Piltdown Superman

We hear about living fossils, those critters that show up in the fossil record under different names than their still-existing counterpart. Proponents of fish-to-physicist evolution get burrs under their saddles when living fossils are mentioned because they show flaws in their belief system . For that matter, some anti-creationists have said that we  invented the term living fossils, but they are a mite uninformed, possibly dishonest, because it was conjured up by Charles Darwin . Image made at RedKid.net The overwhelming majority of fossils are marine invertebrates , and we get fish, plants, and so on. Mammals, not so much. When you tie on the feed bag at your favorite eatery, quite a few items on the menu could very well be the living counterparts to creatures that have been fossilized and given different names. Since the "fossil record" is kind of catawampus (the fossil progression only existing in textbooks and evolutionary propaganda videos), the best explanatio

Evolutionary scientists work on the origin of life, but they raise more questions than answers. Their conferences don't seem to help matters a whole lot. Despite evidence against them from both secular and creation science sources, some scientists are clinging tenaciously to a couple of dominant conjectures on abiogenesis (chemical evolution); how life arose on Earth. Assembled at Atom Smasher Even the simplest forms of life are extremely complex, and contain a great deal of information so they can function. One bit of speculation involved an "RNA World" of primordial soup, so a special RNA enzyme was produced in a lab. Right, so highly-controlled conditions by people with schooling and specialized equipment, assuming what the world's conditions were like at the beginning, have been able to prove that this one enzyme happened by chance. See " Life from an 'RNA World'? " for more on this idea. Then we have the hot down south hydrothermal ven

Proponents of common-ancestor evolution tend to believe that, with the help of natural selection, the gradual accumulation of mutations over a long period of time can make an ape-like creature into a human. That may sound reasonable on the surface, but the idea is a bit too simple.  Image credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net /  M - Pics To bolster their argument, evolutionists often cite the falsehood that "humans and chimps are 98% similar", which was bad science from the get-go. The alleged high similarity does not tell anywhere near the full story. From there, they may jump to another bit of bad science, the falsehood of "junk" DNA, which has been an embarrassment to Darwinistas. The simple inconvenient truth is that genetics is hostile to evolution, but friendly to creation. Hello, I have had a question about apes-to-man evolution involving mutations. I’ve read on your website that mutations don’t add any genetic information. So my question is, is it possib

One of the conjectures found in common-ancestor evolution is that humans and chimps shared kinfolk a few million Darwin years ago. Supposedly, the primary evidence for this was chromosomal fusion, but there are many reasons to reject this concept . Further research shows additional complications for the idea. Image credit: National Human Genome Research Institute / Darryl Leja Those telomeres at the ends of chromosomes are where the chromosomes fused, but now it's been discovered that they are found throughout the inner parts of chromosomes, and not just at the ends. Evolutionists claimed "genetic mistakes", but that idea got plopped onto the trail. The specialized sequences show the genius of the Creator and are further evidence against evolution, and creation scientist Dr. Jeffrey P. Tomkins is conducting further DNA sequence research. The prevailing evolutionist mantra holds that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that lived about six million years

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen As discussed here several times, proponents of microbes-to-metallurgist evolution have a mighty dim view of our ancestors. Evolutionists see them as brutish creatures that had been more like ape than man, with intelligence yet to evolve. Of course, this is all based on evolutionary presuppositions and assumptions, not on evidence. (I wonder how many further assumptions were made in formulating the so-called " Paleo Diet "?) But when evolutionist try to slap leather with biblical creationists, they shoot themselves in the foot — nothing more humiliating than being shot with your own gun, but figuratively, that happens to them all the time. I'm saying that  even according to evolutionary "evidence", archaic humans such as Neanderthals showed remarkable intelligence and culture. This is a mite disconcerting to Darwinists, to say the least. De "Weinig" Toren van Babel  by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, 1563 It's been said

Some people have the notion that science is an unbiased method of interpreting the evidence, but that's not what happens. Science does not happen by scientists collecting data and then making dispassionate conclusions. They have their own beliefs, vices, ambitions, and presuppositions. Many times, they go beyond the reasonable boundaries of their disciplines and pontificate on philosophy that sounds  scientific, but fails in several areas. Especially evolution. Many of these owlhoots get the bit in their teeth and run at a gallop by working their naturalistic philosophies into their speculations. Somebody holler, "Whoa!" They need some basic lessons in philosophical thinking, especially that branch of philosophy known as logic.  From there, maybe they can humble themselves and get actual wisdom from the Creator . Some secularists seem to have been smoking the wa cky tobaccy, or is it the people who pay them? Speculations that no thing is real, we are living in a c

While we depend on the hydrologic cycle of snow melt, rain, evaporation, and so on for much of our water, there is also quite a bit of water in rocks. "Such as the rocks that show up in your brain scan, Cowboy Bob?" While those rocks are damp, I mean rocks beneath the surface. Many rocks are porous and permeable to some extent, so in the right environment, water can flow through them and even become embedded in them. Coffee isn't the only thing that percolates. Water does that as well, getting through sediments and into layers way down yonder; there's about as much water under Asia as in the Arctic Ocean. Our creator has made water accessible, even in places that seem unlikely. Image credit: Freeimages /  Damian Searles This has some bearing on the complicated process of the Genesis Flood, and especially afterward. Much of the water flowed into the oceans, but also into aquifers. Rain and rivers are essential to life on earth. But what about life in earth’