) So how is it that birds can easily fly at altitudes that would be lethal to humans? Evolutio

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen There are several major paradigms active in the world today that have many adherents and are also in conflict one another. Some try to have a kind of synthesis of views, while others have no interest. There is a unified focus, but I don't reckon that participants are aware of the grand scheme. I don't see a kind of shoot-out at the OK Corral of philosophy, though. There have been several philosophical eras over the years that had odd names as far as I'm concerned. Doesn't modern  mean today?  Not when it comes to labeling. The last three are premodernism, modernism, and postmodernism. (Some are saying that postmodernism is already morphing into something else, but there's no title yet as far as I can tell.) One of the main characteristics of postmodernism is that people believe that there are no absolutes . Forget presenting truth to postmoderns, they've asserted that there are no absolutes (a self-refuting claim) and that truth is re