Piltdown Superman

We ha ve had some heavy-duty material here lately, this piece of light reading may be a nice change of pace. Aside from hybridization and other forms of artificial selection, thousands of orchid species exist in nature. I'll allow that I'm tempted to assign human characteristics to some of them, such as conniving, deceptive, ingenious, and others because of their amazing abilities to get themselves pollinated. They look nice, too. Credit: Morguefile / Moonlightway Most of us know that one of the most important ways for flowers to get pollinated is to let insects — especially bees — do the job. Some orchids mimic insects to attract them, as well as giving a fragrance that appeals to them. There are even a few varieties that have a kind of "catch and release" program for bees — the Bucket Orchid even produces a liquid that makes the male bee attractive to female bees! Other orchids mimic insects to get the attention of other insects. Darwin's disciples

Organisms adapt to changing conditions, which is something on which both creationists and Darwinists agree. How they adapt is where the controversy lies. Evolutionists rely on naturalistic explanations while biblical creationists maintain that evolutionary speculations and storytelling are inadequate, but engineering principles of creation are the best approach. Credit: Pixabay / StockSnap Creationists have long promoted the Creator's design, pointing out the failures of evolutionary explanations for what is observed, emphasizing how creation is the only logical explanation for adaptation, and so on. Some creationists are pursuing Engineered Adaptability, developing a framework for a design-based theory that uses enginering causation and principles. A "map" of sorts for a series on Engineered Adaptability that is more focused has been proposed. A map is crucial for all travelers, from fun-seeking vacationers to serious scientific researchers. This month’s article

Rational people think that if a hypothesis or theory is not supported by evidence, it is discarded and everyone moves on to something better. Unfortunately for science and reason, the Big Bang has been tweaked, adjusted, had the top sawed off and stapled on the bottom, sprayed with patchouli essential oil, run over with a steam roller — okay, I'm exaggerating just a bit. The fact remains that the Big Bang has failed, but instead of being discarded, it is modified for further failures. Then modified again, repeat as needed and call it science. Credit: NASA/GSFC (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) The current patch involves dark matter, dark energy, and other things involving "dark". There is no evidence that these things exist, but cosmic evolutionists cling to these things anyway. It should be obvious why: they despise the rational alternative, that God created the universe, and much more recently than fourteen billion years or so ago. Lack of scie

We hear about how impressive the sense of smell is in animals, especially dogs . According to Darwinian mythology, humans do not have an acute sense of smell. People have believed that idea for a long time, but it's based on assumptions and conjecture, not actual science. Credit: Pixabay / shixugang But just study on it for a spell. Ever wake up in the morning because you smelled coffee brewing? Or bacon frying? Maybe you were awakened by the smell of smoke and wanted to make sure your place wasn't on fire. Personal fragrances are sold at exorbitant prices. Know why? Because people can smell them. (Some are marketed to men with the idea that if women get a whiff of this particular fragrance on you, they'll — oh, you know.) Show of hands: how many people like the smell of cut grass? Various scents stir our memories and emotions. Interesting that we can save and reproduce sounds and visuals, and to some extent what we physically feel, but there are no recorders for s

It is not a matter of our facts and their facts because scientific evidence is interpreted according to assumptions. Someone may say, "That fossil on my mantlepiece shows that the world is billions of years old", while someone else can look at the same rock and say, "That rock is evidence for the Genesis Flood". Everyone has the same data to work with, and we all start with our own beliefs . More to Do credit: Freeimages / David Stern Many times, atheists will claim that science is atheistic by nature, but that is one of the unsustainable presuppositions they hang on scientific methods . For that matter, I've seen the demand, "Prove scientifically that God exists". This shows a lack of logical thinking as well as a misunderstanding of both the capabilities and limitations of science; it cannot prove anything (let alone the existence of God via the category error), but science can show if a hypothesis or theory does not work. The kind of s

A spell back, I posted about how life predated science fiction because Earth has something akin to planet-sized deflector shields . These are the Van Allen radiation belts, which were previously unknown until the Explorer satellite series helped find them. Later, the cosmic evolution-defying deflector properties were discovered. On January 31, 1958, Explorer 1 brought the US into the space age. Image credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) When you sneeze, you're ejecting...stuff. The sun sends the occasional blast of stuff our way, which has been likened to a solar sneeze. 'Snot funny, That plasma and radiation could cause us problems. The following link leads to an article by Dr. Henry Richter, who was involved in the Explorer series and the detection of the Van Allen belts. It's good for a space exploration history lesson, and a reminder that our Creator set things up for our protection, even way out yonder. A recent article about an at

Something that crops up in discussions regarding science is predictability. Operational science (the kind you see every day, which is observable, repeatable, testable, and so on) has that going for it. Origins science is a horse of a different color. You can't repeat, test, observe the origin of the universe or alleged universal common ancestor evolution. Scientists in the evolutionary and creationary camps make some serious efforts at predicting some things, though. Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann Evolutionists have a dreadful record of making predictions ( as seen here, for example ), but since the secular science industry is in power, ideology is more important than truth or accuracy. Maybe their poor record is why we hear outright falsehoods about creationary scientists, such as denying that they are published in scientific journals , they do make predictions (including the failed Homo naledi fiasco ), that they are not credentialed scientists , and so on. The article li