Piltdown Superman

New material added to the end of this post. There was a time when Neanderthals were considered partly-evolved cavemen, a link to our simian ancestry. Scientists caught up to what biblical creationists have said for decades: Neanderthals were fully human just like us. Evidence continued to mount that showed how they were not only human, but intelligent. Now we learn that they were rather sophisticated! Modified from an image at Openclipart Neanderthals were creative and intelligent and fully human. Some scientists were skeptical that there was evidence proving they were the ones who did those high-quality cave wall paintings. While it seems obvious, study on it a spell. Nobody saw them doing the painting, and they could have taken over furnished caves or shared them with Denisovans and modern humans . Nope. Now it is believed the Neanderthals did the painting. This may have been put aside for a spell since they apparently had a proclivity toward sexual promiscuity — like moder

We have seen many examples of the methods used to promote universal common ancestor evolution, and quite a few are disingenuous. Some are downright sneaky. Creationists frequently deal with straw man arguments, blatant misrepresentation , personal attacks, and so on. Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ often use distractions when the harsh light of truth gets them on the prod. I have seen atheists and evolutionists who demand evidence for what biblical creationists believe. When it is provided, they bounce around to different subjects (which happens in all sorts of discussions, even informal ones). Anti-creationists and atheists try to put us on the defensive. Sometimes they claim to be asking "honest questions", and invariably trying to slap leather with the creationists with emotion-based distractions and attacks. I'll allow that it is easy to let ourselves follow their lead, but it they get mighty irritated when we keep them on topic. Some of the distractions are along th

Many believers in scum-to-sculptor evolution have realized that life could not have arisen on Earth according to their paradigm, so they push the problem out in space and give it to the aliens. Other materialist owlhoots still try to make origin of life speculations seem plausible. How about order from disorder?  Credit: Freeimages/ Loretta Humble Keith Cooper headed down to the Darwin ranch and ran an idea up the flagpole to see if anyone saluted it. Not much reason to, since it is loaded with assumptions (even though evolutionists are not skittish about them) and multiple variables. Just take some biological stuff lying around and hope it evolves into something useful, and then upward into humans and things. Not hardly! Aside from OoL refutations, there is not model or mechanism, and the author admits that his idea has problems. The idea is irrational. His biggest problem, however, is that he refuses to humble himself and admit that life was created by God. OOL without des

If you ever watch some of those documentaries on cats, you can see that the furry critters that own us as pets can be found in a variety of shapes, sizes, and colors (the Maine Coon is a whopper.) Go to the zoo or watch a different documentary and you see the big ones such as lions, tigers, cheetahs, leopards, bobcats, and a passel of others. Where did they originate? Liger (lion-tiger hybrid) image credit: Ali West ( CC by 2.0 ) Darwinists are content with " it evolved " and spin some yarns, but it is obvious from their amazing abilities such as vision, smell, hearing, and others that the Master Engineer designed them. Biblical creationists believe in the created kinds  of Genesis, and the study of the kinds is called baraminology . They're all cats, and can interbreed. Lions and tigers can breed. The largest domestic cat (although  domestic  is disputed) is the Savannah cat , a cross between a domestic and an African serval . Lions are discussed in the Bible

This is one of those times when a very technical article needs to be presented for people who want more in-depth hard science. It helps to have a background in botany, but if you have some knowledge of science, you can still get something out of it. It involves an area that frustrates particles-to-plant evolutionists, and has some support for biblical creation science models. Credit: Unsplash/ Henry & Co. Usually as a reproduction error, polyploidy is a condition where — "You mean like David Gilmour, Roger Waters, Syd Barrett and those guys, Cowboy Bob?" That would be poly Pink Floydy. Let's hope your lapse of reason is momentary. Moving on. Polyploidy is where organisms or cells acquire additional sets of paired chromosomes. Sometimes organisms are deemed "fit", but controversy ensues. It has been suggested that polyploidy is a means of evolution, but that would mean it happens too rapidly, so the fact-free concept of punctuated equilibrium

Although he has long since gone to his eternal reward, the ideas of Papa Darwin have been having some bad times lately. They have been slimed by the hagfish , natural selection has been shown to be useless in science , and now we see that they have been snakebit. Serves the sidewinders right. Western pygmy rattlesnake image credit: Wikimedia Commons/ Peter Paplanus ( CC by 2.0 )  Evolutionists have been unable to come up with a cogent model for the origin of snakes and lizards. They lost their legs? How? Ideas raise more questions than provide answers. They also have problems with the varieties of venom and where it came from. Yes, creationists also have speculations about venom as well. We do know that snakes show remarkable design, and did not evolve. The origin of snakes and snake venom has become more puzzling to believers in Darwinian evolution. (Note: For explanation of our usage of Darwin, Darwinism and Darwinian , see footnote.) [This fits the way I use those terms

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen As biblical creationists, the rocks thrown at us are doubled. Not only do we deal with angry atheopaths, but from professing Christians who are trying to do God a favor by ridiculing and "refuting" creationist views. Apparently, God does not mean what he says, even when God wrote in stone that everything was created in six days. Credit: US Geological Survey/ Erin Todd It is amazing how theistic evolutionists (TEs) and other old earth creationists (OECs) reject the Bible, preferring instead to use atheistic interpretations of evidence and phenomena against Bible-believing Christians, even dreaming up hybrid creation accounts so they can have both their naturalism and a pretense at believing the Bible. I have written about theistic evolutionists who are adored by atheists (see " Rocky Reefs, Autumn Leaves Without Fruit "), since atheism and evolutionism ride for the same brand (see " Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism ")