Piltdown Superman

One of the items that the bosses at the Darwin Ranch have filed away in the locked back room under Try Not to Discuss is soft tissues from ancient critters. Although we've been hearing about those tissues for a spell, it's not such recent news as some people may think. Just that the more recent events about dinosaur soft tissues have rightly exploded since that business with Mary Schweitzer, Mark Armitage , and others. Triceratops at the Dinosaur Journey Museum credit: US Dept of Transportation / aschweigert (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Some uninformed but loyal evolutionists have tried to deny the tissue problem (even lying about it in forums and on social media), since it's a serious problem for them: dinosaur soft tissues and proteins cannot last for millions of years. That means dinosaurs have not been extinct as long as their dogma requires, and gives another indication that Earth was created much more recently than evolution requires.

There's a critter down Australia and New Guiney way that is sometimes called the spiny anteater. It's spiny, but not with sharp pointy quills like a porcupine. Also, it does eat ants somewhat, but is not closely related to anteaters. Seems gentle enough, but it's a protected wild animal, so don't be getting a notion to make a pet of one. Maybe consider a hedgehog and name it Spiny Norman, since there's a bit of resemblance. Anyway, the subject is the echidna (I kid you not, it's pronounced ee-KID-nuh), and is baffling to evolutionists, like its cousin the platypus . Credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainImages The classification for yon beastie is a monotreme. It's a mammal, but lays eggs. Yes, really. Read up on its alleged evolution and you get a whole whack of storytelling but no actual scientific evidence. Then they deny the Creator and resort to the nonsensical "convergent evolution" tale. Because of its unique characteristics and those of th

The Big Bang and cosmic evolution have many things going for them — on paper. Start with some assumptions, do some calculations, make impressive pronouncements, let the sycophantic science media get the bit in their teeth and gallop to the public . But do not, under any circumstances, let actual science interfere with grandstanding. Evidence is bad medicine for speculations in secular cosmogony and cosmology. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech Since observed evidence causes problems for secular cosmogony concepts, secular scientists come up with rescuing devices. Dark matter, dark energy, dark other things that have never been observed but look good for calculations abound, and "explain" why spiral galaxies hold their shape after assumed zillions of years. These things have not been observed, only inferred according to presupposition s (see " Dark Matter Remains Missing "). Another rescuing device is to come up with new physics, and even find a new theory of gravity t

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen There seems to be a fine line between rejecting material because someone dislikes the source (the genetic fallacy ), and using caution because the source is questionable. Some owlhoots fallaciously balk at learning science from creationists because creationists do not support materialistic presuppositions. Other times, material from individuals is questioned because they lack the proper credentials. Image credit: digitalart at FreeDigitalPhotos.net Readers of this Weblog and The Question Evolution Project may notice that several creationary mavericks are absent from the corral that I choose for reliable resources. I'll allow that sometimes I'm a mite skittish when atheopaths are looking for excuses to discredit individuals or organizations since I also want to make good material available for readers and viewers, but do not want to give detractors fuel for their fires. Don't disunderstand me. There are very intelligent people who have no

Proponents of molecules-to-milliner evolution are still having problems overcoming the original hurdle: the origin of life. Some even try to rework the failed Miller-Urey experiment , and others try to find different ways to justify the non-science of abiogenesis. One desperate idea was to invoke a kind of intelligent design by space aliens . Oh, please!  Image credit: Pixabay / Alexas_Fotos Some owlhoots try to distance themselves by resorting to the canard that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. Sure, pilgrim. You want us to spot you the most difficult part, and then you'll take the bit in your teeth and run with it from there. Claiming that abiogenesis (also known as chemical evolution ) is irrelevant is, I believe, blatantly dishonest, since they should know that the origin of life is in evolution textbooks, on documentaries, and so on. Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes A more rational idea involves primordial liquid drople

For this post, you're going to need your cogitating machines fully operational, because this material isn't very easy. It's down to Earth. Very. One of the deepest layers in the geologic column is the Cambrian, which has caused considerable consternation among Darwin's Cheerleaders because of the "explosion" of fossilized life forms, and they try to come up with explanations for this evolution-defying event. Credit: Pixabay / RafaelMousob Before the Cambrian layer is the Precambrian (yes, really). Not a whole passel of fossils there, but there are signs of meteorite impacts. There is some controversy about how many actually set themselves down, since one impact can effectively erase another if it's close enough, and the criteria are a mite too rigid. Evidence exists that there may have been many more impacts than are officially recorded. Michael Oard offers his hypothesis and evidence (65 footnotes) that Precambrian impacts had a major effect on th

When the hands at the Darwin Ranch at Deception Pass ride into town on payday, a word of advice: don't play cards with them because they stack the deck. Not very well, though. Even more so when it comes to science, because after stacking the deck, they still don't like they hand they're dealt. Case in point, molecular clocks. Derived from images at Clker clipart Using their scum-to-scientist evolutionary presuppositions, scientists attempted to calibrate various molecular clocks to give them the long ages they desire. In their attempts to deny the Creator, genetic clocks are embarrassingly bad. Evolutionists assign millions of years to fossils, and even to genes in the DNA of living creatures, in an attempt to bolster evolutionary theory, which needs the magic of “deep time” to seem plausible. But the supposed ancient clocks they use for these age assignments rarely agree with each other. In other words, the DNA clocks rarely line up with the fossil clocks, despit