Piltdown Superman

Evolutionists have a habit of renaming and redefining things when they realize biblical creationists are using them. We have the old bait 'n' switch where particles-to-palenontologist evolution is conflated with variations, changes in allele frequencies, and so on. Now some want to rename the Cambrian explosion. When owlhoots like this don't like they hand they've been dealt, they try to change the rules, reshuffle, deal from the bottom of the deck, hide cards, and so on. We have seen these tricks many times, which include  citing retracted papers , omitting pertinent data , and making arbitrary assertions that are not supported by facts. These assertions fit the narrative of naturalism, however. Way back many, many moons ago, Papa Darwin lamented the Cambrian explosion. Biblical creationists have used as one of many tools in refuting evolution. Last I knew,  true  science has nothing to do with  protecting their worldview from the truth . Deceptive Darwinists have asse

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Detractors of biblical creation science often refer to us with the epithet "science deniers", which is ironic because they claim to believe in reason as well as science, but are using logical fallacies to make that assertion. Actual  science deniers are now in power. Picture of someone who is probably not anti-science: FreeDigitalPhotos / Toeytoey It is a regrettable to spend time discussing politically-oriented matters on this weblog, but as we have seen several times before, secularists are hijacking science . Nowadays, secular scientists are saddling up and riding with the totalitarian leftist brand . That means things that were originally considered scientific facts are now subject to the whims of political power and moral degeneration. People have been getting gradually prepared for the acceptance of moral degradation, and this has been increasing in the formerly United States — as well as other parts of the world. Those with influence and power

Trees that are actually made out of rock. They used to be wood long ago, but chemical changes happened. Uniformitarian geologists say these things are found all over the world  in situ  (they grew there), but this is mere evosplaining. Creation geologists need to do better. Credit: US National Park Service / P. Comas (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Petrified trees do not show indications of having grown where they are found. Branches and tops are snapped off, and root systems are absent. Then there are the disparate fossils that secularists cannot explicate, which are almost as troublesome as polystrate tree fossils. Biblical creation geologists have some ideas based on Genesis Flood models that seem to fit the bill. There are numerous vertical, petrified trees found in sedimentary rocks around the world. The vertical, petrified redwood stumps at Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument are a famous example. They have several unusual features that are problematic for

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  In anticipation of the tenth annual Question Evolution Day on February 12 , we should mount up and head for yonder hill to get a bigger perspective. Misotheists and other evolutionists say that biblical creationists believe "myths" and "fairy tales" despite  scientific evidence. This raises some important questions. Image Credit: US Geological Survey (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Actually, the questions that are raised fit under an umbrella question: Why don't biblical creationists fear science? People who have something to hide or know that their belief systems won't withstand scrutiny seem to shun science, logic, and good theology. But we embrace such things. If natural sciences like geology truly support deep time, why are there organized tours by creationists? There are many, with people and organizations such as: Russ Miller of  Creation, Evolution & Science Ministries Eric Hovind of Creation Today Gra

The simplified version of genetic inheritance is that we received traits from our parents and their ancestors, but there is much more to it than that. Epigenetics  is outside  the DNA (the epi  is the key part, such as in  epidural anesthetic ). This molecule is a kind of switch that affects gene expression. Credit: Morguefile / click (I don't come up with these names) While our genes are obviously important in traits we inherited from those who have gone before, epigenetics often influence how the genes are expressed. Indeed, parents who have lived through a famine can pass along special traits to their children . While proponents of universal common ancestor evolution ridiculed Lamarck and his version of evolution, he may have been on the right track ! In addition, epigenetics can have an influence on speciation — which is friendly to biblical creation science. Our Creator designed organisms to adapt. You’re probably familiar with the phrase, “You are what you eat.” But did y

According to biblical creationists, the universe was created roughly six thousand years ago. This prompts hails of derisive laughter from misotheists and other evolutionists. What is considered a smoking gun against creation is the age of the universe through speed-of-light calculations.  Credits because their caption is so small NASA , ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA), none of whom endorse the contents on this site However, that gun shoots at the pistolero  as well as the target, as Big Bang proponents have serious problems with the amount of time that light can travel in their scenario. Meanwhile, believers in stardust-to-steelworker evolution claim that the age of the universe is a fact  (which has changed several times), but this is based on unproven and apparently unprovable assumptions — many of which are used to "prove" the age of the earth in radiometric dating, as we have seen previously. Biblical creation astronomers have pointed these things out for

We have seen that believers in universal common descent have serious problems with the Cambrian explosion and with vertebrate evolution . Instead of solving problems, they continue with the narrative and speculate more, such as with the evolution of jawed vertebrates. Credit: Flickr / J Thomas McMurray ( CC BY-NC 2.0 ) As discussed before, if a science conjecture, hypothesis, or theory is true, one should expect supporting evidence. Darwin's disciples evosplain using the fossil record, and we should expect a wagon train-load of transitional forms. Jawless fish evolved into jawed fish evolved into jawed vertebrates. (Why do we keep discussing fish? Evolutionary mythology has us evolving from the things.) The fossil record does not have transitional forms. Indeed, there are contradictions as well — including huge leaps of faith regarding biology. What can we expect from creation science to deal with some fossils that may seem inconvenient for us? Follow the link below. One of the g