Piltdown Superman

Scientists who are involved in biology disagree on the definition of species. Sometimes this happens with individual critters, but the broader use of the term is also disputed. It is the lowest ranking in taxonomy below genus, most often defined as organisms that can mate to produce fertile offspring . Doesn't always work that way, however. Liger at the Novosibirsk Zoo / Wikimedia Commons / Алексей Шилин We hear about hybrids, often in the plant kingdom. Animal hybrids usually cannot reproduce, and one of the most famous examples is the mule, from a male donkey and female horse. There are other hybrid animals as well. Darwin's imaginary "Tree of Life" gets its branches all tangled up with species interbreeding, and sometimes, the hybrids can breed with the parents, creating havoc for scientists at the genus level. It may be slightly less surprising when the matings happen in captivity, but they happen in the wild as well. Materialists like to reject any cons

Living things seem mighty recalcitrant when it comes to supporting evolutionary conjectures, including those things termed living fossils . Those are things that were thought to be extinct, then found alive and essentially unchanged after millions of alleged years. A green alga, a seaweed, is not quite a living fossil because it was thought to be extinct in North America but still living in other parts of the world. Well, it's been found in North America after all, and it's unchanged. In cases like this, wait for Darwin's Drones to bring out the usual boilerplate excuses: it didn't have to evolve, stasis, and things like that. This child doesn't fall for those tricks, because a lot of environmental things happen in a year, and evolutionary mythology breaks down if they think we're going to accept such "explanations". Aside from the anticipated excuses, there are several important facts that evolutionists overlook, including how critters and plants

Scientists and other people with training and experience can learn a great deal from footprints. Many people can see the different between a bird and a human for instance, but may have difficulty between those of a large dog and a bear. That could be a problem in the wilderness. Barefoot human impressions are very distinct, and a trained observer can learn a great deal about whoever made them. The fossilized human footprints discovered in Crete are somewhat indistinct, but cause some problems for common ancestor evolution. Modified from a graphic at Clker clipart The "our ancestors came out of Africa" mythology is threatened because of the dates evolutionists assigned to the footprints. Also, despite looking like someone is tromping through the mud and not sure of his or her footing, it is obvious that they were not made by anything other than a human. Some secularists do not want to believe the evidence because it threatens their death cult. Creationists do not have p

An interesting story about the merging of neutron stars (who did not bother to consult the Federal Trade Commission on their merger) involved some interesting information on their history and detection. This necessitates material on gravity waves, and some of Uncle Albert Einstein's work. From there, we were given some Big Bang cosmogony, chemistry, and chemistry's weird great grandfather that nobody likes to talk about: alchemy. The Alchemist / David Teniers the Younger Way back yonder in medieval times, some folks were attempting sciencey stuff by attempting to convert base metals (copper, lead, tin, and so forth) into gold. Imagine the devastating impact on economies if they succeeded! Alchemy was distantly related to chemistry for reasons that should seem obvious. We get exceptionally dense neutron stars commencing to merge, and the interaction supposedly produced a passel of gold. Problem is, it's all based on Big Bang presuppositions on the origin of the uni

When materialistic scientists argue from their evolutionary and deep time presuppositions, facts tend to get a mite scrambled. Speculations about things they think happened millions of Darwin years ago get added to the mix. When hearing, viewing, or reading about speculations that have no actual science behind them, it become difficult to stifle laughter. Credit: Freeimages / Aron Hess Geologically thinking, we have rock layers with fossils in them. Secular assumptions smuggle in long age presumptions (uniformitarianism), so the fossilized creatures appear that they were spread out over many years, and that there were several "great extinctions". However, secular scientists speculating about the distant past are not in agreement about how many extinctions happened. Worse for them, their conjectures fail to address observed evidence, but biblical creationists' models of the Genesis Flood have no difficulty giving rational explanations. Must grate on them that the ev

Some folks do not cotton to spiders, even getting the heebie-jeebies at the tiniest of them. I can understand being skittish with a spider that looks like if you tried to strike it with a tennis racket, it would take it away and strike you instead. Yep, that's alarming. Anyway, some might say, "I'm sure glad spiders can't fly!" Sorry, Sally, but some do fly — in a way. Those shimmering threads are not from UFOs, so Auntie Madge doesn't need to call the Air Force (Project Blue Book has been closed for a long time, anyway), nor are they " chemtrails " Just spiders doing ballooning stuff. Ballooning spiderlings image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Little Grove Farms / ( CC BY 3.0 ) Each of a huge number of spiders can shoot out some gossamer and ride the high winds. They don't all have happy landings, though. The survivors, though, hit the ground like special forces leaving their parachutes behind. How do they do this? Sure, the wind is an impor

In any field of science, there has to be some degree of presumption. Scientists have to presume the uniformity of nature and its laws (although secularists refuse to admit that God, who created everything, upholds the universe by his power). When getting further into evolution-related fields, more presumptions are made based on naturalistic presuppositions. This is clearly seen in cosmology — which is not even science , but a philosophy. Credit: NASA / ESA (modified) Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents Cosmic owlhoots Krauss and Scherrer wrote a paper that may not have been entirely serious, saying that cosmologists in the future may not have the necessary information to make the correct conclusions about the universe that today's scientists have made. What, nobody keeps or refers to records? The authors got the bit in their teeth and galloped off with the presumption that they are correct in the first place in the here and now. (Reminds me of the tinhorns who