Piltdown Superman

While there are honest evolutionary scientists who seek to find and promote evidence of all live evolving from a common ancestor, their militant comrades use skulduggery to promote their worldview. In this instance, the Neanderthal was fully human (as affirmed by archaeology, DNA, anthropology, and more, presented on this site several times), but some insist on portraying Neanderthals as less-than-human brutes. Things get worse, as we shall see. Credit: Unknown, Public Domain, even used at NASA Why do some folks continue to believe that Neanderthals were not quite human and a link to our evolutionary ancestry despite the evidence? They want to. It fits their paradigm, and they are adverse to admitting that the evidence refutes evolution and supports special creation, and that is anathema to them. Portrayals of Neanderthals have been based on presumptions of evolution and on chimerical visions, but not on evidence. Science isn't supposed to work that way, old son. Even in r

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Today is both  Question Evolution Day  and Creation Sunday , a convergence that will not happen again until 2023. This causes excitement for some people, while others are annoyed. Interestingly, the postmodernism that permeates Western society is self-contradictory: people who hate such events need them. I'll 'splain later. There was a time when movies and television had, for the most part, distinct good and evil characters. (In old Western movies, the stereotype portrayed good guys in white hats, bad guys in black hats.) Later, characters were introduced that were more believable because they were flawed — the anti-hero. One Western character was played by Clint Eastwood, referred to as The Man With No Name. He was not "good" by any stretch of the imagination, but he was our focus as someone to favor. Lines between good and evil were blurred, and audiences were occasionally bemused when the bad guy had more relative goodness than the good

Those of us who know that Earth has a magnetic field probably don't think about it every day. Why would you? Out of sight, out of mind. Unless you're a scientist that's paid to do that kind of thing. But it's up there, protecting our joyous wet oblate spheriod from many unpleasant things including cosmic rays, solar flares, carnivorous squid from the planet Kootulu, and more. "There are no carnivorous squid in space, Cowboy Bob!" No? Thought I read that somewhere. Oh, well. Image credit: NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center Conceptual Image Lab Purveyors of the "deep time" mythology are beleaguered by the numerous difficulties in keeping their ideas plausible. Creationists have shown for a long time that Earth's magnetic field cannot be as old as secularists desire , and a number of rescuing devices have been considered. They still don't work, partly because scientists don't understand the field in the first place, but the bigges

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen As I have stated in articles, interviews, and so on, Question Evolution Day has many layers. Ultimately, it's about proclaiming the gospel and removing a huge naturalistic stumbling block. While we're hoping to prompt honest evolutionists to question their indoctrination and see that fish-to-fish packer evolution is abundant in storytelling but sparse in evidence, QED has some other aspects on which I need to focus. QED is an effort to encourage people to take a stand for creation (and more so in 2017, because the event coincides with Creation Sunday ). Participation ranges from having events, sharing a post with a #questionevolutionday and/or #qed2017 hashtag on social media, Sunday services, or other ideas. A reason for this event is because of censorship, censure, discrimination, and bigotry against those who oppose Darwin. If you study on it a spell, you should see that there's no legitimate reason for someone to oppose our freedom of spe

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen The question of what creationists need to do when asked a question about something we cannot answer, or a question in an area that appears weak to creationists, seems like a good topic to consider, what with Question Evolution Day coming up on February 12 and all. I hope this material will be helpful in everyday dealings. Evolutionists, atheists, anti-creationists, and others seem to have the notion that biblical creationists claim to have all the answers. It may come as a shock to some people (including underinformed creationists), but we do not have all the answers. We may be asked a question about something for which we do not have an answer, and must deal with the situation correctly. In addition, some areas are underdeveloped by biblical creationists. Generated at Add Letters I'll allow that there are many sidewinders, especially online, that like to play, "Gotcha!" if someone has a problem answering a question. (Some even go as

If you commence to riding and take a turn too fast, you probably know what's going to happen, and it's none too good. People need specialized equipment to make quick movements at high speeds, and even then, we can only tolerate so much. Image credit: Freeimages / Rinske Blok-van Middendorp More than just tolerating the stress of sudden, speedy movements, animals need to be able to see where they're going. Two prime examples of this are hummingbirds and bats. Hummingbirds see things a mite differently, and bats are using their sonar to decide how to catch two insects in different places in succession. Such characteristics are antithetical to evolutionary concepts because all the "components" must be in place and fully functional at once; there is no room for gradual evolution. These are examples of the amazing design skills of the Creator, and you can read about them by clicking on " Fast Flight Specializations in Birds and Bats " .

Clinton Richard Dawkins received attention for a self-contradictory remark in 2004 that exhibited his blind faith, "Evolution has been observed, it’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening." That fits the atoms-to-atheist view that evolution is very slow, so we don't see it happening, we just infer what happened from what we see in the present. But it doesn't work, old son. Image credit: Pixabay / LoganArt Some acolytes of Dawkins attempted to rescue his gaffe, but their efforts were ad hoc and nonsensical. Part of the problem is based on definitions. Yes, evolution happens, but that is based on one of several definitions of the word. We see rapid speciation , mutations, variations, and all sorts of things. We also see interpretations of data according to materialistic presuppositions; essentially, circular reasoning. We do not see anything that supports the concept of evolution from one common ancestor, savvy? Instead, the evidence clearly