Piltdown Superman

There has been a wagon train-load of news about fossils, especially aspects of soft tissues, because what has been found is oppugnant to minerals-to-mocker evolution. Proponents have gone into damage control by looking for excuses, making wild extrapolations (such as, "Iron preserved tissues for a year in a lab, therefore, they were preserved for millions of years in the wild"), going into denial, and even calling biblical creationists "liars". Their worldview is threatened by reality, and they can't deal with it. Image credit: Morguefile / gary3141 But these owlhoots are not entitled to mangle the facts to suit the Darwinian storyline, nor are they entitled to make up their own facts. There are "timers" in biology; things will dissipate after a long enough period. Pigments, chitin, collagen, and more have been found that should be there if the fossils were as old as evolutionists claim — the timers would have expired. The facts support recent c

Believers in cosmic evolution insist that stars formed in the past, and they are forming today. Nice tale, since nobody has seen a star form (it takes 100,000 to tens of millions of years in Evospeak ). Secular astronomers have manifold stories about old stars, new stars, red stars, blue stars, how they formed, and so forth. When flaws in their credenda are descried, circular reasoning ensues: "Of course stars evolved from the Big Bang. We see them, ya idjit!" Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech , who would not endorse this site even if they knew it existed Secularists have told wild tales that have been discredited, made numerous assertions, and even lied outright, but have yet to present a plausible model of how the laws of physics can be superseded in the formation of all them stars up yonder. The logical conclusion from scientific evidence and failed conjectures is that God created the universe. Many astronomy articles have a bad habit of assuming star formation withou

Y'all understand multiverse, right? It's when a song has a lot of, well, verses. " Amazing Grace " has — "You made me facepalm very hard with that one, Cowboy Bob." Moving on... There are many suppositious remarks about parallel universes, and some of those universes are just like ours with very slight changes. If you were able to saddle up and ride sideways through these universes, eventually the changes would add up and you might find, say, Clinton Richard Dawkins as a respected biblical creationist, Rome never fell, dinosaurs are common pets, and so on. Some very interesting stories have arisen from the parallel universe concept.   I've even read that some think every decision that is ever made causes a new universe to form where the unmade choice in this one has been made in that one. Another fine image by Gerd Altmann ( geralt ) at Pixabay Folks are adding the multiverse to the foundering Big Bang choplogic, and astronomy is being dragged

Birds of prey know they're cool , right? The Japanese Sparrowhawk has features that could not have been the product of changes and random processes in common-ancestor evolution. Lots of features. It does have some traits that can be traced to natural selection, but that's not evolution, old son. Image credit: たー坊 / Wikimedia Commons Like so many other things (including those parts in other living things), everything has to be in place at the same time and fully functional. If not, nothing makes sense and the critter is not able to survive. But — what do biblical creationists have to say about God designing birds to be successful hunters? Let's find out. The Japanese Sparrowhawk is an impressive bird. With its keen eyesight, short wings, and long tail, it is ideally suited to flying quickly through dense forests to catch its prey. The barred colouring on its underparts makes it hard to detect in this habitat, leaving its dinner unsuspecting until it is too late. I

Seems like feathers have been in the science news quite a bit lately. The biggest story was the attempt to say that a feathered tail fragment in amber belonged to a dinosaur. Recently , we looked at reports of fossilized bird feathers that had proteins and pigments . Now we have the "mud dragon" fossil, from a report in November 2016. Generated at Image Chef There are two aspects to the story. First, the claim that it had feathers, even though there's no evidence of that. This apparently came about because some bumps on a dinosaur looked kinda sorta like the beginnings of feathers, especially if you squint really hard and ignore other possible (and more logical) explanations. Also, they shove it into the "dinosaurs-to-birds" myth to get away from admitting there's a Creator. Therefore, illogically speaking, this one must have had feathers as well. Some creationary scientists have a view of, "If a dinosaur was conclusively shown to have feather

Paleontologists seem to have found bird fossils dated at 120 million Darwin years (I said "seem to have found" because the location in China has been the source of bad material in the past). Darwinistas managed to give the required homage to evolution, and then speculated on the origin of colors in feathers. The "remarkably preserved" fossils gave rise to further speculations and assertions without evidence and mechanisms. Worse for their old Earth beliefs, the feathers were "modern" looking. Of course they were, Earth and everything in it was created much more recently than is dreamt of in their philosophies.  For more about this, see " Early Fossil Bird Feathers Were Modern and Colorful " . Image credit: Pixabay / Pexels Moving on, additional information came in. A bird fossil that dates 10 million Darwin years older than those discussed above has a few surprises. The paper involved Mary Schweitzer, known for the discoveries of soft tiss

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Th is article contains links to several items that are articles, videos, and audi o. I realize that this is a busy time of year for many, but if you have some time, I hope you 'll delve into the material. Or maybe save some of the items for a more convenient time. Although there is dispute about the actual day, most people who identify as Christians celebrate Christmas on December 25. No, we are not commanded to celebrate Christmas or Easter, we have the liberty to celebrate or leave it alone . (Saying it's wrong to celebrate because we're not commanded to do so is the argument from silence fallacy. Also, Jesus celebrated Hanukkah, John 10:22–39, although it was not a required observance. Nor are we required to observe Hanukkah , but some think it's a good idea .) We commemorate the day that Jesus Christ, God the Son, our Creator, humbled himself and took on human form for our redemption. Creationists have many reasons to celebrate the day .