Piltdown Superman

Quite a few people have seen living things that give off their own light. It can be a mite disconcerting sometimes, but a wide variety of organisms do this, including fish, algae, fungi, insects, and others. It is called bioluminescence, and is extremely challenging for adherents of microbes-to-miner evolution to explain. The mechanism is extremely efficient, and evolutionists claim that it happened over forty times. They have no idea how ,   but " stuff happens " is somehow a valid evolutionary explanation. Scientists are studying fireflies for biomimetics applications (as usual, refusing to give credit to the Creator). The diversity of bioluminescent critters is baffling to evolutionists, as is the specified complexity of the mechanism: everything has to be in place and working at the same time, else nothing works or makes sense. Another puzzler for them is that some self-glowing has no apparent purpose; perhaps the Master Engineer put some in place for our appreciati

It is a mite distressing that some people believe the earth is flat, and some of them are professing Christians and even creationists. This is ironic because not only was the idea started to make the Bible look foolish, but it has been soundly refuted both scientifically and theologically . (The president of the Flat Earth Society is a Darwinist, by the way.) One of the strangest claims that some flat earthers make is that moonlight removes heat and cools things. Sea View by Moonlight , Ivan Aivazovsky, 1878 This idea should be subject to verification or refutation scientifically. Some owlhoots have made a pretense at proving their claim, but their efforts are woefully inadequate. Like faulty evidence for evolution ( including "junk" DNA ), people doing what passes for research argue from their presuppositions, find a bit of data they think is confirmation, and think their work is done. Experiments and research must be done as completely as possible. Neutral or ne

There is a popular cold cut product in these here United States that is popular for lunches. While it is not my first choice, baloney  (Brits call it polony ) is okay when it is fried up. The stuff is made of scraps of beef, pork, chicken, or whatever, then seasoned, cooked, and packaged. The word is also an exclamation of disbelief. Cropped from Pixabay / Erad Ever have someone describe something you said or wrote as baloney?  Seems like when people say it with enthusiasm, some bark it out like three short words. Apparently it has been mostly replaced by something more profane involving cattle.) Mayhaps the ingredients of the sausage food product inspired the exclamation. Biblical creationists who keep up with material on the origins controversy tend to develop an eye for faulty science. It is mighty helpful to learn to spot logical fallacies , watch for arbitrary assertions, just-so stories without substance, piles upon piles of unsubstantiated conjectures, and that sort

The  continuous environmental tracking (CET) model that is being developed by the Institute for Creation Research is getting extremely interesting. Darwin's concept of externally-driven changes is being refuted, and CET shows not only validity, but can be used to predict changes in organisms. Credit: Unsplash / Ivan Timov People using an engineering perspective desire to have their products able to respond and react to changes and design them accordingly. The Master Engineer has equipped living things to respond in both short-term and long-term situations — including equipping progeny to adapt for changing environments.  Tomatoes respond with their anticipatory logic and respond to threats (at the speed of plant, of course) and essentially circle the wagons. Honey bees deprived of nutrition have anticipatory responses all the way down to the molecular level. Sea urchins equip their offspring to deal with changing temperatures. These changes (and others in the linked artic

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen   At The Question Evolution Project on Fazebook and in other places, we see atheists and other anti-creationists complain that we do not share material from unbiased sources. Then they trot out links to sites that promote evolution and atheism. Apparently, they consider "unbiased" to mean "not creationist". Who is biased? People who have read this site have probably seen my remarks that people who want to convince others of their viewpoint are biased. Not only are biblical creationists biased, but we are also quite open that we want to convince people that muck-to-misotheist evolution is false and that the evidence supports special creation and the worldwide Genesis Flood. Evolutionists are biased just like anyone else. Someone posted my article on the Roku streaming device  in a Fazebook group. I mentioned that Roku carries the NRA channel, and someone hysterically typed that nobody should read the article because it was "

Atheists and evolutionists bucked and kicked at the news that soft tissues were found in fossils. Some even accused creationists of lying or at least misunderstanding the reports. It was not our problem that they were the ones who were uninformed or in denial. Worse for them, the more soft tissues and other fascinating instances of preservation were found. Once again, there was mandatory overtime at the Darwin Ranch where help was needed at the excuse mill to save deep time dogma. Rescuing devices were utilized to no avail; the facts were not made to ride off into the sunset. (Who does  that, anyway? You can't see where you're going none too well.) Sometimes the preservation is on a large scale, and other times very delicate features have been preserved. Sorry Hoss, they cannot  last millions of years, nor can things be buried slowly. Excellent preservation (indeed, as are fossils themselves) are testimony to the Genesis Flood and the young earth. The first question ou

Secular geologists do that thing they do, which is to interpret data from their presuppositions. Since no scientist is unbiased, such approaches are expected. Unfortunately, they reject data that conflicts with their views. Uniformitarian geologists made up a sea level curve that is not supported by the data. Ocean , Vartan Mahokian, 1918-1920 The Institute for Creation Research compiled a great deal of data from three continents, then wanted to see if maps and sedimentary data support their hypothesis that the sedimentary patterns were generated by the Genesis Flood. Evolutionary geologists compiled a global sea level curve from the Cambrian system to the present using assumed environmental interpretations and deep time. They infer global sea level was lower during deposition of the Permian system because they believe that many sedimentary layers, like the Permian Coconino Sandstone, were deposited across dry land. For this reason, they show a lowering of sea level during th

People have been wondering for ages if there is intelligent life around other stars. One of the most common speculations is that since there are so many stars out yonder, there must be  creatures living on them. The more scientists learn, the hope of finding alien life dwindles.  Credit: RGBStock / Phil Edon The main impetus for finding extraterrestrials is based on evolution. Secularists presume evolution must have happened, but they cannot explain the origin of life on Earth without the Creator. First of all, the number of planets is a guess. A few thousand have been found, but things get complicated. They have to be in the habitable (or "Goldilicks") zone where everything is just right as far as size and distance from the stars. Several planets have been considered. However, the stars they orbit tend to be mighty ornery cusses and the planets are of the wrong composition. Gas giants are out of the question. Many factors come together that require exoplanets to be

Julian Huxley was a propagandist for Darwinism, and he published something in 1952 that should have been immediately dismissed. Huxley, and later Carl Sagan, claimed that the "Samurai Crab" (heikegani) is an example of evolution in action, and people ate up this concept — but not the crabs. Samurai statue image credit: Pixabay/ Samuele Schirò In their efforts to dismiss our Creator, Huxley and Sagan claimed that natural selection was at work because superstitious Japanese fisherman threw the heikegani back into the water because they resembled samurai warriors. The samurai became the military ruling class and rose to prominence during medieval times. So, the crabs with the resemblance to samurai warriors were thrown back and kept reproducing. People accepted this dishonest propaganda. I believe that is is partially based on authority because Huxley and Sagan were scientists. Being a scientists does not make someone right, pilgrim, but it impresses people who are unwi

When scientists first sequenced the human genome, they were working from their evolutionary presuppositions and using inferior equipment. They also made mistakes, and there is a problem with inaccurate results from contamination. Their "junk DNA" assumptions have been debunked. Credit: CSIRO/ Garry Brown  ( CC by 3.0 ) (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Since scientists could not find a use for some parts of the genome, they called it "junk", leftover from our alleged evolutionary past. Creationists said all along that the stuff is not junk, and eventually were proved right because many functions have been discovered. Sad for Darwinists, because they need  the so-called junk to support their ideas. The usefulness of introns  has also been doubted. How about going to something simpler for testing? Yeast is good for this. The genome only has 295 introns, after all, so yeast is easier to study. Research showed that introns are also valuable. B