Piltdown Superman

There are times when it is possible to have too much of a good thing. Certain areas of China contain a wealth of fossils from all sorts of critters including dinosaurs and birds. All that good stuff for paleontologists, but they are unable to find transitional forms . Then they have the problem of fakes. Photo of Sinosauropteryx prima holotype slab at Wikimedia Commons by James St. John   ( CC by 2.0 ) China is a repressive communist country, so impoverished farmers are giving scientists what they want: feathered dinosaur fossils. There are so many fakes being produced that papers have been retracted by science journals and people are more cautious. Don't want another Archaeoraptor humiliation , do we? Another part of the problem is that dinosaur-to-bird enthusiasts "see" what they want, and not necessarily what is actually discovered. The narrative drives the science, just like the Piltdown man fraud that fooled evolutionists for over forty years, or the decep

The title of this post sounds like an entertainment event. It is, in a way. There are so many rhythms to be found in life, and scientists discovered something going on within cells that reminded them of intricate dancing in cell compartments. Made at Atom Smasher Organelles are like compartments in cells because some activities are not to be shared. However, some of them do communicate information and share certain materials. This entire arrangement testifies of the Master Engineer's work because all the parts have to be in place and functioning at the same time. Darwin was not consulted. Cell biologists have long focused on the tiniest of interactions: those between molecules. Recently, some researchers have zoomed out just a little to take a fresh look using new technologies at those cellular compartments, called organelles . Their discoveries give new insight into diseases, prompt a desire to redraw all the standard textbook cell pictures, and challenge anyone who still

Once upon a time, a celestial body was carelessly wandering through our solar system. It smacked into the earth, and eventually the moon was formed. This is what passes for science in some areas, but the lunar impact hypothesis is not striking at all. Neither is the new version. There are no good working models as to how the moon formed, so secularists did that secularist thing they do so often and chose the best of the worst concept. The winner was the big ol' smack hypothesis even though it was refuted long ago. The logical conclusion from astronomical evidence (and a prairie schooner-full of evidence in our own solar system) is that the earth, moon, solar system, stars, the universe and everything was created recently. But no, someone wants to revisit the lunar impact business and say it's a "lesson in how science works". No, kitten, it's a lesson in materialistic desperation and how not to do science. A new model for the Moon’s formation is claimed

One reason that Darwinian thinking has so many people hogtied is because the non-explanation of " it evolved " is used so freely. Add to this the phrase "scientists say", and too many people will accept such a remark without question. Venus flytrap image credit: CSIRO / Malcolm Paterson   (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) For me, good documentaries on living things are spoiled with assertions of "it evolved", as if homage to the Bearded Buddha somehow provides scientific validation. I'm sure some of you have felt the same way. Why not simply describe what is observed without delving into what is assumed about the subject's history? We have two examples in the article linked below. Folks riding for the Darwin brand commit circular reasoning and other bad logic by assuming evolution to prove evolution. In fact, two carnivorous plants defy evolution. Instead, they show specified complexity that could not have arisen by evolu

People who promote goo-to-goat herder evolution are intent on converting Darwin skeptics by insisting that there are mountains of evidence for evolution, which is false . The typical proselytizer uses outdated and even deceptive "facts", and even spreads fraudulent claims. Apes in the Orange Grove by Henri Rousseau, 1910 Some people have disingenuously taken the name of The Question Evolution Project to mean, "We have questions about evolution. Kindly straighten us out so we can mindlessly follow Darwin". Actually, we want to spark people to think for themselves and question evolution. You do not need a doctorate in science to keep up with the global changes in the origins climate. A basic knowledge of science, obtaining information from biblical creation science sites, and a basic knowledge of logical fallacies can give you an advantage in spotting false claims. In addition, we can (and should) ask pertinent questions and also plant some seeds and promp

Due to the prevalence of evolutionary thinking on society, people today tend to think ancient people were stupid. We are modern, so we are smarter. That'll be the day! This criticism has been leveled against Noah, assuming he could not have built that Ark. Humans were intelligent from the beginning of creation. Ark Encounter, Pixabay / Michael Wysmiersk One area of cultural bias and scientific racism has been the assumption that Neanderthals and other ancient humans were unintelligent. They were actually very intelligent . (An attempt by Darwinists to save face over their bad science is to propose that they went extinct because they were too smart !) If you've watched shows or read novels about the old American West, you could easily wonder how those folks survived. Although they didn't have modern conveniences, they were inventive. Do a search for a show called Wild West Tech that ran for about thirty episodes, you should be able to find the videos online. Fascina

Evolutionists like to claim that antibiotic resistance is a clear example of evolution, but that is the opposite of the truth. Variations, natural selection, mutations, yes, but what is observed has nothing to do with microbes-to-medical doctor evolution. What is going on with bacteria, then? Credit: RGBStock / Sanja Gjenero A great deal of research, testing, and expense are involved in making antibiotics in the first place, so it's not like a company can simply whip up a batch for something new or a variation. There are three primary mechanisms that cause microbes to resist antibiotics. Instead of supporting naturalism, these actually fit in with biblical creationist views. Let's saddle up and ride on over for some detailed explanations of what's going on. The discovery of antibiotics was one of the most important advances in medicine, profoundly improving human health. Many bacterial infections (for example, tuberculosis and wound infections) that often killed pe