Piltdown Superman

There is a plant known as Brassica rapa , but it has subspecies that have more familiar names including field mustard. Botanists decided to do some experimenting on the field mustard and pollination, and commenced to not only violating evolutionary dogma, but affirming a creation science biological model. Credit: Wikimedia Commons / TeunSpaans ( CC by-SA 3.0 ) The botanists assumed evolution to prove evolution (circular reasoning), but also made untrue statements. There was no evidence of evolution, just small modifications. Magical mystical "environmental pressures" were assumed as well. However, the continuous environmental tracking model that you have been reading about here has been demonstrated in research and is more scientific than Darwinian selectionism. More specifically, instead of external influences, our Creator used engineering principles and designed living things to quickly adapt. A recent study on a plant in the mustard family ( Brassica Rapa ) pr

Take a deep breath. Doing that is a voluntary action, but most of our breathing happens involuntarily — which is a good thing, otherwise we would have to focus on that and never sleep. The Master Engineer designed the complex actions of our lungs to keep us going. Credit: Pixabay / toubibe There are many factors in play that could not have come together through evolutionary processes. While water in the lungs causes drowning, we do have water in there by design. It actually helps the complicated breathing and oxygenation process through surface tension . However, sometimes the surface tension is reduced by cells at certain times as needed. For our lungs to expand and contract during breathing, they must somehow be attached to our chest cavity and diaphragm yet slip effortlessly against these surfaces. This is accomplished by a thin layer of watery liquid called pleural fluid between the lungs’ outer surface and the chest cavity lining. Pleural fluid serves both as a lubricant a

Naturalists are riding the cosmic cougar and are afraid to jump off. Like their late high priest Stephen Hawking , they are committed to the Big Bang and an ancient cosmos even though the evidence supports recent creation. So they keep on a-riding that false paradigm. Europa water vapor plumes Credits: NASA / ESA / W. Sparks (STScI) / USGS Astrogeology Science Center (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) News includes a whole passel of widely scattered evidence that "should not" be there according to secular beliefs, but fit right well with biblical creation. To read about these, click on " Young Solar System Evidence Pops Up Everywhere ". You will probably like another that will tell you all about what's shaking: the moon. Yep, moonquakes provide " More Evidence Our Moon Is Young ".

In discussion about the age of the earth, people generally assume that this here planet of ours is plenty old, somewhere around four to five billion years. How do we know? Because scientists said so. How do they  know? Through picking data they like and rejecting those that are incompatible with the deep time that Darwin requires. Credit: freestocks.org / Joanna Malinowska Secular scientists generally adhere to uniformitarianism (slow and gradual processes over a millions or billions of years), and reject evidence for the Genesis Flood. There are many evidences for the young earth that can be seen perusing this site alone, and these link to other sites with a wagon train-load of material on this subject as well as others affirming recent creation. We'll keep it simple today with an overview of four important evidence from geology for the young earth and the global Flood. Most people believe rock layers require millions of years to form. This assumption has been taught as f

While many creationists use the word microevolution, it is conspicuously absent from this site. That is because this word is misleading, and believers in minerals-to-microbiologist use it to imply that if there is a little  evolution, then that leads to much  (or macro ) evolution. It does not work that way, and many biblical creationists advise against using the words micro- and macroevolution . What is considered microevolution is actually variation and speciation.  Creationists don't get on the prod with those terms because they are not only observed in nature, but they support biblical creation science models (see " How Do Evolutionists Hijack Real Science? " for an example). Evolutionists see variations as evidence for evolution, such as in antibiotic resistance . Variations are essentially horizontal  changes, but you must remember this, a fish is still a fish, a fly is still a fly, and so on, even though time goes by. They're pulling the ol' bait 

Those scientists who never bought into the dinosaurs-evolved-into-birds mythology probably get exasperated by hearing the majority opinion proclaimed. However, they may also feel a bit vindicated by the numerous reports that show such evolution is impossible — not that they are fond of supporting creation, however. Assembled using components from Clker clipart If you study on it or read previous posts here, you might realize that they are asking a lot in the first place. After all, feathers are complex, lungs would have to change, bone structures rearranged and redeveloped, flight itself would have to develop, and more. There is simply no evidence for such evolution . Then we have conflicts with the timeline, such as fully-functional birds living alongside dinosaurs. The truth is that God created dinosaurs and birds separately, and didn't consult Darwin. Several aspects of the dinosaur-to-bird evolution don’t make sense in the light of evolution. Museums and park displ

The article featured below reminds me of when Stormie Waters was out prospecting and ran afoul of some of the hands at the Darwin Ranch. Why she was wearing that string of pearls, I have no idea, but they made it into a tangled mess. I was unable to help and tried cutting it. You can guess where the pearls went: all over the floor. (I've had more success with Christmas tree lights or rope tangles.) Too bad she didn't have a motor handy like those that detangle DNA. Credit: Freeimages /  Miguel Saavedra DNA is amazingly complex and relatively large, but it is packed away in cells. To be useful, it has to be unpacked, detangled, and read. Our Master Engineer as instituted  DNA helicases to take care of that. The DNA strands are separated, cut (without molecular pearls spilling all over the cell floor), and repaired. This process is extremely fast, and the motors even have the necessary fuel available. The intricacies and specified complexity are impossible for evolutionist