Piltdown Superman

One of the methods used to determine an old Earth as well as climate change is called paleoclimate research  ("paleo", meaning, "way back when"). The procedure seems quite simple, get samples from caves, cart them back to the lab, and see what happens. In their efforts to prove the conclusions the scientists had already made, serious flaws were discovered in the techniques. Image credit: Freeimages /  Frank Müller When the samples are moved away, changes begin to happen quickly, and the results are suspect. In addition, the samples vary between caves. This makes it mighty difficult to make projections about Earth's past climate, and to make projections about the future. Perhaps if they didn't presume consensus science, uniformitarianism and Earth being ancient, and also took more care in their testing? Earth was created far more recently than secularists want to admit. Widely used to infer past climates, isotope measurements from stalactites and stal

An argument from the Intelligent Design people that creationists like to use is irreducible complexity.  That is, components of an organism must be in place at the same time, or nothing would make sense, and even be harmful to the organism if they evolved piecemeal. There are many examples, including the hummingbird , bombardier beetle , and on the unseen level, the ATP synthase enzyme and the flagellum. Irreducible complexity is a strong argument for the skill of our Creator as well as a serious impediment for evolution. Image credit:  Zina Deretsky, National Science Foundation (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Darwin's defenders don't cotton to evidence for creation, so they attempt to "refute" things they dislike (such as dinosaur soft tissue and irreducible complexity) with such first water arguments as, "It's been refuted", or, "That's not true". Saying  something has been refuted does not demonstrate actual r

There are some mighty interesting critters living in the jungles of Indonesia, 'Straya, and elsewhere. (Mind you, keep your distance and don't touch unless you have someone with you that says it's okay.) There are interesting things up in the trees, and I understand that some spent so much time way up yonder, people didn't know they existed. Same kind of thing happens with nocturnal animals as well. Reminds me of the colugo . But I'm wandering again. Spotted Cuscus image credit: Matt Francey / Flickr One of these jungle tree dwellers is the cuscus. (Before someone commences to typo-pouncing, yes, it's spelled correctly.) This cute thing looks sort of like a monkey. In fact, it's a marsupial, similar to the opossum, which is the only marsupial in North America , and some folks eat possums . I don't. The cuscus is not fierce, so it has other continuance features that our Creator gave it. Cuscuses are good-natured marsupials that roam the lush jun

Creationary scientists have to keep secular scientists honest. Or at least, to point out their errors. It seems that one of the guidelines for both common-ancestor evolution and old Earth concepts is, "If it supports our view, valid". One of the icons of uniformitarian geology used to support deep time is the Milankovitch (astronomical) theory. The basic idea is that secular views of multiple ice ages in Earth's past were caused by changes in it's orbit and rotation over long periods. However, these owlhoots are assuming long ages to prove long ages, and making a passel of assumptions in the process. That's neither logical nor scientific, old son. Assembled with graphics from Clker clipart Secularists ignore a wagon-load of evidences for a young Earth (they don't fit the paradigm), preferring dubious radiometric dating methods instead. Milankovitch's work has been used in support of not only their credenda for deep time, but also to support climat

Years ago, the human genome was ineffectively sequenced. Toplofty scientists, reasoning from their molecules-to-molasses preparer evolutionary presuppositions, determined that the things they didn't understand were "junk" from our alleged evolutionary past. Using more advanced equipment and using due diligence, most of the things that were labeled as non-functional have been both embarrassing and surprising, since they do  have functions, some of them very intricate. Herein lies an example of how evolutionary thinking hinders science. If the previous sequencers had assumed instead that life was created, and what was found was there for a purpose, there would not have been so many delays in scientific advancement. Image credit:  “Dna” by renjith krishnan at FreeDigitalPhotos.net I'll allow that it's difficult to find something that is difficult to see, and further discoveries were practically hiding in plain sight. They're small, but have vital roles,

Back in 2010, an atheopath on Twitter made a comment along the lines of, "Creatures are born atheist". I challenged him that his statement is an unprovable assumption. (Telling the truth gained me a stalker for a few years.) Shortly after, we learned that children are born believing in God ! This supports what the Bible teaches. But like any totalitarian knows, gotta get 'em while they're young and get that brainwashing going! Even though dust-to-Dawkins evolution is untrue, unprovable, untestable, unrepeatable, is a hindrance  to science, is ignored in biological sciences, well hey, it must  be taught, children must  believe in evolution. Why? My answer is that these Darwinista owlhoots want more recruits in their rebellion against the Creator, so they are getting more aggressive and Machiavellian in their tactics, including "reeducation". Interesting that the atheistic Soviet Union not only imprisoned, tortured, and executed Christians, but sent them t

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen This is not going to be a long, complicated article. Y'all probably need a break from the heavy stuff, and I don't mind one myself. A reader of The Question Evolution Project sent me a link to a one-minute video (which linked to a non-science article) about how scientists want to tamper with the DNA and chickens, help them get in touch with their inner dinosaur, and possibly bringing back a modified form of dinosaurs. Echoes of Jurassic Park , I suppose. (When we're done here, let's all meet at Kentucky Fried Rex for chow.) One serious question to consider is: why bring back things that were extinct? I reckon it depends on the motivation . Assembled and modified with Clker clipart graphics What caught my attention is how scientists are assuming evolution  in order to do this process, and ignoring the other scientists who reject  dinosaur-to-bird evolution. How many times have we seen where evolutionary thinking has actually hindered s