Piltdown Superman

Some people need to get over the "Ewww Factor" to appreciate some critters for what they are, and how they're designed. I'm fascinated by certain reptiles, spiders, and so on (especially when dangerous ones are on television or behind glass). My wife gets the heebie-jeebies, though. So, if you can put bad feelings on hold and admire a creature for it's own sake, we're gonna have a ball! Image credit (cropped): Pixabay /  debbiedejager I'll allow that this post is difficult to write, but that's simply because I have to cowboy up and avoid using scatological humor. It ain't easy. The topic is the dung beetle (Egyptians worshiped the things, the artifacts are called scarabs ). These little critters are on almost every continent, and love poo. Not only are they coprophagous (they eat it), but lay eggs and live in it, spread it around, and actually perform a vital function on the prairie. And the Serengeti Plains. And... (The stercoraceous materi

It has been rightly said that there is no such thing as one side having facts, and the other side having a different set of facts, all being filed away and waiting for action. Everyone has access to the same facts, and it is the interpretation  of facts based on our worldviews that makes the difference. This is readily apparent in the origins debate, but it has applications in other areas. Morguefile /  Grafixar One side of a debate may think that what they consider supportive facts are actually items that both sides are in agreement on. Some owlhoot may use the definition of evolution as "change over time", then give examples of change, as support for his position. However, that same definition and examples are likely to be things with which biblical creationists agree with him. There are interpreted facts that are out of the agreement zone that prompt the most useful discussions. We at CMI have spent many hours writing and speaking on scientific and theological is

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This article is going to take an eldritch direction, but will be somewhat prosaic at first. Scientists are not dispassionate and absolutely objective, despite what some may expect from them. They are human, and subject to the same pleonexia and other worldly desires as other people. Scientists also argue from their worldviews. We understand that because everyone thin k s and argues that way, whether aware of it or not. Generally speaking, secular scientists take a materialist (no God) view about life. However, they contradict their own presuppositions by searching for the physical location of free will , which is intangible by its nature. One scientist believes in the soul on a quantum level , and is close to Christian truth by saying that the soul is independent from the brain. Secularists also struggle with the concepts of ethics and morality , even trying to justify their incoherent beliefs with evolution . The only way to understand and explain the neces

Most folks know about young sunflowers following the sun across the sky, which has been a bit of a mystery until lately . Other plants have sensory mechanisms as well to improve their survival opportunities, gotta get the most of that sunlight, don'tcha know. Image credit: National Institute of Health , usage does not imply endorsement of this site Further research shows that plant sensors are far more intricate that just pointing a plant toward the light. They even activate "switches" that control the plant's behavior. This is yet another example of the purposeful engineering of the Master Engineer, and makes Darwinism even less plausible than it is now. Plants’ amazing sensor systems enable them to adapt in response to multiple environmental cues. Since plants can’t get up and move around, they have to grow, develop, and thrive where they are. One of the key factors in a plant’s life cycle is processing sunlight in the form of duration (day length), light

Adherents of molecules-to-man evolution are passionate about their beliefs, and many are intolerant of those who reject this position, whether for scientific or theological grounds, or both. They are not content to allow the study of origins to be an academic discussion, preferring to vilify their opponents. They engage in stalking, misrepresentation, libel, censure, dreadful logic, outright persecution , and more. This kind of behavior is typical of atheists, but it is distressing that professing Christians corinthianize with said atheists in maligning people that should  be their brethren in Christ. Naturally, atheists approve of this behavior, since it advances their naturalistic worldview and Christophobic agenda. Basil of Caesarea icon from  Wikimedia Commons The most egregious attacks seem to come from theistic evolutionists (who disingenuously call themselves "evolutionary creationists"). They have a man-centered low view of Scripture, preferring to allego

If y'all want to saddle up and see some interesting scenery, there are quite a few natural bridges and stone arches in the Western United States. Other places have them, but they seem to be more plenteous out West. A while ago, I posted about how these landforms have been crumbling , though folks say they've been sitting there for millions of Darwin years. Turret Arch image credit: Pixabay / skeeze So, the first flaw in the "deep time" view is that these structures are not so sturdy after all. Another flaw in that view is how, if uniformitarian explanations are true, we cannot see these structures being formed today, and we see them at high elevation. Some of the uniformitarian explanations have some amount of truth, but the Genesis Flood (about 4,300 years ago) model has the best explanation for the facts. Earth is young like Scripture indicates, and scientific evidence continues to affirm this truth. Freestanding rock arches and large natural bridges are ob

The public has a strange love affair with science, adoring scientists on one hand, but having increasing suspicion of scientists and scientific establishments on the other hand. I suspicion that one reason for distrust is that scientists have a tendency to conduct incomplete research and then announce conclusions. This has been occurring with increasing frequency, especially in the profitable scum-to-psychologist evolutionary field. Image credit: Freeimages / max brown Psychologists were doing a study on brain activity and spirituality using an MRI and Mormons (why they selected that religious group isn't clear, that's the first question raised). The study lacked a control group, and had results that could also be explained by other stimuli than spiritual good feelings. It's discouraging when you'd expect this kind of experimentation from inexperienced children, but it was conducted by supposed experts. This also helps illustrate the flawed view that spiritualit