Piltdown Superman

Many of us in sleek industrial societies consider it a bit of a thrill to gnaw on a chunk of actual honeycomb. We are familiar with rectangular chunks of the hexagonal cells, but the sugarbag bees kick it up several notches. Sugarbag bees doing regular bee stuff Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Graham Wise ( CC BY 2.0 ) These bees (say that three times fast...don't you feel silly now?) build very intricate structures. Interestingly, they forego the familiar hexagonal shape and comb style used by their buzzy brethren. Some owlhoots riding for the Darwin brand decided that since their combs resemble crystals, it could all happen by chance without the need of the Master Engineer. (Which is a fallacious, invalid comparison in the first place.) Of course, since the narrative is more important than genuine research, this fake news easily falls apart under examination. Small, stingless bees of the species Tetragonula carbonaria , from Southeast Asia and Australia, are known to bui

The hands at the Darwin Ranch get all a-twitter over discoveries in paleontology, but have a nasty habit of leaving important details laying in the rain by the bunkhouse door. A recent example involves an ichthyosaur that was fossilized during chow time. Of course, they presuppose millions of Darwin years and use the old "fossilization takes a mighty long time" idea to try and hornswoggle people again.  Perhaps the secularists didn't want to consider the implications of the neglected facts.  Creationists know that the evidence doesn't support their deep-time notions, and have the unmitigated gall to think and ask questions.  For example, if fossilization takes so long, why was the predator ichthyosaur unable to digest its prey even a little? Add this to other examples of extremely rapid fossilization and the increasingly-present soft tissues, and the evidence points to recent creation and the Genesis Flood. Here is another example of an ichthyosaur that was

There are several things on which secular and creation scientists agree, and one of these is plate tectonics.  The disagreements come about regarding how the whole shebang started, the rapidity of early tectonic activity, and the age of the earth. Image credit: US Geological Survey (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) "But Cowboy Bob, they have a new model!" Indeed. And that's how what we've tried to teach about rational thinking, presuppositions, and worldviews comes into play. The computer model, like any other, can only operate on the data that it is given. GIGO. Secular scientists used presuppositions based on their deep-time worldviews, and came up with a "what if" or "maybe" model. Even so, it actually explains nothing about how plate tectonics originated and other factors in the process. Biblical creation science models provide superior explanations. Yes, they admit to using  their  presuppositions regarding the tru

Way back in 1925, John Scopes of Dayton, Tennessee, was arrested and put on trial for allegedly teaching evolution. The whole thing was a set-up by the falsely-named American Civil Liberties Union to put creation on trial. Dr. Robert Carter investigated what was actually in the textbook,  A Civic Biology, Presented in Problems by George W. Hunter. Modified from an illustration in the textbook (public domain) As mentioned, the case happened in 1925, but A Civic Biology  was written in 1914. It was not only outdated, but loaded with evolutionary and secularist views. Some of the evolutionary material was deceitful (equivocating change  with evolution , plus a passel of outright false statements). Scientific racism and eugenics are also included in the textbook. Public domain photo via Wikimedia Commons There are a couple of things for which I would have liked to have seen references or further explanation. One is that the word Caucasian  is outdated and no longer in use. A

Secularists ridicule Christians and creationists for rejecting naturalism and believing in the Creator God of the Bible, then they believe in all sorts of fake miracles of their own design . This is increasingly common in origin of life scenarios. Mostly made at Glass Giant , which no longer appears to be functioning Science, logic, the orderly universe, and more only make sense in the biblical worldview — beginning with Genesis 1:1. Materialists cannot account for these things. Ironically, many times knowledgeable creationists have to correct feckless mockers on their own mythology; they "know" we're wrong, but cannot provide cogent arguments for their positions. Some anti-creationists claim that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, which is gelastic even on the surface. (Apparently textbook writers, evolutionists like David Attenborough , and others need to be informed that abiogenesis —  chemical evolution —  is irrelevant to the Bearded Buddh

Someone pointed out that there are campaigns to save the more attractive and cute things, but those we consider unattractive tend to be neglected . While the following material is targeted toward creationists, there are principles that can be useful to unbelievers as well. Cute Frenchie being cute ("Frenchie" because of the beret-like black patch) When I post material about unattractive critters, I often put remarks about putting aside personal distaste and appreciating how things were designed by the Master Engineer. Indeed, God created things for a purpose. (Creationists recognize that they were changed by the Fall of man.) So often, people make statements or have prejudices from personal preferences and lack of information. Get the bigger picture.  My wife cares for me, keeps me fed and watered, even though I am in no wise a handsome gent. So I got that going for me, which is nice. Suppose you were on a camping trip and wished that all mosquitoes would drop d

Once in a while, the unwashed masses get a glimpse into the workings of the secular science industry. Radiocarbon dating is not a closely guarded secret, but people tend to assume that scientists do not make assumptions. That is false. A new calibration for carbon-14 was proposed. To quote Nuke, " It did not go well ". Modified from an image at Pexels by  Francesco De tommaso Radiocarbon dating has many variables, and there have been discrepancies between historical records and the presupposition-based dating methods. It's not just creationists who have pointed this out for a mighty long time, secular scientists know it as well. (Biblical creationists have postulated that there were many changes to affect dating results during the Genesis Flood, which have been supported by evidence.) The new method is going to cause consternation and have a kind of ripple effect for established and new results. The latest calibration curve for radiocarbon dating is raising eyeb