Piltdown Superman

Faces are useful and, at times, fun. We can communicate with them in subtle ways, especially people who have been together for a long time. If you stop and study on it, animals do not have much variety in expressions; that squirrel I chased off the patio had the same expression he had before, but I know he was both alarmed and angry. Original image credit: Unsplash /  Francesco Ungaro Frame enhancement: PhotoFunia As expected, some Darwinists started with the assumption of evolution, then tried to reckon how we evolved faces from those of our alleged ancestors. There are many factors involved, what with muscles, functions, and all that make the matter difficult. Researchers made assertions but only paid lip service to evidence. Seems to me that this is along the lines of the absurd believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds, since there are numerous changes that must be in place, but evolutionists have no mechanisms. Let's face it, we are not related to apes, but were separat

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Although science is a tool for interpreting observable evidence, people treat it like an entity, such as in the expression "science says". Scientists say, not science, but we can work with this later. Science is used by fallible humans who have biases and make mistakes, sometimes clinging to bad ideas despite evidence. Made with PhotoFunia For example, the phlogiston theor y of combustion was disproved but it took a while before it was put out to pasture. Ignaz Semmelweis demonstrated that medical people needed to wash their hands before touching patients, but his evidence was rejected for many years . The views of Charles Darwin gained acceptance despite contrary evidence, which includes deep time in geology and also cosmic evolution. Evolution is the girlfriend of ill-repute of Science. They go to parties together, and Science uses Evolution to impress people. However, Evolution is unfaithful and even invites her brother Scientism over for

The standard story told by adherents of universal common ancestor evolution about the rise of multicellular organisms is that sponges clumped together and took a notion to evolve. We may wonder how such knowledge was obtained. Don't you know who they are? They're evolutionists, so they're right. Credit: NOAA /  G.P. Schmahl (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Darwinists are mighty fond of passing along speculations that fit the evolutionary narrative as if they were actual science, now they want to move it up a notch. Some researchers disagreed with the whole clumpy sponge idea, so they had some guesswork of their own: stem cells. That's right, multicellular organisms came from stem cells. However, stem cells are very complex and evolutionists cannot account for their  origins. Of course not. The most logical explanation is what biblical creationists have been telling us all along. One of the problems inherent in the evolutionary dogma is going

Like cattle rustlers who refuse to admit that they got lost riding the wrong trail in the dark, Darwin's disciples keep claiming that they have evidence for evolution where none exists. It is both pathetic and amusing when they deny their own belief system and claim that loss of traits  shows onward and upward evolution. Cropped from Wikimedia Commons /  Francesco Veronesi ( CC by-SA 2.0 ) One of the most giggle-worthy examples of this is the use of troglomorphism , the loss of sight and pigmentation in cave animals (see this article, Part 1 and Part 2 ). Another example is a flightless bird called the white-throated rail. "Are these people for rail, Cowboy Bob?" Don't do that. Supposedly, flight evolved several times in different ways, even though evolutionists really have no idea how it happened. Stuff happens — it's a law, you know. Instead of the hallucinations of the Darwinian elite, observations actually work against evolution and support spec

In several places, I have written about how unbelievers often demand that we prove to them that God exists. Apologists can see that this insistence is actually a justification for their rebellion against the God that they already know exists (Romans 1:18-23), and irrationally requiring scientific, material evidence for God . Credit: Freeimages / Maxime Perron Caissy For the most part, the people that comment at The Question Evolution Project are antagonistic and hard-hearted, rejecting any attempt to answer their questions. Once in a while, we (and Bible-believing Christians) encounter people who have saddled up to ride the long trail to seeking truth. If they get up on the hill for the bigger picture, they can see that there is a wagon train-load of evidence for God's existence as well as his character. He is our Creator and has made himself known. We do not need to spend time trying to present evidence to mockers and those who define "reality" through mater

The Darwinian death cult keeps on getting stranger, quite possibly because their efforts to deny the Creator are downright irrational. We are bombarded with the canard, " It evolved " without models or evidence when reading articles, watching documentaries, and so forth. Not only is evolution assumed in order to provide evidence for it (the fallacy of begging the question), but Darwin's dark dream is often presented as an irrevocable force: things must evolve. Except when they don't. These are the same tinhorns who brought you you, as "science", that parasite manipulation just may have influenced human intelligence. Yes, really. There are many living fossils (an organism was fossilized many evolutionary years ago and its living counterpart is essentially unchanged), so the lack of evolution is evosplained with the unscientific excuse of "stasis" : it didn't feel the need to evolve. Some addlepated evolutionists actually use lack of chan

The original definition for atheism is the denial of God and any other supernatural beings, but since they cannot support their claims, they redefined the word to the fatuous "lack of belief" claim. They also pretend to be the paragons of logic and reason, believing in "reality". However, they are not consistent with their worldviews. There are times when people call themselves atheists and say, "You don't know what atheism is!", then proceed to presumptuously speak for all atheists, painting them with a broad brush. Not so fast, Phyllis. Back in 2008, an article in the Wall Street Journal called " Look Who's Irrational Now " cited a survey where atheists admitted to belief in the paranormal and pseudoscience, including astrology. The original article is here , and is reproduced here . More recently, another survey revealed that professing atheists and agnostics believe in some form of the supernatural, including fate, karma, and